I want for a moment to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I think that we are in very great danger of placing the emphasis in so much of our politics on the wrong things. I am fully aware that with the present situation in regard to Simonstown and our coastal defences, we may have to devote a great deal more time and money to defence matters. We cannot afford to neglect our farmers as we are doing. Inflation has to be countered. Taxation must be reformed, and we must pay attention to our economy. I think all these things are necessary and right, but behind them all it seems to me lies the necessity to deal intelligently with the society in which we live. In this field I am by no means certain that we are on the road to success. By what extraordinary stretch of the imagination, for instance, could the hon. the Prime Minister inform a Press conference at the Union Buildings in September last year, when he was questioned on the effects of petty apartheid, that he had often heard the expression but he did not understand it and had never come across it? One wonders, with respect, whether the Prime Minister lives in a kind of fool’s paradise and knows nothing of the harshness of the Group Areas Act, the allocation of distant and very often second-grade beaches to all except members of the white community, the humiliation of being obliged to enter a public hall and sit in separate blocks at performances of classical opera performed by people of your own race whilst the Whites monopolize the rest of the auditorium? I wonder if he knows what humiliation that means to the people concerned? Does he know nothing of the humiliation for Bantu women in having to carry passes, nor the fact —an interesting fact—that over 100 Bantu people, men and women, appear every day before the Bantu Commissioner’s Court in Cape Town and are punished for statutory offences which are so innumerable and complex that it would take an average trained attorney anything up to a year to solve their intricacies? Sir, in any event it seems to me that white South Africa has a mentality, as exemplified by our friends in the Nationalist Party, which is far better adapted to making money and achieving power than to seeking the real truth in the complexity of our present position in this country. The simple truth seems to be, and it is exemplified by the attitude of hon. members opposite, that Government supporters everywhere prefer to be confronted with arguments put forward in an emotional and ideological or an ambiguous form—I think the hon. the Prime Minister is the perfect example, if I may say so—whichmeans that hon. members on the other side are then free to choose the arguments and the ambiguities which are best suited to allay their own fears, to buttress their own prejudices and to rationalize their own desires. Sir, we have evidence of that from day to day in debates in this House.

Sir, I would like to emphasize that in the last resort the decisive factor in our politics, whatever we may say, is not the arguments, the propaganda, the tricks or even the policies of our politicians; the decisive factor is the very nature of the society to which we all belong and within which we all function and participate, whether we like it or not. For the past 20 years—a long time—South Africa has lived in a kind of economically prosperous state but a political vacuum, a vacuum which is soon to be celebrated, I have no doubt, by the Nationalist Party with great pomp and ceremony and drum-beating throughout the country. But what is needed is a hard and a realistic and a constructive reappraisal of South African actualities, the facts as they really are. I wonder whether this Government has sufficient imagination to deal with the matter. You see, Sir, in South Africa political thinking tends very much to be theoretical both on the left and on the right. I would say that political activity on the other hand should confine itself to the application and enforcement of certain basic principles in what is a very complex society. There are, for instance, certain South African actualities which simply cannot be ignored. We cannot, for instance, because of the complex nature of our society. impose a single language medium or a racial culture upon our people. We cannot abandon industrialization, whether we like it or not; we cannot escape from the consequences and responsibilities of a multi-racial community. We cannot afford to live in isolation, either in Africa or in the world as a whole. This much has at least been recognized by the present Government. If we ignore some of these things, we expose ourselves to the charge of ineffectuality, but if we abandon them or try to pretend that they do not exist, we expose ourselves to certain disasters which I believe are facing us in the future unless we take very great care.

Sir, Bantustans, homelands, group areas and things of that kind do not and never will in themselves produce the final answer in human terms in South Africa. All of these are part of what I call the “exclusion process” carried out by the Nationalist Party for the past 20 years, giving a semblance of unity to groups which in actuality have had very little in common except their deprivations. This exclusion process, to which our legislation over the past 20 years has been almost entirely devoted, has now been carried so far and over so long a period that I would say our next task in South Africa, in the years immediately ahead, must be a constructive one. This is imperative and urgent, and the lead and the encouragement must come from us. Old lines of thinking simply will not do any longer. I would say it is true that where communities other than the Whites are concerned, a slowly rising standard of living and certain inadequate but nevertheless positive measures of re-housing and things of this kind have acted as a brake upon more explosive assertion by our non-white communities up to now. They may continue to do so for a time, but they are not sufficient to deal with the problem in itself.

To the political factors inhibiting effective political protest amongst these people must be added those which we ignore at our peril, and I refer to the questions of poverty and backwardness. It should be self-evident to all of us, in a legislature like this, that we cannot shatter all the old behaviour patterns, the old kinship systems, the cohesive social hierarchies of different communities, as indeed we have done during the past few decades, and then expect these people to find a sense of balance, of belonging, and a common loyalty of community and achievement, nor expect them to instil value and meaning into their lives by consigning them merely to some dreary uncoordinated group area on the Cape Flats. It would appear from calculations based on comparative figures contained in an international survey of capital punishment published by the U.N. in 1962 that South Africa has a higher execution rate than any country in the world from which figures were obtained. In other words. we live in a society which is horribly scarred by violence. With our exceptionally high crime rate, and I would remind hon. members that nine murders a day are committed in South Africa, a widespread feeling of insecurity exists amongst members of the population, both White and non-White. Let me emphasize as forcibly as I can here to-day, that if crimes of violence are committed on a large scale in South Africa, largely amongst our non-white people these are the direct symptoms of what I call “social dislocation” —poverty, poor housing, split families, lack of stability, and sheer frustration. All these things drive men, irrespective of their colour, to crime. It means that there is an absence of individual and community pride amongst these people, and crime will only be reduced when the social maladjustments that produce it are remedied. It is not enough for the hon. the Minister of Justice to come with harsher laws to control this type of violence; we have to get to the root of the problem. I want to know to what extent the Government is paying serious attention to these matters.

The sociological problems that beset South Africa are legion, and because the white people think they have all the answers—and we have in effect all the political power—our responsibilities in a sociological sense are very great indeed and, in some ways, terrifying. I wonder to what extent, as I said before, this Government is really facing up to these issues. Images of the Bantu, the Indian and the Coloured people are alternately drawn by this Government in the image of fear the one moment, and an image of sentimentality the next. Both are unrealistic and both of them need correction.

The truth of the matter is that the Nationalist Party is morally floundering and uncertain about these things, however superficially forceful and positive it may appear in the application of its racial policies. I would say, also, that neither emotionalism nor prejudice can carry these attitudes towards other human beings beyond a certain point, as in fact we are discovering to-day. The violence and stabbing will continue as long as the present socioeconomic conditions persist. Action must be taken and it must be taken now. It must be done with foresight and imagination and attention must be given to these matters. I want to make the point that action and circumstances cannot be separated. Any attempt to separate them and to consider them separately, such as the belief that the urban Bantu can be considered separately from their urban circumstances, falsifies reality and can only lead us into endless confusion. I think that the mistake that this Government has made is to think that there are any political absolutes, because of course there are none. There is no political absolute such as absolute apartheid. I would say that Nationalist policies have led Nationalist Afrikanerdom into this deadly fallacy. Yet the Afrikaner Nationalist is compelled, as we see in our debates every day, to say in regard to apartheid that this must be done in all circumstances whatsoever.

As our debates have shown, this type of thinking is leading us into greater and greater confusion. South Africa is not and cannot be one society for all groups, because races and peoples are not fundamentally alike. This is something we accept. The model for South Africa should be that of a carefully planned and articulated system of a balance of power and forces within the whole. This forms the background to our thinking in opposition and it is by no means impossible of achievement. Everybody should belong to the South African nation and feel that they belong to it. It seems to me that our overriding purpose in the future should be to assist, guide, counsel and encourage all our different peoples to govern themselves under free institutions within the totality. From these patterns the wider community will become increasingly apparent and a wider communal loyalty will then be real and spontaneous and not hesitant or forced as in fact these loyalties are to-day. Let us take some of the practical aspects.

When we meet here in this House year after year to order the affairs of men, how much of our legislation is constructive as opposed to being negative or exclusive? I say that all we do or try to do in the field of policy-making in the ordering of other people’s lives depends, in any real democracy, upon our ability to find really effective means of communication between people. Such communication can only be effective if we accept that certain basic demands of each group or section must be met. What are these basic demands? I would say that in the first instance they are housing, education and health. These things will of course not of themselves produce all the answers; in fact they often produce other problems, as we know, but they are fundamental to progress in South Africa or any other country in the world. How much attention do we pay to them? When we in this House legislate for South Africa and year after year introduce drastic changes into the lives of other people, how often do we consult the sociologists, the people whose business it is to think in terms of human behaviour and adjustment? I say that we tend to deal in economic and political theories far too much in this country and to push people about as though they were pawns on a chess board. We do not think that such actions matter provided that they fit in with the theory which we uphold. The results are self-evident, particularly in our urban areas. They are exemplified so often by a total absence of a sense of community and belonging, which, when it does exist, automatically carries with it a sense of social responsibility and pride. Perhaps the greatest curse of the modern industrial society all over the world is its lack of meaning for countless thousands of workers. We accept that it is inevitable that there should be a degree of State interference and regulation in the provision of social services, such as housing, education, employment and health, but surely the real search is for meaning in the lives of people irrespective of their colour. We should be concerned with that in politics as the sociologists are in their field. In fact, the two should go hand in hand.

One of the ironies of the outcome of Nationalist policies over the past 20 years is that, in the process of attempting to apply policies of separate development based on a rigid apartheid, it is to-day the Nationalist Afrikaner, particularly those in the Public Service, who are closest of all to the Bantu, the Indian and the Coloured people in their self-imposed task of guiding these people to administrative and executive independence. I would say that it is this above all things that lies behind certain changes in Government policies, and we are thankful for them. But, nevertheless, a lot that can prove vital is left undone.

Housing, or an acute lack of it, is one of our biggest headaches. Illegitimacy, disease, drunkenness, dagga smoking, violence, leading to unconcealed aggression and crime, are only some of the other problems that face us today. Where the Coloured people are concerned, the concentration of so-called “bachelor” Natives who are migratory labourers, in the vicinity is one of the greatest and most obvious causes of illegitimacy in South Africa. Amongst many Coloured people real family life is quite unknown. This applies to thousands of our Bantu people also. This of course, makes for a feckless, rootless, unstable society with great dangers attached to it for South Africa in the future. People must have a cohesive pattern of living—families, community centres, churches, clubs, organized recreation and things of that kind. The house next door must signify a neighbour, a poten tial friend, not merely a blank symbol of detachment, as it so often does to-day. Neighbours should share a mutual interest and each one’s house should be a home, a human entity, not merely a dormitory from which to go and return from work. There is, for instance the term “community development”—I should like the hon. the Minister to listen to this—and the inadequacy of the meaning we attach to it. I refer to the Department of Community Development. We have a totally inadequate concept of what we mean by community development at present, because the Department’s activities appear to be limited to the provision of accommodation for specialized income groups, whereas real community development, if we really understood the term properly, means active efforts to create family and community interests. In other words, the consolidation of social units occupied with the running of their own communities in the interests of all concerned. Just how much evidence is there of the Government having that approach towards these problems?

The need for sociological research in this sphere is very urgent. The Government should not be dealing with these matters piecemeal, but should be thinking big in conjunction with trained people at our universities. How much of a positive link is there at the moment with them? It is not sufficient to call in the bosses of commerce and industry from time to time. The doctors, the sociologists, the housing experts, the teachers, the psychiatrists are the people who should be working hand in hand with the Government, anticipating problems, assessing existing ones, and formulating practical solutions to essentially human situations. There is very little indication that the Government is paying more than very slight attention to these matters. Houses built, for instance, at Bonteheuvel, just outside Cape Town, are all the same—dreary row after dreary row of identical rectangular blocks, colourless, impersonal and remote. All right, Mr. Speaker, hon. members may say it is much better than the slums they lived in before. But I would say that there is a very real danger that within the next few years Bonteheuvel and similar townships, will have degenerated into slums themselves. They are rapidly becoming that at the present time. What I want to know, is the following. This is the core of my argument. Why has no planned attempt been made to build these community development houses round the community itself? This is the vital point. There has been no attempt to do this as far as I can see. Anyway, the Government thinks otherwise, if it thinks about it at all. For instance, group area proclamations in Cape Town have been taken so far that more than half of the Coloured families on the City Council’s waiting list for houses at the moment, many of whom are living in white group areas, in perfectly good houses, are receiving priority to move to the new townships. At the same time there are over 33,000 Coloured families in the area of Cape Town living in the most impossibly squalid conditions outside the white group areas who are desperately in need of housing.

Let us take the question of education. Social workers and others who are intimately connected with community problems are filled with despair. I talk to them often. They say that all the welfare activities amongst proverty-stricken and ignorant people will get these people nowhere without a basic education being made available to them. Action may be taken by the authorities in regard to better feeding habits, housing or health, but such assistance or guidance prove completely useless unless it is possible to communicate, to get through to, and make friends with those you are trying to help. As we all know, it is quite possible to institutionalize defaulters, juvenile delinquents or neglected children but then only up to a point and at very great expense to the State. And this is merely a palliative and as such provides no answer to real community living, something we should be thinking about very seriously in South Africa to-day. The more attempts that are made to rehabilitate individuals, the more it becomes clear that that can only be patchwork. The core of the problem lies in some basic training and education, not only for the children but also for the adults.

In conclusion I want to say that whatever our plans for the future, economic or political, the social scientist will have to take his rightful place and lay constructive foundations for future separate community living in South Africa or else we are going to face a lot of trouble. Because without his assistance politicians and Government officials will, with respect, be wasting their time if they continue to do things on the present basis. They will achieve nothing. It will merely mean muddling on to a crisis situation. We have seen this in other countries of the world. Therefore something must be done, and be done quickly and on a large scale, to develop a social conscience and a community sense amongst all our non-white communities in South Africa, especially those who are shifted to vast new group areas where hundreds of decent and good-living people suddenly find themselves cheek by jowl with skollies and criminal elements whose activities are endangering the stability of the community as a whole. I plead with the Government to-day to take note of the fact that the manner in which we handle these problems I have raised will determine the entire nature of South African society for generations to come. If there is anyone who has any doubts on the subject I should like to suggest to him that he should think seriously about what is happening amongst the Negro communities in America at the present time. Do not let it ever be said of us in South Africa as the poet so accusingly put it: “So men have built, slowly, selfishness by selfishness, a disfigured world that crushes them.”

To me it really was a revelation to hear what the hon. member for Wynberg said this afternoon. I have never thought that one good word in regard to the concept of community development would come from the opposite side of this House. Therefore I am particularly pleased that the hon. member, even if it is only in her own mind, has accepted this fine, ambitious and broad concept. Now I want to advise her to turn to other members on her side of the House and to repeat the lecture she delivered here this afternoon to them and at the same time to those people in South Africa who may still be supporters of the United Party. Throughout the years the United Party has been the party that has been persevering to the bitter end in obstructing one measure after another, one piece of legislation after another, measures dealing with community development. This concept is one which has come to be a proverbial concept over the years in all orderly states and one which is being applied by them as such every day. It is nice to see that the hon. member for Wynberg is now also making this concept her own and I trust that of her party as well.

The hon. member for Pinetown made us a certain promise and we have been waiting for several days for that promise to be kept. He said that as this debate progressed other hon. members on his side of this House would explain to us in greater detail the main theme contained in the amendment moved by them. But as regards positive steps to be taken in connection with housing, we have heard nothing as yet. I have to admit that there has been a casual reference to the matter at times, but there simply has been no sign of a really constructive contribution. I do not want to be unfriendly, but perhaps one may attribute that to the fact that my hon. leader gave hon. members opposite the political thrashing of their lives a day or two ago and that they are still in deep meditation as a result of that thrashing. To me it seems as though there are a few hon. members opposite who are not only meditating but who are suffering from slight bomb-shock, except for the one hon. member whose ears were ringing to such an extent that he could not quite understand what he himself was saying. But I leave the matter at that. The fact remains, however, that as far as a discussion of positive steps to be taken in regard to housing is concerned, we have heard nothing of the positive contribution promised by the hon. member for Pinetown, except, as I have said, a few casual references to the matter.

The hon. member for Salt River said something in this connection which I should like to describe as a scandalous reference. He wanted to give emotional value to an otherwise quite ordinary idea. He did so by dragging in the loss of life suffered by the Coloured population during the past wars for the sake of South Africa. I really think the hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself on this score. I think there will not be one leader amongst the Coloured population who will agree with him—as a matter of fact, I do not believe even one of his fellow members will agree with him—when he maintains that this Government has done nothing for the Coloureds. As a matter of fact, I think the Coloured population in South Africa hold it against him for having made such a statement. Of course we have a shortage of housing in South Africa. Shortages of housing are not, however, limited to South Africa alone—they are being experienced throughout the world: in America, in Asia, in Latin-America, on the continent of Europe, etc. There are still many places in Europe where people have not even succeeded in replacing the houses which were destroyed at the end of the last World War. I understand that in Germany people who have no homes have been placed in camps and that their names are only placed on waiting lists after a period of two years. In England, in addition to the major housing emergency, there is a shortage of elementary facilities in many houses. According to the American News Digest President Johnson made the following statement in regard to the housing problem during the Negro riots last year—

Therefore America with a minority non-white population also has its problems in this connection. The following statement is contained in a U.N. report issued in 1962—

This applies to Latin-America, Asia and Africa. We also know—it is general knowledge —that 600,000 homeless people sleep in the streets of Calcutta every night. I am sorry that I have to refer to these unpleasant things, but I am doing so merely for the sake of proving that as far as housing is concerned, this is a world-wide problem from which we in South Africa could naturally not escape. Of course we are faced with this problem, but in South Africa there have been contributory causes, and I want to mention a few of these.

In the first place, when this Government came into power in 1948, it inherited a tremendous backlog in the sphere of housing. Surely it is general knowledge that in 1944 the then Social and Economic Planning Council ascertained that in 1943 already there was a shortage of 60,000 houses for Whites and that this shortage would increase to 70,000 by 1948. But, alas, the then Government did nothing about this matter. I think I am justified in using the word “nothing”, because for a Government in this multiracial country of ours to spend a mere R40 million over a period of 15 years borders on “nothing”. But that was not the only thing with which our Government was faced. It also inherited an Opposition which step by step opposed all these fine measures to which the hon. member for Wynberg referred this afternoon. Not only did they then obstruct everything this Government was trying to do in order to bring about community development in its broader sense, but they are still continuing to do so. I may refer to that remark of the hon. member for Salt River which I have just quoted, or I may refer to the statement made by the Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, published in The Cape Argus of 2nd February, when he said, inter alia—

In this multiracial country it is not fitting for the Opposition to use such words in season and out of season. My submission is that this Government did not only inherit chaos and misery in the sphere of housing in 1948, but also an Opposition which still continues to put every obstacle in the way of the Government in order to thwart and hamper modern community development as the civilized world knows it.

But there were also other contributory factors to the creation of a housing problem for us, and one of these contributory factors is the fact that the South African population, which used to be a rural population, became an urban population within a short decade. In this too we have simply been following a world-wide trend. In 1801 the urban population of the world consisted of approximately 22 million people, but by 1950 this population had increased to 520 million. This trend was also experienced in South Africa, but it was accelerated by natural circumstances, such as the protracted droughts in the rural areas and the tremendous industrial development which forced our people to the cities. As I have said, where the white population used to be a rural population, we are in fact to-day an urban population, and this trend, this migration to the cities, has of course aggravated this major problem of housing.

Another contributory factor is the tremendous industrial development we have been experiencing in South Africa over the past number of years. It was possible for that to take place because we were reaping the fruits of a strong and stable Government. The investor could risk his money in South Africa because he knew that it was safe. Because of this tremendous industrial development, new services, new churches, offices, school buildings and hospitals obviously had to be built, and these things imposed tremendously high demands on the building industry. When we add to this the fine influx of immigrants and the natural increase of the population, we can understand why we, with a population which became an urban population overnight and with the tremendous industrial development, simply could not meet all the demands for housing. But this Government has accepted the challenge. It has not been resting on its laurels, and after the foundations of the broader principle of community development, for which that hon. member made such a passionate plea this afternoon but which they have been opposing over the years, had been well and truly laid in the course of years, the Government could implement this policy step by step; because it has always been this Government’s policy that there must be housing for all population groups. But more than that, those groups must develop into sound communities. That is the fundamental principle that has been applied in tackling this major problem. That is why we can think back with pride to-day of the Government’s fine record in this connection.

I want to refer to a few matters in particular. When we came into power, we were faced with chaos and misery also as far as Bantu housing was concerned. Hon. members still remember the shanty towns and slums which developed in our cities when the Opposition was in power. One could have thought that this problem could not be solved, but the Government came along with its site and service scheme, its levies on Native services and with the Native Building Workers Act. This problem was tackled and to-day the civilized world says, “Look at South Africa; they have a solution for low-cost housing also as far as the Bantu is concerned”. This is one of the major achievements of this Government over the years. But the Government did not leave matters there; it went further than that, because in the second place there were also Whites and Coloureds for whom housing had to be provided, people who were living under chaotic circumstances. This major task had to be tackled and that could not be done overnight, but because the foundations of community development had been well and truly laid by the Government, the strong arms of housing, namely the Housing Commission and the Development Board, could proceed stage by stage with the major task of providing housing for our people. Consequently we are able to look back to-day on a tremendous record in the sphere of housing. If one considers that this Government has devoted, directly by means of the Budget and indirectly by means of the Government Departments, an amount of more than R750 million to housing over the years, there is no comparable figure in the history of South Africa, nothing which comes anywhere near this grand effort.

But this Government is always in close feeling with our people and their needs, and therefore we have had to keep abreast of modem developments as well. For that reason the hon. the Minister of Community Development has had to introduce building control, and we have evidence that the introduction of building control has set the building industry to building homes. Fine results are already being achieved in this direction. The principal leaders in this connection, like the President of the Association of Building Societies, said that that would be the effect. This is one of the positive steps taken by the Government in this connection. But the Government did more than that. The conditions for the allocation and renting of houses of our National Housing Commission have been improved in order to bring them more into line with the needs of our people. The Railways have increased their loans from R8,000 to R9,000, and authority has been granted to local authorities to re-utilize the proceeds of paid-up projects and to re-invest such proceeds in further housing projects. Also as regards the expropriation of property, where it amounts to town renewal and the implementation of the Community Development Act, certain basic changes have been made in order to improve the basic values of properties; in addition there is the abolition of the appreciation contribution for a period of five years—all active, positive steps to provide our people with housing in the best possible way. Last year we amended the old United Party Act of 1946 in respect of the removal of restrictions in townships in such a way so as to facilitate the subdivision of sites and the establishment of townships. But above all these things, there are the tremendous amounts which Parliament votes every year for housing at the instance of this Government. A few days ago we heard about the tremendous injection which our building societies had been given. May I mention here that this Government has a deep appreciation for the grand work the building societies have been doing over the years in respect of housing for our people. We are grateful that the Government could give our building societies this tremendous injection so that they may continue to do their grand work.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite have been complaining. When we refer them to their record they react with the following reply, “A war was in progress; we could not give our attention to these essential matters”. But when they calm down they say, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) sometimes does when he throws off his political mask, “We must admit that we did not do our duty in our time”. What they really want to convey by those words, is this, “People of South Africa, we are sorry that we failed in our duty when we had the opportunity to govern”. This brings me to the following question I want to put to hon. members opposite. Mention any growing country in the world to me which provides better housing for its Whites than South Africa; mention any country in the world to me which provides better housing for its non-Whites than South Africa; mention any country to me which allows its inhabitants, in spite of all these problems, to pay less income tax than the taxpayers of South Africa? After having put those questions to them to which they cannot reply, I think that hon. members opposite must be prepared to admit that the nation of South Africa is fortunate in that the control and management of our fatherland has been entrusted to this National Government and that the Government has made a resounding success of it, also as regards housing.

You are living in a fool’s paradise.

We are practical people. We know that the future holds a tremendous challenge for South Africa and for this Government in the sphere of housing; I do not think we are blind to that; it will be a challenge to every inhabitant of the country. Therefore we surely have the right to ask of our industries to follow the fine example set by the largest single industry in the country, namely the S.A. Railways, and to ask our other industries to follow the example set by this industry by assisting in the provision of housing for their employees. If one has regard to the fact that the S.A. Railways have provided more than 30,000 houses for its employees over the past number of years, then we probably have more of a right to ask our industries to assist in combating this world-wide trend. On the basis of the example set by our farmers, where they are ensuring to an increasing extent that their workers have proper housing, I think we may ask our industries to follow the example set by the farmers by assisting in the provision of housing for their employees. I think we may in addition make an appeal to the head of every family in South Africa to see to it that this grand ideal, namely to be the owner of one’s own home, will always continue to exist. But after having made these appeals, we reserve to ourselves the right to tell hon. members opposite, “During the years when you were in power, you did little or nothing in this sphere and after you became the Opposition in this House, you did everything in your power to thwart and obstruct the measures taken by the Government. You have been charged on that score before the political conscience of the South African people; you have stood trial and you have been found guilty and roundly condemned at various elections. We ask you to come to your senses. You must come to your senses in this multiracial country and you must help and support us in this grand effort to arrest this world-wide trend”.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion only this. On 4th August, 1964, the late Dr. Verwoerd instructed us to provide proper housing for all population groups and to ensure that all population groups developed into sound communities. I am grateful that I am able to confirm that we have progressed a very long way on that road. I am very grateful to know that my hon. leader and our National Government will carry out this instruction to the letter of the law and to the benefit of everyone who has the privilege of living in this South Africa of ours.

Mr. Speaker, what I have to say will not be said at any length, but I want the House to consider carefully the sentiments I express, in the earnest hope that this will be a turning point in the association of the white community with the Coloured community.

Sir, I think that the Minister of Finance in submitting these figures for our approval, loses sight of one essential fact and feature of our daily life and that is the human relationships which exist in our midst. I am not going to suggest that the Government has not done anything for the coloured people because that would not be true. I can, however, say that they have not done enough and that would be true. What I can say is that in dealing with the Coloured people the Government does not show very much finesse or skill or knowledge of the needs and desires of these people. Whenever we are told by hon. members opposite that the Nationalist Party is making this country safe for the white man, I offer the proposition that we are not making the country safe for the white man at all; we are making it extremely dangerous for him, because by our attitude we are focusing outside opinion and activities upon us. I believe that the time has come when the white community should take stock of itself and realize that two million people in this country are Coloured people or, as they call them, non-White. Sir, the gravamen of my charge to-day is this: No man in this country who is aware of the influences of the outside world can deny the fact that to-day there are agencies at work which have designs upon us—perhaps distant, perhaps not so distant—and that we have armed ourselves almost to the teeth, within our limited ability. Any man who denies that that state of affairs exists is not in touch with reality. On the home front men must realize that our Coloured community of two million strong is the greatest asset we have because they are true South Africans and they belong to us and are with us. But what does the Government do? The Government makes every possible effort that it can, to bedevil relations between the Coloured man and the white man. [Interjections.] I say that, because the Coloured community feel that as far as their material requirements are concerned, the Government is sincere and will in due course provide houses and schools, although they are woefully short at the moment, and they believe that opportunities will be created albeit in limited, shall I say, scope. But what they are concerned about is the activities of the special branch of the police. I was astonished the other day to hear the hon. the Prime Minister in reply to the hon. member for Wynberg say that at the recent congress of the Coloured section of the South African Legion of the B.E.S.L. no delegates were questioned. Immediately I thought it was time something was said, and I propose to say that to-day.

I have gathered together a few examples of the sort of thing that happens. I wish to make it clear that I am the last man to criticize the police, because I believe they are a fine body of men. But having said that, I wish to say, that I think the special branch is acting hamhandedly in dealing with Coloured people and not in the field which is their special mission and for which I think they were established. That was to deal with communistic influences and sabotage. I would say in that direction they have their own means, their own methods; they are trained for that sort of work, and they can do it. But I question whether it is valid for these men — let us say individuals among them, because I will not condemn them as a body — to adopt the attitude, and act accordingly, that it is their job to ascertain why Coloured people have certain political views, why they do not support the Government, why Coloured people do not accept the policies of the Government, why Coloured people do not come over to that side where things would be much easier for them.

What examples can you mention?

All in good time, just stop interrupting. I was on the platform in the hall in Kimberley on the 3rd January when the S.A. Legion held its congress, and so was the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. The President of the Legion made certain allegations, and they appeared in the Press. The President of that body is a responsible and reliable man, and he was elected to that particular position. The task of the Legion and of the President is to attend to welfare matters affecting the Coloured ex-serviceman. He complained about the activities of these gentlemen of the Special Branch.

Case one concerns the following. It is alleged that a woman was interrogated and put “inside” for two hours and her documents confiscated. She was a delegate to the congress. Case two is the following. A man was asked who was going to accompany him in his motor car, when was he leaving, what would he talk about, and he was told the police would like to hear from him when he got back. Case three concerns a letter I received from a very prominent man when I got back to Cape Town. He wrote and told me he had had a visit from the Special Branch. He lives near here in Athlone.

In the ordinary course of events I would have ignored these incidents and said no more about them.

Where did all this happen? In Kimberley?

The hon. the Deputy Minister can bide his time. For a very long time Coloured people have complained to me about the activities of these gentlemen. I chose, however, to ignore them. I felt that if the Special Branch was endeavouring to ascertain whether these people are communistically-inclined or not, that is their job, and when these complaints were made, I thought to myself. well, what is it all about? I have a great friend, a Coloured man, who was invited to interview the officer in charge. I went with him, and I asked the officer across his desk, “Won’t you please tell me what these people are supposed to be doing? I do not want to be associated with any people who can be accused of having communist tendencies or sympathies.” There was no reply. I accepted that, and I said so to him. I said to him, “I know you cannot commit yourself, you do not have to tell me, but I would like to know, privately if you wish, or I would like my friend to know privately.” I go further.

Certain members of the Union Council for Coloured Affairs have also been questioned. What is more, arising out of reports which appeared in the Press about the activities of this council—which are confidential and secret, heaven knows why—the reporter of the newspaper was also visited by Special Branch people. All this had nothing to do with communism or subversion. These people are members of the South African Coloured Labour Party, and they were asked how many members the party had, where they got their money from, and questions of that kind.

Mr. Speaker, we are told that the Coloured people are at liberty to criticize the Government. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs himself said so quite recently. Now I ask: How can the Coloured community criticize the Government if they are not going to be permitted to form their own political parties? Because one of the questions asked by the Special Branch is the following: “Why don’t you support the Federal Party?” The Federal Party is sympathetic to the Government. These are the sort of things with which the Coloured community are afflicted.

I was delighted to hear the reports of the new deal for Coloured people. Be that as it may, I want to bring certain other incidents to the notice of this House. I want to go further and say that even when the Coloured man is dead, the Special Branch does not leave him alone. A certain Coloured burial society has the word “African” in its official name, and the secretary was asked, “Why do you want the word ‘African’ in the title? Where do you get the ‘African’ from, what have you to do with Africans?”

Who asked it—the Special Branch?

Sure, that is the whole story. Here is another case. A Coloured man who is the president of a mixed cricket club which caters for Coloureds and Asiatics—as it has done for the past 20 to 30 years—was asked why he is “mixed up” with the Indians.

I want to make this point, and I make it seriously, because the Deputy Minister quite rightly wants to know this, that and the other. I want to say to him I do not think the Special Branch can have enough to do if that is the kind of inquiry they spend their time on. I do not think they can achieve their aims by approaching an individual and asking him plain and straight questions—they will not get to the subversive elements in that manner. I say so because I have far too much faith in the activities and the ability of our police. They do not have to use those methods. I raise this matter here this afternoon in the earnest hope that the hon. the Minister will put a stop to it. I do not want him to stop the correct and normal activities of the Special Branch, because I know they have to do their work. But for heaven’s sake, let them leave the Coloured people alone. Inquiries can be made in other directions.

I wish to pass on to another subject which also concerns the same people. I want to ask the Minister whether his people are used by the Department of the Interior to investigate applications for passports?

Why not?

Ah, here comes the answer. If a Coloured man applies for a passport he first of all has to wait months. He also has a visitor. The visitor wants to know what he is going to do there and when he says, “I am going for a holiday”, they do not believe him. I had a case where it was suggested that an application for a holiday was not genuine and it was suggested to a Coloured commissioner of oaths that he could be guilty of perjury if he certified that the facts given by the person who signed the application form are correct. He replied that he only certified that the person acknowledged that what he had stated was true. But let us get to the cherry on the top. A white lady running a travel agency in the employ of a large firm. She was also visited and asked why she was handling applications for Coloured passports and why a certain gentleman’s passport was lying on her desk. She replied that it was because he had not called for it. I told her to see a good lawyer.

This is the kind of thing that is going on. I should like to say that I do not for one moment think that this House ever intended that Special Branch personnel should be employed in this kind of investigation. I say without fear of contradiction that this kind of activity is the kind of thing which gives us the bad name we enjoy in the outside world. That is the position. I challenge anybody on the Government side to deny that the office bearers of the Coloured Labour Party were not interrogated by members of the Special Branch throughout the country. When the President of the B.E.S.L. made his charge from a public platform he got an ovation. There was no dissenting voice because it is true. I say. that for all the sweet words and all the wild protestations we get of goodwill towards the Coloured people, while this state of affairs continues, we will never get them with us where they should be and where they want to be.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anybody in this House will take it amiss of me this afternoon if I react to what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I have often heard of old wives’ tales, but this afternoon I was also forced to listen to old men’s tales. What is the point that was made? For whose ears was his speech intended? Was what he has now said in respect of the police a self-complacent statement? Was his speech intended for overseas consumption? What was the reason for his speech? The hon. Ministers of this Government are always at the disposal of this hon. member. I want to ask him whether he has ever approached them in order to put this matter to them. No, he comes into this House and kicks up a great deal of dust and says a few words here merely to be able to say that he has said something in the interests of the Coloured people he represents. Thank heaven the Coloured people are not solely dependent upon such representatives as they have in this House.

Derogatory reference was also made by the hon. member for Wynberg to Bantu homelands and group areas in South Africa. I want to inform her straight away that South Africa has great problems. But I want to go further and say that the National Party Government does not deny that these great problems exist. The National Party accepts these problems and the challenge they present. I want to go even further and say that the problems which lie ahead are even greater than those we are at present experiencing and which we have experienced in the past. When I say this, I am asking the hon. members of the Opposition where they are going to stand when those future crises occur. We know where they stood in the past, and we know where they stand today, but the question is where they are going to stand in the future. Other countries in the world have had similar problems. The solutions they tried are their business; they have nothing to do with us. Other Africa states have had similar problems. In those countries so-called “clever people” tried various experiments. In those countries so-called “clever people” tried to find the solution which was then to be held up to South Africa as the solution. We have seen the solutions being applied in those countries. We have also seen the results. But we want to confine ourselves to our own problems here in South Africa. It is our task to solve our own problems. The political struggle in South Africa is a life-or-death struggle involving the various population groups in the Republic. It involves the life or death of the white man, the Coloured, the Indian and the Bantu and even a few thousand Chinese. It involves their peaceful survival in the Republic. The Government and its policy offers that policy for the peaceful survival of all the population groups in South Africa. A place is being prepared within the boundaries of South Africa for all these groups.

However, there are two factors which make the problem in South Africa a more complicated one. We are therefore being called upon to look forward, and not to look back so much. In the first place South Africa is not simply an agricultural country, as it was in the past. South Africa has become an industrial country and, as a result, new labour problems have been created. But we are grateful for the great industrial development which has taken place here. The question is simply whether we will be able to make the necessary adjustments in regard to this new dispensation. Because it is being created the population, which is rapidly increasing, can in this way be provided with work more easily, but the question is whether we will be able to keep pace with it. But it has also created new problems. The farmer now has to compete with the industrialist in respect of wages. Formerly the farmers and the mines were the greatest employers of Bantu labour in South Africa. The competition has now become intensified. The farmer will therefore, in his planning, have to take this into consideration thoroughly. These are problems which will come into greater prominence than before.

The second factor which is going to make the problem in South Africa more complicated is the population explosion which we are going to experience from now on. During the past 316 years the South African population came to number 18 million people. What is the immediate position? In the year 2000, 32 years from to-day, we will no longer have a population of 18 million people, but will have a population of approximately 42 million people, if the present trends are maintained. Of those 42 million people, 26 million will be Bantu. But let us lift the veil a little further. What will the position be in 52 years’ time? Apart from the fact that the National Party will still be governing in the year 2020, the population in South Africa will number 72 million people. The Whites will then number 11 million people out of a population of 72 million, in other words, 11 million Whites as against 61 million non-Whites within the boundaries of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] Serious matters require serious attention. It is very clear to me that some hon. members on the opposite side are adopting a very flippant attitude in regard to these matters. This position, which is then going to present itself and in regard to which we are being called upon to lay the foundation, is a challenge. The National Party accepts that challenge. The National Party will not run away from it, nor will we raise the white flag. We are prepared to cope with these problems and all their implications. Despite those great numbers we will still see our way clear to ensuring peaceful co-existence. Now I want to state categorically and in all seriousness: For each one of these 72 million people a place will be. and must be, prepared in the Republic of South Africa. Under the policy of the National Party this is possible, and it will be possible without the one having to swallow up the other.

I have cast a quick glance into the future. Now each one of us ought to go and sit still to ponder this matter. There are problems; there are challenges, and we must struggle with these challenges day and night without ceasing. It is very clear that each one of us who takes this matter seriously, must struggle with these problems—struggle until a solution of some kind or other has been found. Under the present circumstances the solution is not an easy one to find. But more than that—if the peaceful survival of all population groups in South Africa is to be ensured, we must also be prepared to pay the high price it will entail. We must be prepared, to do so, because it is a matter of life and death for the people in this Republic. Of what value would a defence force be if it did not, from time to time, effect changes in its equipment and its technique in order to adapt itself to changing circumstances and the changing techniques of attack of its enemies? For example, one cannot ward off an atom bomb attack with a .303 rifle. That is why I can understand why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated here the other day: “I do not want to say that the party will in future have nothing further to say about the matter.” In other words, referring to their Bantu policy, he said that they did not want to say that in a few years’ time they would not have something else to say about the matter. In my turn I want to state that the National Party will continue to struggle with this problem. I think that it is also the intention of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to do so. This solution is not an easy one. It is going to require tremendous adjustments, just as the soldier has to make adjustments when he puts aside the .303 rifle and makes use of more modern rifles. Now I am going to say something which hon. members may perhaps want to use against me. We must not take fright when, in ten years’ time, we go further than we are prepared to go today. That is obvious, but there is one major difference between the approach of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and my own. With his approach the possibility exists that the white representatives of Bantu in this House, as advocated by them, may be replaced by Bantu. Our approach will always be to allow all the population groups in South Africa, and above all that of the white man in South Africa, to retain their own identities. The voter outside may be sure of that. [Interjections.] Yes, the 61 million people outside can rest assured that justice will be done as far as they are concerned. But justice will also be done as far as the 11 million Whites of South Africa are concerned. The voters know that the rights of each individual will be safe under this Government.

Now the hon. member for Durban (Point) must not come and tell me, with tears in his eyes: Just look how the Nationalists are giving the land of our fathers, which was bought with Voortrekker blood, to the Bantu! This is being done for the very purpose of safeguarding the white man, and also in order to benefit and ensure the survival of the Bantu themselves. Let us rather surrender these lands than ultimately to have to surrender up the entire territory of the Republic of South Africa. As far back as 1914 it was recommended that 7¼ million morgen of land be added to the traditional Bantu homelands. If one does not give this in time, where must the 26 million Bantu establish themselves by the year 2000? Or is what the hon. members on the opposite side have in mind that those people who overflow their traditional homelands, should obtain proprietary rights here in the white area? Is that what they want to do? Is that why they do not want to make any provision, or do they want to tell us here this afternoon that they do want to make provision for those homelands and their development? When the 7½ million morgen of land is given to the Bantu, the Bantu in the Republic of South Africa, as far as I am concerned, will be in the same position as the Briton of Great Britain. He is surrounded by water. He cannot expand his boundaries. For that reason the Bantu here will then have to realize that he is living within the boundaries of his homeland, and that he should rather build up into the air than want to expand those boundaries. The Briton in Great Britain will only be able to shift his boundaries if he could drain the sea around him. It will be just as impossible for those people to want to expand in that way. Now I want to ask the United Party: Do they not want to join with us in thinking seriously, extensively and on a large scale? Do they not want to see this problem as it really is? I believe, and this is my conviction, that the National Party is on the right road. It is my conviction that it is only this policy which can assure survival for all.

That is where you are quite wrong.

Will the United Party not cease from being flippant now, as the hon. member for Green Point is doing with these continual flippant interjections here, nonsensical remarks which are intended to cause me to lose the thread of my argument? He will not succeed in doing that. Does the United Party not want to accept that it is time people in South Africa stop thinking merely of lining their pockets, of being in South Africa for the sole purpose of becoming rich, and realize that they must also invest here in such a way that South Africa and its future will not be harmed? No person may come here for the sole purpose of getting what he can out of this country. He must also invest in such a way that he ensures his survival. I am referring here to the farmer, the industrialist, the employer, the employee, the Statesman, the Nationalist and yes, even the United Party. Each one must make a contribution to the survival and the perpetuation of South Africa end its population. I maintain that it is not only the white man who must make his contribution, but that every population group should make its rightful contribution to this matter. If we view the matter in this light, then I ask: Are Bantu homelands still a crime then; are border industries still something evil? Are they not being established for the very purpose of making these things possible for us? Is it still asking too much of industrialists to go and establish themselves in the border industries? Because, I repeat, his only desire cannot simply be to get rich out of South Africa; he must invest in such a way that it is also possible for him to survive here. Why should separate residential areas then be such a thorn in the flesh as it is for the hon. member for Wynberg? Why should these things be too much, when they are concerned with one’s own survival? The hon. member for Gardens is shaking his head. Sir, it took us 20 years to drill into their heads what was right about this Party’s policy, and they are beginning to understand it quickly now and are telling us that we stole their policy. My greatest fear is that the United Party will soon have accepted this entire National Party policy of ours in respect of solutions to the colour problem, and then the fearful thought will arise amongst the voters that something has gone wrong here because the United Party is accepting it, because in the interests of this country, they should have accepted it a long time ago. Let us differ on other matters, but we ought not to differ in regard to this crucial question.

Now I want to say that it cannot be stated of any policy at this stage that it will ensure the survival of the population groups in South Africa for all time, but if there is a policy which will preserve us as Whites; and will allow all the population groups to develop their own identities as far as possible, then it is the policy of the National Party. It is the only Party which offers us that policy under which none of Cese groups can be overwhelmed or bought out by another. Call it what you will: Call it apartheid, call it separation, call it separate development, or call it parallel development, and if you think that that is invective, then use it, but it means the survival of every population group in South Africa, and that is why we on this side of the House are not ashamed of those words. The fact of the matter is that the process of separation cannot fail, because it has as its essential basis, what is basic to every individual, to every family and to every community and nation. It is also basic to every political party. If that is true, then we must not begrudge one another this. Let me begin with the hon. member for Houghton. When she closes her window at night and locks her door and she and her family seclude themselves from the rest of the world, then that seclusion is not a term of abuse for her. Then it simply refers to a family in Houghton which is secluding itself from the rest of the world in order to find strength in one another’s company so as to return and move about in the outside world again. We find this in all our homes; we find it in the homes of the Coloureds, of the Indians, and we find it in the congress of every political party and its caucus, i.e. that people seclude themselves in order to draw strength from one another’s presence in order to go from there into the outside world again. You find it at school where children of the same age or intelligence are brought together in the same class, secluded from the rest. You find it in the Sunday school where children in the same class are secluded between four walls from the rest. You find it in every sphere and in every field. You find secret organizations which seclude themselves between four walls in order to be together and hold heart-to-heart discussions. You find it everywhere, and from there they move outwards, strengthened because they were able to fortify themselves inwardly there. Now I maintain that when the National Party comes forward with group areas, to which the hon. member for Wynberg referred so derogatively, and when this Government gives each one of the groups its own residential areas, or its homelands, it is for those groups to find strength in one another’s company in those homelands, or in those group areas or residential areas. From there they will move outwards. To-morrow they can walk along Adderley Street and intermingle because they are proud, the Indian from his area because he is an Indian, the Coloured from the Coloured area because he feels pride in himself, and the other from the white area. Here they can meet one another and return to their homes because they find strength there, the strength they obtain on that basis of seclusion in which each of us has a share. That which is a requirement in the life of every man, is also a requirement in the life of the non-Whites, and that is why we do not begrudge it them. But then one is forced to listen to people such as the hon. member for Karoo and others who want this integration, who invite it and believe in it and encourage it. In what direction is one moving then? It is then that one realizes that this idea of South Africa’s isolation, as it is so often called, is not isolation, it is seclusion. When people are able to give one another mutual strength, then one can move outward from there. For this reason, what is strange in the idea of the hon. the Prime Minister for an outward movement? Here one finds the strengthening process, brother and brother and sister and sister, in a cummunity of the same population group which is gathering strength to go outside carrying that message which they have found through inner fortification.

I did not think that I would hear in this Honourable House expressions such as have been offered by the hon. member for Lydenburg this year and last year by the hon. member for Klip River who has just sat down. These people have the impertinence to run down an integral part of our population. They have the impertinence to tell this House and the outside world that the Coloured people must not be in our company. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon. gentlemen that if they want to practise what they preach then they must stop doing what they are doing now. If it is good enough for these gentlemen to have a black nanny to look after their children, it is good enough for me to sit in the bus where Coloured people are. What is wrong with that? How many of our people here have become contaminated by that dreadful idea, as expressed by the hon. member for Lydenburg? He went so far as to say that we must shift Parliament, because we have people of mixed races in the buses of Cape Town. The hon. member for Klip River last year objected to the fact that Coloured people were walking through the Gardens. That is the sort of mentality that we have to listen to in this House.

Do you want the children to sit in the same school also?

I want to tell that hon. member that this side of the House has always stood for social separation, but I want to tell him something else, too. If our country has any monument for its success, it is what we see in the streets, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Blacks working together and being in the streets together and giving one another the opportunities that this country has to offer. If that hon. member and the Minister sitting next to him can deny the fact that white South Africa cannot possibly do without the non-Whites, I would like to hear them say so. [Interjections.] Why treat these people so badly? Why condemn them? What makes the hon. members think that they are so terrible? [Interjection.] We on this side of the House have said over and over again that there are places for separation, and if you work together, if the black man is working in the same factory as the white man, it is inevitable; it will never change, and you can bring in any laws you like. You can give dates for separation and you can try to turn the tide. The hon. the Minister of Planning can tell me to-day that he will turn back the Blacks from the Reef. He will be lucky if he keeps the same numbers there, but he knows as well as I do that they are increasing. With all the big talk of these Ministers, whom are they trying to bluff? All the Government is doing to this country is to make us spend money unnecessarily. If I think of the hundreds and hundreds of people in the Public Service who are engaged in doing only one thing, and that is trying to prohibit people from being in one place or another, knowing full well that we have a tremendous shortage of white manpower, it shocks me to think that those who are controlling those people are serious in their efforts. I cannot understand it. Where are we going with this plan? Do you want to tell me, Sir, that the hon. members who are planning the future of our country are doing any good by frightening the industrialists? The Minister knows as well as I do that he will have to give exemptions one after the other or strangle the economy of the country. He can tell me to-day that he will not do it, but I know that tomorrow he will be granting permits and exemptions. What did the Minister of Planning say in Klerksdorp the other day? Did he not say: “I promise you that I will not strangle industry; carry on”.

I never said that. I said in Klerksdorp that if development means more Bantu, there will be no development.

That means that according to the Minister’s policy there will be no development in Klerksdorp. The people of Klerksdorp must know that. What is going to happen when the mines of Klerksdorp go out of action, and the Minister knows they have a limited life? He knows that the Blacks in Klerksdorp who work in the mines and who are migrant workers will go back to their homelands. Will he then say that because they are going back he will bring in others for industry? You will then have the same number at least. He must remember one very important point, namely that according to the hon. member for Klip River our population ratio is changing very rapidly, with the result that we will require more and more skilled white people to look after those services that the skilled white man has to provide for all the people in South Africa. Remember that the skilled white man will have to produce everything that is used in South Africa. There must continue to be a shortage of skilled white people; there will always be such a shortage. In every phase of industry there will be a shortage. Why does the hon. the Minister of Labour worry so much and tell the public that he wants to save the white man by applying job reservation? Why do you want job reservation if you have not got enough people for the job? Even to-day with our present population register, job reservation only affects 2 per cent of our people.

It is the same in all jobs; there is no differentiation whatsoever.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister, in case he does not know it, that in every trade, in every industry, there is a higher percentage of black people than white people, except in the printing industry.

What about the steel industry?

There are more Blacks than Whites. I will give the hon. the Deputy Minister the figures.

I have them here. I will give them to you to read out.

Sir, the attitude of the Minister of Planning, the Minister of Labour and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is that the white worker is the person who is in danger of losing his future stake in South Africa. This will happen through their actions and through their limitations. The hon. the Minister of Planning especially should devise ways and means of seeing that the white man is sufficiently educated to get to the highest rung in any trade or profession as quickly as possible to break the bottleneck that we have there to-day. That is what he should do, and if he does not do it, what is going to happen? How is he going to fill the ranks? Where is he going to get the workers from? We know already that in the Railway service and in the mines and in lots of industries, behind the scenes, with the development of automation, the machine operators are Black. What protection is the white man going to have here? Where is the white labourer going to go? Is he always going to be on the rung on which he is at the moment or are opportunities going to be presented to him to raise his status? That is what we have to plan for. Sir, my Leader has said that there is a crisis in the ranks of white labour to-day. The hon. member for Klip River — I almost said “the hon. the Minister”; the hon. member for Klip River, of course, will never be a Minister … [Interjections.] Sir, he is no worse than the others. He is very much in line. The hon. member wants to know where we will be in a crisis. He actually has the impertinence to ask where we will be in a crisis. I do not know if he knows where we were in the last crisis and in the one before that. We know where we will be in a crisis; we will be standing for South Africa, not against South Africa, whatever the crisis may be, and we now suggest ways and means of obviating a crisis. We want to obviate a crisis and a crisis may come in the field of labour. That is where I am afraid a crisis may come. Sir, I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Labour is not here.

I will tell him what you say.

You do not understand.

The position to-day is that in the trade unions he has encouraged the exit of the voice of the black man from the trade unions. That is very important. I have just pointed out that the numbers of black people in industry are going to increase and that the numbers of white people in industry, skilled and not skilled, are going to decrease. The ratio is changing with the change in our population. Already the voice of the white man in the trade unions is the voice of the minority. The trade union movement must be encouraged; it must be the anchor through which the white man can secure his future. It is our job as legislators to make sure that the trade union movement becomes as strong as possible, and those of us who talk about increased productivity must realize that a strong trade union movement is the best means by which we can ensure increased productivity. It is the trade union movement that keeps the employer on his toes and that keeps the employee on his toes. Outside of the trade union movement we have this vast number of non-Whites.

Would you like to bring them into the trade unions?

I will give the hon. the Minister my answer. The policy of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is to change every single black worker, who is a permanent worker to-day, into a migratory worker. I think it is his idea to limit every non-white worker to a 12 months’ contract in any white area. If I am wrong he can tell me.

It is not my idea, but I fully support it.

That means that the voice of the black man can never be heard in the white areas. His bargaining power disappears. At the moment we have an opportunity to get the white man to speak for the black man and he will bargain for him in a fair manner. Sir, if all the black people are going to be migratory workers, and if they are going to return to their homelands, what is to prevent them there from forming trade unions in their own homelands? After all, they are going to have separate freedoms and they are going to have separate development. There is no end to the cost of this movement.

What has happened in the mines all these years?

What is to stop these people from forming their own trade unions? They are going to come into the towns and you must remember that they are not only going to work in border industries; they are going to work in the metropolitan areas as well.

What do you suggest?

We must realize that these people in their homelands will firstly demand a voice in bargaining, which we will have to give them, and if we do not give it to them, then there is no possibility of our arbitrating with these people. They can refuse their labour if they are not satisfied with the conditions offered. I do not think that we can afford to do away with their labour; we need their labour.

What do you suggest?

I suggest that a crisis may occur in this field, and my suggestion to the House is that in this particular instance there must be a coming together of all the people who are interested in labour problems. My Leader has suggested that we should call a convention and find ways and means of giving each person who works and each person who employs people an opportunity to state his case. Let us find a formula which will be workable, because otherwise we are going to find that we are going to have a mass of people who are in the majority and who can bargain for what they want from us without the recognized channels.

Who must attend this convention?

I should say firstly that from the Government side there must be the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Minister of Planning. The Official Opposition should be given an opportunity to send a like number of people. We do not want the voting at this convention to take place on political lines. Then we must also have people from the trade unions at such a convention. We must also have the responsible voice of the Coloured people, of the Indians and of the Blacks. The employers should also be represented.

Like numbers?

Accept the principle.

Not necessarily. I want to tell the Minister that we here will have to legislate and we must hear what these people have to say. I do not want this issue to be decided by a majority vote on political lines; it is far too important an issue. Our whole existence lies in the hands of the legislators who are going to look after the labour problems of our country.

But no trade unions for the Bantu?

It may be necessary. I am not going to make any forecast at this stage. Let us hear what they say.

What is the policy of your Party?

You know what our policy is; we will have ample opportunity to discuss it.

The hon. the Minister of Planning is getting up to his old tricks again. I thought that he dropped that sort of thing when he went to England but I see that he has put them in his top hat …

Order! The hon. member must not be personal.

I apologize, Sir. I am very serious about this question of a convention; I know this side of the House would favour such a convention. I do not know how hon. members opposite feel about it. I do not think that they can go it alone, in spite of all the facilities that they have. The white workers to-day are no better off than they were before this Government came into power. What is the position to-day? We have been told by the hon. the Minister of Labour that we have labour peace and that there is never any trouble. Let us look at the reports of the Department of Labour for the years 1966 and 1967. Let me read out what happened in 1966. Sir, this is a country in which we have comparative peace, but what happened in 1966? Eighty-four work stoppages occured during the year, 38 of which could be regarded as strikes in terms of the Act. Whites participated in ten work stoppages, four of which were strikes, while non-Whites, including Bantu, were involved in 74, 34 of which were strikes. There were two lock-outs involving 151 non-Whites. The important point is the high percentage of strikes which occurred in the ranks of the non-Whites. The picture for 1967 is not much better. Then there were 98 work stoppages, 26 of which could be regarded as strikes in terms of the Act. Altogether 5,115 workers were involved.

What is the percentage of the total number of non-Whites employed?

Whites participated in 29 work stoppages, nine of which were strikes, while non-Whites (including Bantu) were involved in 67 work stoppages, 17 of which were strikes. The tendency is towards an undercurrent of unrest. Why should we wait until it grows out of proportion? Surely the time is now ripe for us to get together to decide what we should do in this matter. The hon. the Minister may try to stop black people from coming into the country and the Minister of Labour may try to stop Coloured people doing certain jobs. White people may not have the opportunity of doing skilled work, there may be bottlenecks at the top, there may be shortages of workers at the bottom—all these things are happening, and I say that if we do want to make a success of the future in our labour field, let us, before there is serious trouble, trouble which faces us, and hon. Ministers know that it is going to come if nothing is done about it, get together now to see whether we can solve the problem. I take it we shall have another opportunity of discussing this when the Labour Vote is discussed. But for me this is such an important matter that all of us who are interested in the labour position in this country should prepare ourselves now so that when we do come to the discussion of the Labour Vote we shall know what the true position of labour is in this country. Do not let us be misled by ideologies. Hon. Ministers know as well as we on this side of the House do that you can never strangle industry, that you will have to have black people coming in here, that we shall have to have Coloureds and Indians working with us and, what is more, that their numbers will grow from year to year. The Government can spend money on the introduction of legislation and on the implementation of such legislation but the facts will remain—the face of our streets will not change. The Blacks will still be there together with the Whites and the Coloureds. Let us at least try to make everyone happy and let South Africa grow. But to start running one race down against another and to spend millions on prohibitions are not the ways to solve our problems.

When one looks at the provisions of the Standing Orders relating to this debate, one is impressed by the wisdom of those men who drafted those Standing Orders, because whereas on other occasions Ministers virtually have unlimited time at their disposal for their reply, Standing Order No. 99 provides that the Minister of Finance’s reply to the debate on the Part Appropriation may not exceed one hour. A limit has therefore been set to the duration of the Minister’s reply. Well, those gentlemen who inserted this provision probably foresaw what kind of opposition we would have to deal with here. They probably foresaw how little this Opposition would be able to contribute to a debate on financial principles, and how little time a Minister would consequently need for replying to that debate. In fact, if I had to reply to the financial criticism that was raised by the other side of the House, if I had to go into the principles, even one hour would still have been far too long. In my introductory speech I referred to a few important financial-economic problems. I had hoped that the hon. Opposition would have availed themselves of the opportunity of going into those problems as well, that they would have used this opportunity for criticizing the policy of the Government in that regard, that they would have contrasted policy with policy and standpoint with standpoint. Instead of that we did not hear any basic policy, but the statement here and there of detached, unrelated matters, individual questions and divergent matters, without principle and disconnected. I gained the impression that the Opposition had forgotten how to think in terms of principles.

The Opposition’s thinking in financial matters is absolutely opportunistic, fragmentary.

Is that why you are implementing certain steps six months after we proposed them?

I shall deal with that later. In addition to that I want to say that the Opposition’s thinking has been characterised by one aim only, namely to seek popularity amongst members of the voting public, irrespective of the responsibility or irresponsibility attendant upon their point of view.

I mentioned a few important matters in respect of which I should have liked to have heard the Opposition’s point of view. They are the problems of inflation, of devaluation, of our gold price and the like, but up to this stage I have not received any reply from them to those problems.

Let us, in the first place, take the problem of inflation. Hon. gentlemen opposite were very reluctant to tell us what their point of view in this regard really was. The hon. member for Parktown made an admission and said that we were conquering inflation. He said that there was a “slackening in inflationary pressures”. The hon. member added to that that he was very pleased about it. In other words, he made two very significant admissions. He admitted that the inflationary pressure was slackening, and he admitted that this had happened as a result of steps taken by this Government. The hon. member says yes. The hon. member added to that, and this is the nonsensical part of the statement, that it was that side’s policy and advice that was pursued by the Government, and that that was why we achieved success in the struggle against inflation. Now I want to ask hon. members opposite what policy it is and what advice it is which we on this side took over and which enabled us to combat inflation? I remember that only last year I repeatedly asked hon. members opposite, as did my predecessor before me, the following question, “What is your attitude in respect of this aspect, and in respect of that aspect, in regard to inflation?” and that we never had any reply from them.

Hon. members opposite, the hon. member for Parktown as well, made mention here of a few items such as the blue train, the aluminium foundry, the third Iscor, and a few other matters which were essential corollaries to our policy, and there was no need for them to tell us that. However, the most important weapons in the struggle against inflation were the monetary and fiscal measures taken by this Government. Now I ask hon. members opposite: Mention to me any proof, any occasion in these debates where they lacked the monetary and fiscal policy of the Government or proposed it.

It is your policy that caused inflation.

Oh, the hon. member for Yeoville wrote articles in The Argus on inflation and finance, articles which most certainly are not a credit to himself or his Party. Let us look at the monetary remedies we applied, the monetary measures which were based on the fact that bank credit had run too high in the country, that there had been too much money and quasi-money in circulation in the country, and that the Government had to take steps to restrict such bank credit in order to have less money in circulation.

Hon. members know what the position is. In 1963 and 1964 the banking sectors’ claims against the private sector increased by R800 million—R800 million in that short period, which is better proof than anything else that the basic cause is to be found there, namely in the provision of redundant credit, the provision of too much money in circulation by which the demand for goods and services was increased. That is where the basic cause of the inflation is to be found.

Then you did just the wrong thing; you pegged the rates of interest.

The hon. member must wait; he will have his reply. As I have said, that is where the basic cause of our inflation is to be found. What did the Government do then? We came forward with our monetary policy; we increased the discount rate of the Reserve Bank; we raised liquidity ratios and we fixed a maximum amount in excess of which banks were not to provide credit. We tackled inflation by means of that monetary policy. It is in all friendliness that I once again ask my friends opposite: When did they ever back that policy in the past? No, they would not do so; they wanted to see first what happened. If things had gone wrong, they would have been able to blame the Government, and if things turned out well, they would claim for themselves the credit for it, as the hon. member for Parktown is doing.

The Opposition claims that we are following their policy. They must grant that the Government’s monetary policy, that of decreasing the amount of money in circulation, has been one of the most powerful weapons in the struggle against inflation. Now I want to ask hon. members opposite: Do they agree that this was the right policy? What is their reply?

The policy was implemented too late. You pegged the rates of interest. First of all you encouraged the Trust Bank and then Volkskas.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said only recently that inflation was still raging fiercely. If this happens to be the policy which they gave us and which we followed in our successful struggle against inflation, then I am asking them: Should we implement this policy any further?

The hon. member for Yeoville claims that we did “too little, too late”. If our policy were “too little”, if we had done too little, should we intensify our actions? I see him shaking his head. Well, I know he is shaking his head about the things he himself said, and I shall deal with them soon. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot reply to those questions, then they do not have any right to claim, as the hon. member for Parktown did, that the Government had curbed inflation because we had implemented the Opposition’s policy, had followed their advice.

Another aspect of the Government’s struggle against inflation is the fiscal measures we have taken: the belief that by means of taxes and increased loan levies we had to drain money from the public in order to reduce the demand for goods and services. Where were the hon. members opposite during last year’s Budget debate? Where did they stand when I proposed those steps? Did they back me in regard to the fiscal policy the Government implemented? Did they ever plead for higher taxes as a fiscal remedy in the struggle against inflation?

If fiscal steps had played such an important part, as indeed they did, why did the Opposition not support this side in our previous debates and our previous Estimates? On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, in the implementation of the fiscal policy, we have never received any support from them. They told the public outside: The Government is taxing you too much.

And spending too much money. That is very important.

Wait a minute. You will receive all the replies. I see that the hon. member wants to flee from this point. I shall not flee. I shall now deal with my hon. friend from Parktown, a person who usually thinks very clearly. Unfortunately he allows his views to be clouded by political prejudice. I want to ask my hon. friend: If we had followed their policy, their actions, what would the position have been? In view of the fact that fiscal methods were one of the most important methods in combating inflation, would the hon. member support me in future? Does he support this fiscal policy of the Government? Does he support the tax policy of the Government as a policy against inflation? No.

Secondly, I want to ask him this question: If inflation has not yet been stopped, as hon. members are saying, must we proceed with that policy? Does the Government also have the permission and the concurrence of hon. members opposite to continue with the fiscal policy against inflation, the policy of taxation? Now I want to ask them, Mr. Speaker: If it is true that inflation has not yet been curbed effectively, may we intensify this policy? The silence opposite is proof to the invalidity of the hon. member for Parktown’s statements to the effect that we have been following their policy. Instead of that the hon. members for Parktown, Pinetown and Kensington asked during this debate for more and more tax reductions. That was what those hon. members pleaded for. They said that we should reduce what was too high in South Africa. They, the people who are to advise us now on how to combat inflation, are pleading here for tax reductions.

Hon. members and the hon. member for Yeoville had very much to say about increased State expenditure. In this regard I do not wish to go into the full particulars. I shall do so later. During this debate, in the two days it has lasted, I tried to make a list of the requests for increased State expenditure made by members on the opposite side of the House. After a while I stopped making that list. It stretched from Cape Town to Pretoria. It amounted to millions and millions of rands, Now the hon. member for Yeoville claims that the State has spent too much money, and then they come forward with this inconsistency by not only pleading for reduced taxes, but also for increased expenditure day after day. You see, Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the Opposition have stopped thinking fundamentally. Hon. members are seeking for that which is to make them popular with the voting public. In the sphere of finance hon. members have never proposed anything in this House which could be unpopular.

Who seeks unpopularity only?

A statesman, Mr. Speaker, often has to do unpopular things in the interests of the nation. My hon. friends opposite are evading that. Those hon. members’ policy is fraught with inconsistencies. As Alice in Wonderland said, “It is getting curiouser and curiouser every day.” But I want to tell them that in respect of this double talk—if they think that they will impress the voting public by it—they are only bluffing themselves.

I shall now deal with the second point, namely the question of devaluation, which I also mentioned in my introductory speech. As this is the most important thing that happened between the previous session and this session of Parliament, I should of course have liked to have heard the views of hon. members opposite. I should have liked to have heard from them whether the Government had acted correctly or wrongly by not devaluing along with Britain. But we did of course not receive a reply. We could not receive a reply, because I believe that hon. members themselves do not know what the reply is. Shortly after we had decided not to follow England, the hon. member for Constaotia said in a statement that they supported the Government and that he hoped that it would not he made a political issue. But he had hardly spoken, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled the accusation at the Government that, if it had not been for the Government and for the condition in which the economy found itself owing to the actions of this Government, South Africa would have been able to devalue. In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that South Africa had no other alternative. It should have devalued. In that way the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tacitly intimated that if they had been in power, the economic position of South Africa would have been such that it could have devalued. Now I want to ask the hon. the Leader whether this is not so. Is it not true that, if they had been in power, the economy of South Africa would indeed have been in the position where it could and would have devalued and that he would have been able to reap the fruits of devaluation, of which the hon. the Leader spoke, particularly in respect of the gold mines.

You will probably not accept an increase in the gold price.

I shall give the hon. the Leader a reply to that now. The moment they get hurt, they want to push one away from that point. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if they had been in power, the economy of South Africa would have been so weak that it would have had to devalue, or devaluation would have been a strong possibility. South Africa did not avoid devaluation because its economy was weak. It was because of the soundness and the vitality of its economy that South Africa did not devalue. Why did Britain devalue? Did Britain not devalue because its economy was weak, and the others who followed suit, because their economy was weak? Do we not know that Britain is struggling with a balance of payments problem, unemployment, price problems, with difficulties in gaining admission to the European Common Market, do we not know that it virtually has a chronically diseased economy and that it was obliged to devalue? Those who followed suit, were countries which were either weak or dependent on Britain. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that we, if they had governed, would have been in a position similar to that of Britain, and that we would also have been able to devalue. If one looks at the other countries which did not devalue, namely West Germany, France, Holland, the U.S.A. and others, we shall find that they are the economically and financially strong countries of the world. We are proud of and grateful for the fact that we could range ourselves on their side—not on the side of the weak ones—but that we could range ourselves, and from sheer necessity had to do so, on the side of the strong ones because of our strength.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that because of the inflation in our country we could not devalue. But he is labouring under a misconception, Sir. The reason why we did not devalue was that inflation had not assumed such great proportions in our country. It was not necessary for us to follow England’s example, the very reason being that we were curbing inflation effectively. If South Africa bad still been caught in the grip of inflation; if South Africa still had to cope with balance of payments problems; if South Africa still had to deal with a growth problem; if South Africa still had to deal with a steadily increasing rate of prices; if South Africa still had to deal with unemployment problems; if inflation had still been with us in some form or other, we might perhaps have been forced to devalue. But for the very reason that we were winning the struggle against inflation, we could afford not to devalue. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to give me his attention, I shall point out to him that we actually started winning the struggle against inflation as from the middle of the year. In other words, in November, when we took this decision, we already knew that we were winning the struggle against inflation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the gold price a few minutes ago. In his statement the said that we had now lost the argument for an increased gold price. But, surely, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other members who spoke ought to know this: It has never been our policy to obtain an increased gold price by means of a more or less unilateral devaluation of our currency. Our policy has always been a policy of a revaluation of all currencies in terms of gold. We do not aim at chaos in the financial world. We do not aim at unilateral devaluations of various countries. We are aiming at a general increase in the gold price, or phrased differently, a revaluation of all currencies in terms of gold. If we had devalued, the gold mines would perhaps have enjoyed a temporary advantage which would subsequently be swallowed up once again. Together with the steps we took, we took a step by which the lowering of the cost structure in South Africa could be ensured, which would also benefit the gold mines. In that statement it is likely that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also lost sight of the fact that there is an institution such as the International Monetary Fund. No nation may devalue without the permission of the International Monetary Fund. It has to apply for that, and it has to furnish proof that its balance of payments is in difficulties. We could not furnish that proof, and we would not have been able to obtain any permission for devaluation.

I think that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. member for Yeoville who followed his lead, have ever been sorry about a statement made by them in a speech or in a newspaper report, then it is probably in regard to the statements they made in respect of devaluation. I want to request the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville kindly to leave those matters alone.

The hon. member for Pinetown asked a few questions in this regard. The first question he asked was as follows; What do I mean by saying that we are not going to devalue “at present”? He asked whether I anticipated that Britain would perhaps be unable to retain the present parity of its currency and that it would perhaps be obliged to devalue again later. He wanted to know what our attitude would be then. The hon. member for Pinetown was sensible enough to say that he did not believe that it would be wise on my part to reply to that, nor will I reply to such a hypothetical question. The hon. member is quite correct. I do not take it amiss of him. I shall not reply to such a hypothetical question, but I just want to say that the position of South Africa in the financial-economic field is quite different to-day from what it was during the early thirties and the late forties when we did in fact follow Britain in a devaluation. To-day we are no longer as dependent on Britain as we were at that time as regards the marketing of our fruit and as a source of our capital. Although we find in Britain an export market for a large proportion of our produce, we have succeeded in diversifying our markets to a large extent. Much more can be done, but as regards marketing we are less dependent on Britain to-day than we were at that time. Nor are we as dependent on Britain at present as far as capital provision is concerned. There was a time when virtually all capital for development and all loan capital came from Britain. At present virtually no capital comes from Britain. When the Government wants to borrow money, it no longer borrows from Britain. We go to the continent of Europe. In that respect, too, we are no longer dependent on Britain. There were always difficulties in those times—in 1932 and in 1949—as far as our balance of payments was concerned. Today we are in a quite different position as far as our balance of payments is concerned. Therefore I do not want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown what we shall do if Britain should devalue again. Our aim will be to keen the rand as strong as possible. The position in which we find ourselves to-day is much stronger than that of previous times.

The hon. member for Pinetown asked me a question about assistance to exporters whose interests had been prejudiced as a result of the devaluation in Britain. I gave a clear exposition of our point of view in the statement I made shortly after we had decided not to devalue. Surely, the hon. member will agree with me, and he will probably realize, that the Government will not be able to take a rash step by even at this early stage saying to the exporters: We shall give you this and that, in terms of rands and cents. We promised them that we would deal with their losses—their export losses which may arise from British devaluation—on merit, and that we shall compensate for them on merit. But, surely, if this is to be done, it is necessary for an inquiry to be made into the matter. We must see what the prices do, whether they rise or drop. If they should drop, we must determine whether or not that drop in prices can be attributed to devaluation. That is not such an easy task. I can assure the hon. member that we are investigating those matters closely. It has been read out to us what Australia was supposedly doing. I think that is based on a misconception. In the meantime we have obtained information—and the hon. member for Standerton also referred to it—which proves that Australia is in exactly the same position as we are and that it is also investigating the matter.

The hon. member for Pinetown also asked a question about the pension funds of employees of overseas firms in South Africa. I made inquiries with the registrar in this regard. The registrar informed me that in cases where there was a limited number of South African employees working for an overseas firm in South Africa and contributing to an overseas pension fund, that fund did not come within statutory provision. His office had no particulars about such a fund. Overseas pension funds for South African employees which do in fact come within the scope of statutory provision, fall into two categories. Some of them maintain assets in the Republic in order to meet their obligations to South African employees, whereas others furnish guarantees from South African insurers for meeting their obligations to our employees. At the moment there are 13 funds of the former kind which on 31st December, 1966, collectively maintained in the Republic assets to the value of R35,337,000, with 14,768 members and 1,496 pensioners. There are 28 funds with a joint total of 3,.996 members and 403 pensioners, and they furnished insurance guarantees. The rules of these funds seldom state in which currency pensions are payable. Telephonic inquiries made at 13 overseas funds in both categories, brought to light that pensions were mostly paid out in rands, without any loss as a result of devaluation. Where payment is made in sterling, the overseas funds or the employers bear the loss on exchange in all the cases in respect of which we have made oral inquiries, and their members do not suffer any loss as a result of devaluation. However, it is possible that some of the funds in respect of which no inquiries have been made, or in respect of which there is no statutory provision, do in fact pay out in sterling without compensating the pensioner for loss suffered as a result of devaluation. That is the position, and I can tell the hon. member that we are still investigating that matter further.

The hon. member for Salt River also had something to say about gold. As regards our aim to obtain an increase in the gold price, he said that if we succeeded in doing so. it would mean a devaluation of our currency. The hon. member for Rustenburg gave the reply to that question, the same reply I gave a moment ago. An increase of the gold price does not mean the devaluation of South Africa’s currency vis-à-vis other currencies.

You are wrong. [Laughter.]

After all, when a revaluation of all currencies takes place in terms of gold, the ratio between one currency and another remains the same.

Why do you not try and keep the price the same?

The price is different, but the ratio of one currency to other currencies remains the same. Our currency is not lowered in respect of those of other countries.

The hon. member for Pinetown asked me about loans abroad. This is an interesting question: If we are obtaining as much money as we want, why these revolving credits abroad? The reply is, in the first place, that we are negotiating revolving credits in order that we may strengthen our balance of payments when necessary. The money remains there; we do not use it, but should it be necessary we may claim it at any time. But there is a second important reason, namely that those short-term or long-term credits we obtained abroad provide valuable links for us with financial institutions abroad. I think hon. members will agree with me that it is of tremendous significance to us to have such continuous contact and dialogues with financial leaders in other parts of the world. In this way we are enabled to make use of our domestic loans, if we have borrowed sufficient money domestically, by depositing them in the foreign acquisitions fund to pay for the goods we purchased for our strategic stockpiling programme. Once certain proposed legislation has been piloted through Parliament, this money will also enable us to allow the Public Debt Commissioners themselves to invest more money in utilities such as Escom and other public corporations and less with the State.

The hon. member asked me why these loans were subject to such different rates of interest. The rates of interest differ according to the time when the loans were negotiated, and according to the currency in which they were obtained. If one studies the money in the capital market in Europe to-day, it is astonishing to see how rates of interest vary and change from time to time, and how in various currencies in various countries one can obtain loans at different rates of interest. Added to that is the fact that in certain countries, apart from the rate of interest, one has to pay other fees as well. In Germany, for instance, there is a commitment fee of f per cent, which is added to the rate of interest of 5f per cent.

The hon. member asked me what the position was in regard to long-term loans, because that was what we would like to have. I agree that we would like to have long-term loans, but on the European capital market it is very dangerous and almost impossible to-day to negotiate a long-term capital loan. A few months ago already we started with this and made the necessary preparations, but as a result of the devaluation and the steps taken by America, the position on the European capital market has become such that we did not dare to go in for that. We are not prepared to negotiate long-term loans for 10, 15 or 20 years at the tremendously high rate of interest prevailing in Europe to-day. In the meantime I may say that our long-term loans here in South Africa have done particularly well. The previous 25-year long-term loan gave us R33.4 million, and the existing 25-year long-term loan has already given us almost R40 million.

In conclusion I shall deal with the present economic position. In this respect I am running the risk of repeating to a certain extent what hon. members on this side of the House have already said in respect of our present economic position, but I think it is necessary for the House to be informed as to our present position in order to prove two things: in the first place, to prove that the financial-economic position of South Africa to-day is as sound as we could possibly wish it to be, and in the second place, to prove that the measures which we have applied and which the hon. member for Pinetown said we had taken over from them but which are nevertheless our own measures, have succeeded. They were the correct measures and they succeeded in making and keeping our economy sound. I think I may say, without fear of contradiction, that as compared to virtually all countries of the world, the economic position of South Africa to-day is one of the most favourable. I do not know of any country where economic conditions, as measured against every criterion, are in such a sound position as ours are to-day.

Then give us a favourable Budget.

But, surely, the hon. member said that they stood for fiscal measures. There are certain criteria against which one measures the strength and the soundness of an economy. One of these criteria is that of real growth. The second criterion is the position of its balance of payments. The third is its employment position, and the fourth is the criterion of prices. As measured against all four of these criteria, our economy to-day stands out as one of the strongest in the world. As regards real growth, which is the goal of every government, we have in the past year succeeded in obtaining a growth rate of between 6 per cent and 7 per cent, as compared with 6 per cent the previous year and the 5½ per cent mentioned in our economic programme, and we have succeeded in obtaining growth with a minimum of inflation. Economists on the opposite side of the House will agree with me that one of the major aims of every economic policy is to obtain growth without or with a minimum of inflation. Other countries have had less favourable experiences. The measures taken by some countries did not succeed in curbing inflation, whereas the measures taken by some of the other countries were such that they killed growth altogether, such as in Germany, for instance, where the growth rate last year was 0.5 per cent. I am asking my hon. friends opposite to mention an example of any country in the world which in respect of growth has, with such a minimum of inflation, as favourable a position as we have.

Secondly I shall deal with the balance of payments. Our balance of payments position also reflects the sound state of our economy. Whereas during the first six months of 1967 we had on the current account of our balance of payments a deficit which, calculated at a seasonally adjusted annual rate, amounted to R300 million, this deficit was converted into a surplus of R80 million to R90 million during the last six months of that year. It is a miracle that happened here, namely that because of the increase in our exports and the decrease in our imports South Africa’s current account on the balance of payments increased from a tremendous deficit to a mighty surplus according to estimates, because these are provisional figures I am referring to. At the moment our gold and foreign reserves stand at R536 million.

In the third place we have the provision of employment. In certain countries which combated inflation, the result was large-scale unemployment, but we do not have that. On the contrary, in our country we have full employment of labour and of other production factors, and there is still a scarcity in many sectors. I mentioned three factors, namely real growth, the balance of payments and employment, in respect of which South Africa compares favourably with any country in the world. I shall now deal with the last factor, namely prices. In this respect we are a fortunate country. Hon. members opposite and the hon. member for Queenstown also referred to these figures. In the previous year— from December, 1965 to November, 1966— the retail trade or the consumer index showed an increase of 3.8 per cent, but last year it only showed an increase of 1.8 per cent.

But the most remarkable thing is the following: In the first half of last year the increase was 3.4 per cent; in the second half of last year, from June to December, the increase was 0.3 per cent, calculated at an annual rate. In other words, it becomes apparent from that that we are experiencing a downward trend, which was strongly accentuated, particularly in the second half of the year. As regards wholesale prices, in the period December, 1965 to November, 1966, we had an increase of 4.5 per cent. In the period December, 1966 to November, 1967, the increase was 0.5 per cent But what is remarkable, is what happened in the second half of the year. From December, 1966 to June, 1967, the wholesale prices increased by 3.3 per cent, but in the second half of last year—from June to December, 1967—they showed a decrease of 2.8 per cent.

I never saw that.

I know that there are many things the hon. member has not seen, and it is time that his eyes began to open.

As regards Government finance, hon. members opposite are always attacking the Government on the financing of Government expenditure. In the fourth quarter of last year, just as in the six previous quarters, we were fortunate to finance State expenditure in a non-inflationary manner, i.e. without making use of additional bank credit. On the contrary, the State reduced its net debt to the banking sector by R29 million. I mention these points to show that, measured in terms of internationally acknowledged standards, South Africa’s economy is in a very favourable position to-day, and that it is attributable to the policy of this Government and to the measures it applied in order to combat inflation and still to promote growth. By that I do not mean that we shall now have to stop or slacken all those measures. On the contrary, we have now seen that these measures of ours are effective, and now we can confidently proceed to apply them further; we shall not slacken them, not until we are quite sure that the inflationary forces, which are still latent in our economy and which are reflected in the spirit of speculation we are still seeing daily, have completely disappeared. For as long as it is necessary we shall retain these measures and we shall apply them until our economy has recovered completely.

Or until the next election.

Mr. Speaker, since I believe that by this time the Opposition, too, is convinced that their point of view is quite untenable and devoid of any policy, I have no hesitation whatsoever in moving this Bill be read a Second Time.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last week I was discussing the functions and powers of the Drugs Control Council. The hon. the Minister of Health referred in his second-reading speech to the large number of medicines, drugs and remedies which had appeared on the South African market, and also to the constant new additions which were finding their way to this market. It seems clear to me that in the exercise of their functions, the Drug Control Council will attempt to limit the number of drugs which are registered and freely available on the South African market. I believe they will attempt to do this in two ways. In the first place they will refuse to register drugs of doubtful therapeutic value, and in the second place they will refuse to register drugs the effects of which might be harmful. In these two ways the number of available drugs and also those to be registered could possibly be below the figure quoted by the Minister and to which I will refer a little later on in my speech.

I wish to refer at this stage to a report of the Controller and Auditor General, RP. 61 of 1967, which deals with the financial year 1966-’67, and in which reference is made to the control of drugs. The report refers to the fact that the Drugs Control Act has been promulgated and the members of the council have been appointed. I quote now from the report—

The report goes on to say the initial expenditure incurred during the year had amounted to roughly R10,000, and indicated the manner in which it had been a charge on the Estimates. The report concludes by saying that “provision is being made in the draft regulations to be promulgated in terms of section 05 (4) (c) of the Act, for the payment of a fee for the registration of drugs”.

I believe that the primary reason for the passing of the Drugs Control Act and the aim of the work of the council are the furtherance of the public interest, but, looking at some of the regulations included in those which were promulgated in December of last year, it would appear that only a section of the public will be called upon to pay to a large extent for the financial requirements of the Drugs Control Council. It seems to me almost that the ill will be asked to subsidize the healthy. If one examines the personnel of the council and the manner in which it will function, it appears that its operating expenses are likely to be high. I believe these expenses already exceed R10,000 per year. This figure includes the payments made to the chairman and the various members, but does not include payment to the various committees which will be appointed in terms of the council’s powers. I am not suggesting for a moment that these members should not be paid according to their ability and the contribution which they make to the smooth functioning of the council. After all, these people who have been appointed are experts in their field, and they are worthy of being paid well for their services. But I do not agree with the principle of fixing a high registration fee. In the Act itself it was laid down that the registration fee should not exceed R100, and in the regulations which were promulgated the fee was fixed at R60. I believe that fee is too high, and I believe the amendment in this Bill, which provides for the imposition of a renewal fee which, so the Bill says, shall not be more than R30 per annum, cannot be supported because this figure as well is too high. If one works on the basis of a ratio, one finds that, the original sum prescribed in the Act was R100, whilst the regulations lay down a fee of R60 for registration. On the basis of the same ratio one could suggest that the proposed figure of not more than R30 as an annual renewal fee could well be in the neighbourhood of R18 to R20 per remedy per year.

The Minister referred to the fact that when the Snyman Commission report was published some years ago the report indicated that there were 25,000 drugs on the market and that this number was being added to at the rate of approximately 200 per month. I believe these numbers could have increased since the publication of the report, and I believe ultimately when the Drugs Control Council is functioning to its maximum capacity, one may find that approximately 20,000 to 30,000 drugs may have to be registered by the council. If we take the lower figure of 20,000 drugs and the initial registration fee of R60, we see that the council will have R1,200,000 initially. To go further: If the renewal fee is accepted to be in the neighbourhood of R15, which could well be, then the council will have a steady annual income from renewals, considering that applications for registration in respect of 20,0 drugs will be made, of R300,000. That gives the council a sizeable nest-egg of R1,500,000. That amount could be added to each year if the annual registration fee was not “’n klein fooi”, as the Minister suggested it might be. I repeat that, in my opinion, a substantial portion of this amount comes from sick people themselves. They are taking medicines, in many cases on doctor’s orders and not of their own free will, and I believe they are contributing by virtue of the ramifications of this high fee and the annual renewal fee. They will find that this system is adding to the cost of living, that it will be another cause of inflation.

We must bear in mind that all this legislation and expense, which I agree wholeheartedly are in the public interest, control the registration of drugs. But the control of the distribution of drugs falls outside the scope of this Act, and I crave your indulgence to refer to it for a moment, because I believe it has some bearing on this matter. The control of the sale, supply and distribution of drugs falls primarily within the ambit of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, No. 13 of 1928, and I reiterate that these controls were designed to protect the public, in many cases to protect the public from themselves. But the Act provides for strict control which has to be enforced by professional men who, in terms of the law, are the only people entitled to supply habit-forming and potentially harmful drugs. They are required to keep registers and records which require time, professional skill and savoir-faire. These new regulations which have been promulgated will place a further burden on these professional men, again, I concede, in the interests of the public. I am now referring to regulation 10 which deals with expiry dates and keeping properties of certain drugs as they are registered. What is interesting is that recently a state department refused to allow these professional men to make a charge for the additional service which they have been called upon to perform in the interests of the public. The reason given by the department was that it was not the time to effect an increase or an additional charge as it would have an inflationary effect. Now I wish to ask the hon. the Minister, what effect will the imposition of a R60 registration fee and a relatively high annual renewal fee have on inflation at the present moment? I ask again: Why should the sick man pay indirectly for this registration and for medicines when his healthy neighbour, who may not enjoy the benefit of the work of the council and of the registration of drugs until he becomes ill later on, does not pay?

I am not asking for the consideration of a new principle. This particular practice which I am advocating, namely that the cost should be spread out, has already been adopted in terms of the Fertilizers, Farms, Feeds and Remedies Act. I wish to quote a well-known authority on this type of legislation, who says the following about the Act to which I have just referred—

Thus animals have been protected and pests dealt with in terms of this Act for 21 years. Yet the farmer has not been singled out to any great extent to pay for the registration of these remedies. Neither has the manufacturer been singled out, because I submit the registration fee is purely a nominal one. The control is there, the machinery for registration is there, but for all those 20 years the registration fee stood at R4 per registration per remedy and the renewal fee only amounted to 50c. I know that recently there was an increase in the registration fee and also in the renewal fee, but nevertheless the present fee still bears no relation to the fees laid down in the regulations under the Drugs Control Act.

I know arguments will be put forward that a registration fee of R60 for a remedy, spread over a sale of a million tablets, is a negligible amount, and that the same argument could well apply to the annual renewal fee. That may well be so if the remedy in question is a popular one and large quantities thereof are sold. But there are other products on the market, remedies which are essential for the treatment of certain conditions and diseases, which are slower selling, and I believe that in such cases the high registration fee could well have the effect of pushing up the consumer price and in that way have an inflationary tendency.

The next aspect I wish to deal with is the new drugs which this particular body will be called upon to register after examination. I am quite certain that not only the registration fee but the fact that a regular annual renewal fee will be imposed, together with the amount of time the firms concerned will have to spend administratively to provide the very full details required by the Drugs Control Council when applications are considered, but will have the effect of adding to the basic calculated cost of the preparation. I am sure this basic increase in cost will in some way be passed on to the consumer.

This very day I spoke to an overseas manufacturer. I explained the situation to him, and he agreed that if a certain product were sold in large quantities the registration and renewal fees could in effect be negligible. On the other hand, if an article was low-priced and there was not much demand for it because the medical profession in their wisdom saw it was suitable only for limited use, the high fees could have an effect on the consumer price. He told me that in his particular business, a worldwide one, a member of the staff is occupied full-time and another member half-time purely with dealing with the administrative procedure required in the registration of drugs. He agreed that the cost of such a service is not negligible and, if added to the cost of registration and renewal, it could come to an appreciable amount, which could well increase the price the consumer had to pay.

Now I want to come nearer home, and I want to raise the question of the Dutch medicines. They have been available in South Africa for many years. I believe all over the Republic they form part of the home medicine chest. It is not my intention to discuss the virtues and properties of the Dutch medicines, but I still believe there is a public demand for them. They are, as I say, a part of the poor man’s medicine chest. Now, Sir, as far as I can make out, there are approximately 60 Dutch medicines which have virtually been accepted in some basic, standard form. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what effect the enforcement of registration could have on these particular Dutch medicines. In the old days they all sold at sixpence a bottle. Today, with rising costs and the increase in the cost of raw materials, the prices have increased, but they still vary from about 8 cents to about 15 cents. I wonder, particularly in the case of those which do not have a very large sale, what effect on the public this imposition or enforcement of a registration fee will have.

There is another aspect which I should like the hon. the Minister to give consideration to, and that is in regard to homeopathic remedies. I want to make it quite clear that I have no particular brief for the homeopath. I believe that many of them contravene section 37 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act frequently. The hon. the Minister in his third reading speech, when the Drugs Control Act was passing through this House in 1965, referred to the question of the homeopath. He said that the homeopath remedies would obviously fall within the ambit of the Act and that it would appear that they too would have to be registered. Now, Sir, I submit that the average homeopath has not a large outlet for his particular medicines. If he is called upon to pay R60 to register and then to have to pay an annual renewal fee, the public in the end will be called upon to meet their share of that expense.

I believe that some of these difficulties to which I have referred could be minimized. My feeling in this matter is confirmed by the opinion expressed by a person to whom I spoke to-day in regard to the registration. He said: Why is it necessary for a remedy to be registered annually? I know that the answer has been given that with the advancement of medical science it sometimes happens that the remedy which for years has been regarded as perfectly safe and relatively harmless is found to develop side effects which could possibly be dangerous to the public. It may therefore be in the public interest to enforce some sort of control. The reply I have been given is that the control which should be enforced is reregistration each year, when these particular remedies would be re-assessed. That is so, Sir, but I still believe that if these remedies were re-registered at three-yearly intervals, the Drugs Control Council has ample power to deal with any remedy which might suddenly be found to be potentially harmful, or dangerous. I should like to refer to section 16 of the Act, which says among other things:

Then the Act lays down the conditions under which the notice should be published and stipulates:

We have already had an example of the power which the council can exercise. There is the case of L.S.D. A notice appeared in the Gazette indicating that L.S.D. should no longer be made available in South Africa because of the extreme danger of its use or abuse. I appreciate that this could be one way of avoiding the difficulties which would follow the question of re-registration. I know that we will have an opportunity during the Committee stage to refer to this. I wish then to quote a specific example, but I want to say to the Minister now in all seriousness that the imposition of these high registration and re-registration fees will mean the end of the small man and the growth of the big cartels. Many people say that when the big cartels take over complete control, the ultimate end is an increase in the price to the consumer. I am not competent to argue that point, Sir. It is just a suggestion. In closing I ask the Minister to consider seriously his comment about “’n klein fooi”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat must pardon me if I do not reply immediately to all the points he raised here. I do hope to reply to some of them in the course of my speech. The hon. the Minister already indicated in his Second Reading speech that the main principle contained in this amending Bill was to rectify certain technical shortcomings in the original Act. It is clear that the object of the original Act was to exercise proper control over all drugs entering the country, as well as drugs already on the market. It is virtually unthinkable that the intention of the legislature would miscarry because of a technical mistake or a technical shortcoming in the original legislation. This Bill is accordingly designed to eliminate those technical imperfections, so that the intention of the Act will be clarified and can be implemented in practice. It is clear, if one looks up the Hansard of that time, that this measure, especially the principle of drug control, was generally accepted at the time by both sides of the House. The adoption of the measure was, of course, influenced to a large extent by the tragic birth of the so-called “thalidomide babies” which occurred at that time. The wisdom of the acceptance of this Act again became apparent in the light of certain developments which have occurred since. I am referring specifically to a drug which has already been mentioned by the hon. member who spoke just before me, namely L.S.D. With this measure on our Statute Book effective and timely action could be taken to prohibit the importation of this extremely dangerous drug into our country.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) had certain misgivings about what would happen in the case of certain drugs which have already been in use in this country for years. He expressed the fear that, although many of these drugs were still obtainable at present and were serving a very good purpose, provision would not be made for the re-registration of these drugs, because of a lack of interest on the part of the manufacturers of these drugs, and that there was a danger that many of these drugs would disappear from the market. I doubt whether his fears will be confirmed to any large extent. The pharmaceutical and medical professions realize their responsibilities to the public, particularly to the sick. I believe that responsible bodies and persons dealing with these matters will see to it that these drugs remain on the register—and will therefore be available to the public—if there is any demand for them and if they can still be used, effectively in treating specific illnesses. I do not believe, Sir, that the fears expressed by the hon. member for Durban (Berea), i.e. that on account of the re-registration fee many drugs will disappear from the market, will be confirmed. Neither do I share his fear that the R15 which will now have to be paid for the re-registration of those drugs will push up the prices of those drugs. If one thinks of the large sums of money spent by pharmaceutical firms on advertising one particular drug, then I find it almost inconceivable that such a firm will pass on to the public the R15 which it must pay for a drug which in many instances will be sold by the million. The hon. member said that in some cases pharmaceutical firms would have to maintain a special staff for dealing with these registrations. I readily grant that. Some of these pharmaceutical firms have 60 to 70 different drugs on the market and will in fact find it necessary to maintain a staff for the registration of those drugs. But when the cost is spread over the total sales of all those drugs, the amount per drug will be minimal and it will certainly not be necessary to recover it from the public.

It was clearly stated in the original legislation that this measure was not aimed at pushing off the market drugs which are already in effective use and which have been accepted by the medical profession. I cannot see how this amending measure will have that effect. But we now have the additional advantage that the public, who is to a large extent dependent on these drugs, has the additional safeguard that these drugs have passed thorough scientific tests and are guaranteed to be pure and to comply with specific standards.

I also want to refer to the so-called Dutch medicines mentioned by the hon. member for Berea. These drugs, which are at present fairly readily obtainable from chemists as well as shops and supermarkets, sometimes contain quite dangerous components. A large number of them have been accepted for many years as effective and suitable for many ailments, and quite rightly represent the basic medicines for many of the underprivileged sections of the population. But I also believe that many of these drugs should long ago have been subject to proper scientific tests for determining a standard and for establishing what precisely these drugs contain. I want to refer to two of these drugs in particular without mentioning their names. It is known that some of these Dutch medicines are dissolved in fairly strong concentrations of alcohol. This is not so generally known among the public at large. I have encountered cases where alcoholics who were in the process of being relabilitated took these drugs for a headache or a stomach-ache and then reverted to alcoholism as a result of the high alcohol content of these drugs. This is then something for which they are not actually responsible because they took alcohol unknowingly. It is common practice for many of these people to go from shop to shop buying little bottles of these drugs, till they are eventually walking round with 20 to 30 of these little bottles in their pockets. They take these drugs and so come under the influence of alcohol.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I should like to ask the hon. member for Cradock if he is aware of the fact that most of these Dutch medicines to-day are standardized in that they have to conform to certain accepted standards which have been published in the Gazette.

Mr. Speaker, I accept that, but all of these drugs have not yet been standardized and their contents are not yet indicated either. That is my objection and that is why I feel that the sooner this process of standardization of all the existing drugs is commenced, the better. The point I want to make is that all drugs should be standardized as soon as possible. I shall come to this again later in my speech. The hon. member for Berea objected to the re-registration fee. He made a little sum for us to show how much this Drugs Control Council was going to make from the re-registration fees. It should, however, be clear that technical work, which is very expensive as a rule, will have to be undertaken in connection with the standardization and examination of these drugs. I cannot imagine that this money will be paid into a fund which will not be used for the specific purpose for which the Drugs Control Council has been established. If it later appears that this fund has become too large, that fee can be reduced. But I fear that we are going to find that this fund will not be large enough and that it will have to be supplemented in another manner, even by means of a higher registration fee. To my mind the success of this registration and the examination and standardization of drugs depends upon what funds are made available to the Drugs Control Council to enable it to carry out its function properly.

In conclusion, I cannot associate myself with the idea expressed here by the hon. member for Durban (Central) when he suggested that the Act should provide to which pharmacopoeias the Drugs Control Council may have recourse when it wants to apply and lay down standards. To me as a layman in this field it actually seems superfluous to mention in the legislation that the Drugs Control Council shall have the right to make use of pharmacopoeias. But be that as it may, the point I want to make is this: From the nature of the position held by the members of the Drugs Control Council we may accept that they are persons of high integrity, scientists and persons of responsibility who are aware of their responsibility. I feel that it would be a pity if we limited those persons only to the inspection of specific pharmacopoeias. I grant that there are probably many pharmacopoeias in the world which are not all equally reliable, but I want to add at once that we may safely leave it in the hands of this Drugs Control Council to choose which pharmacopoeias they wish to consult and to determine their standards accordingly. It is obvious to me that in future there will be occasions when a specific standard or prescription sought by this Council will not be readily available in the recognized pharmacopoeias which we have in this country. It would then be a pity if they could not have recourse to equally reliable pharmacopoeias which may not be as generally known or available in this country. In such circumstances it might mean that this Council will have to have recourse to determining its own standard on an empirical basis, only to find later that when these drugs are used on a much wider basis, their standard does not comply with the accepted world standard.

We on this side of the House welcome this measure because we feel that it makes the original legislation more effective and facilitates the performance of the functions of the Drugs Control Council. It will also ensure that sufficient funds will be available to attend quickly to this highly necessary work of standardizing drugs already in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members on both sides of this House for the friendly and constructive manner in which they dealt with the problems of this amending Bill.

Much easier than television.

I think far more goodwill exists in this regard than exists during a discussion on television. Many interesting ideas were expressed to which attention may be given in the future. As far as this Bill is concerned, there ought not to be much reason for concern. The things we say here are from the nature of the case speculations as to future possibilities. This is new legislation. As yet we do not have a clear picture of its administrative workings. You may rest assured that when problems do arise, those problems will be solved by amending the legislation, if necessary, to conform to the new problems.

I want to reply in brief to a few suggestions and a few ideas which have been put forward here. During the previous discussion of this measure, the hon. member for Durban (Central) expressed a few interesting ideas and raised a few interesting points of criticism. The first of these was that he would like to see embodied in this legislation a provision mentioning specific pharmacopoeias containing the standards according to which the Drugs Control Council must act. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Cradock, the members of the Drugs Control Council are authorities in this field in South Africa. Amongst them are some of the most outstanding men in South Africa, men of very high calibre. Every council has discretionary powers. In every council one has to rely to a very large extent on the judgment of people, and I think that where we have to rely on the judgment of such people, we may rest assured that no serious problems will arise about which we need concern ourselves. In addition, there is the consideration that it would not be sound legislation to introduce that provision into the Act. One is not keen to specify any particular line of action or mention any specific name in the Act itself. Such provisions should rather be introduced by way of regulation. In order to set the mind of the hon. member for Durban (Central) at ease, I should like to quote from the regulations as already published. The Act reads that the Drug Control Council may determine the standards with the approval of the Minister of Health. The regulations provide how such standards are to be determined. Regulation 13 reads, “All drugs shall comply with the standard, if any, laid down in the British Pharmacopoeiae or the British Pharmaceutical Codex.” In actual fact there is no difference between the approach of the hon. member for Durban (Central) and that of the Drugs Control Council. Therefore his fears are groundless.

Another interesting speculation of the hon. member for Durban (Central) agreed to a large extent with the problems of the hon. member for Berea, namely the position of the cheaper medicines. The hon. member mentioned, inter alia, castor oil and Epsom salts. He asked who would register them, since these medicines were so cheap? No shop or chemist had a big enough interest to sell such large quantities of these medicines so as to cover the cost of registration. This is a problem which the hon. member for Berea should have raised during the discussion of the principal Act. I do not want to go into the matter of registration but want to confine myself to this legislation which lays down that there has to be re-registration. I want to concede to the hon. member that there may be such cases, but I do not believe that that will be the case as far as castor oil is concerned. I think the wholesalers and manufacturers of castor oil make enough profit from it to pay the R60 registration fee. Therefore I do not believe that this will happen in the case of medicines such as castrol oil, Epsom salts, etc. But suppose it does happen. Suppose it does happen that no one wants to re-register them. We are only dealing with re-registration now. In that case you may rest assured that complaints will reach the Drugs Control Council. Complaints will reach the Department and the Minister. The moment that happens the other clauses will come into operation, namely the clauses which in two places create the possibility that such things can in fact be registered or need not be registered. These are the clauses which empower the Drugs Control Council to exempt certain categories from registration. It already operates like that. The Drugs Control Council is faced with such a mass of drugs which have to be examined and registered, that it has already said that it does not want to concern itself with some of those categories for a certain period—perhaps a very long period—as it was too busy dealing with the dangerous and extremely important things. Those drugs which have been accepted as beneficial medicines may, if necessary, be given attention at a later stage. This is the first exception. In other words, in this respect one already has the position that when one has sensible people in charge of the Drugs Control Council, as I believe we have and I know we all believe we have, there will not be a sudden demand for the registration of all lesser medicines. They would simply ask themselves whether it was really necessary to register castor oil or Epsom salts. They might eventually decide that the registration of all those medicines—all those homeopathic medicines mentioned by the hon. member for Berea, as well as all the Dutch medicines— was, and now I am also speculating, perhaps not necessary.

And the herbalists’ preparations.

We shall allow it at the discretion of the Drugs Control Council. At their discretion it will be decided whether it is necessary or not. There are many herbs which may possibly have harmful effects. I know that there are herbs which Natives use which are dangerous. Therefore I am not saying all herbs and all Dutch medicines, because it is already known that some of them will have to be registered or will probably have to be registered. This is how I envisage the operation of this Bill. The problems as outlined by the hon. members for Berea and for Durban (Central) are problems which will easily be solved by the operation of this Bill itself. The hon. member for Berea raised another interesting point. The interesting point raised by him was this. He wanted to know whether the consumer would not be the one who would have to pay the extra amount levied on a drug in registration fees. I think we must admit that the consumer is the one who pays the price of the drug. This additional amount is, as he himself said, “negligible taking into consideration the millions of pills that may be sold”. It is so little, so negligible, in comparison with the enormous quantities sold that it would amount to absolutely nothing in most cases. Let us just reconsider the re-registration fees. As the hon. member said, we can estimate that it may amount to R18. This comes to R1.50 per month. R1.50 per month for a drug? And if one has regard to the enormous advertising costs in connection with the distribution and the introduction of drugs—as the hon. member for Cradock pointed out—R1.50 is so little in comparison with the advertisements themselves, that we really need not take that into account. But let us take it into account. Let us continue.

When the manufacturer conducts investigations, experiments and research in connection with a new drug, the expenditure sometimes amounts to several million rand. Part of the expenditure of the manufacturer consists of research in connection with the effectiveness and safety of the drug. I think one can almost say that one of the biggest items of expenditure of any manufacturer is to ensure that that drug will not have bad after-effects. The establishment of the Drugs Control Council is due to the very fact that manufacturers do not do their work correctly or well or botch their work. Perhaps they botch their work deliberately. Those drugs are put on our market without sufficient tests having been made. The effects have not been tested sufficiently and we are not sure whether the drugs are extremely dangerous or non-dangerous. The hon. member for Cradock reminded us of the thalidomide case. That drug had not been tested sufficiently and caused untold misery in the world. Now my argument is this. The testing of drugs which has now been forced on the Drugs Control Council is in point of fact part of the work which that firm itself should have done. In other words, it forms part of the cost of that drug. If that manufacturer had done its duty a Drug Control Council might not have been necessary at all. In that case the public would in any case have had to bear that cost. In reality it appears to me that it is only fair that the consumer of that drug should pay for everything after all.

The hon. member for Berea referred to the arguments of certain manufacturers who said that they would require a large staff to deal with the registration of drugs from the date on which the Act came into operation. But is this the position? Are their arguments in fact correct? Let us have another look at that aspect of re-registration. What does re-registration mean? An application is forwarded to the Drugs Control Council. One informs the Council that the drug investigated and registered by it the year before must be re-registered. One includes the amount of R18. This is all one does. The manufacturer makes a note in his register of the date of his application and files the letters. When his notification of re-registration arrives, that too goes into the same file. It will take one official perhaps one hour to despatch 100 such applications for re-registration. I do not think that one can accept for one moment that there are no holes to be picked in that argument advanced by our manufacturers. Then there remains a final argument advanced by the hon. member for Berea. This argument is that through the registration of drugs we are eliminating or putting and end to the small man and playing into the hands of the big man. I think he would have been quite correct if the amounts charged for registration and re-registration were excessive. According to my analysis the amounts are in fact so small that they cannot possibly have that effect. What effect would R18 per month have on Grandpa’s headache powders? I think that much more than R18 is paid for one spot broadcast on the radio in the morning.

That is the small man.

Is the manufacturer of Grandpa’s headache powders not a small man? I always thought he was. I am of the opinion therefore that we need not concern ourselves about the effect of this Bill. In my opinion it can only have the effect of improving the system—as I shall again explain at a later stage—which will be for the good of the country.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Thirty-nine Acts relating to land transactions by the State were wholly or partly repealed by the State Land Disposal Act of 1961, so that the State to-day has to rely on this Act for all its powers to dispose of land for public and general purposes. This Act also made it possible to have uniformity and smooth administration.

When this Act was passed the Land Settlement Act, 1956, was still in force, and in accordance therewith provision was made in this Act for mineral rights to be reserved when State land was alienated. The Land Settlement Act has since been repealed by the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, which places no restrictions in respect of minerals on allotments of land. It is, however, the policy to reserve the mineral rights to the State when State land is sold for farming purposes.

The prohibition on the alienation of mineral rights imposed by the State Land Disposal Act usually presents no problems, except when the land is alienated by way of exchange. As soon as the State reserved its minerals under this Act, the other party’s reaction is to do the same as regards the minerals on his land. Consequently there is nothing to be gained by having this reservation and it only entails unnecessary work and expenditure. Moreover, it obviously serves no purpose to reserve the minerals in respect of a plot, say, in Adderley Street.

Therefore it is now being proposed to lift the automatic prohibition, and then to deal with each land transaction according to the circumstances. Where there is any doubt about the mineralization of land, the minerals are simply reserved when negotiations take place.

A further provision in the State Land Disposal Act, namely the prohibition in section 2 (2) on the disposal of certain State land the disposal of which is governed by another law was also incorporated in the principal Act in view of the Land Settlement Act, 1956. This Act provided for the alienation of any land that was not deemed necessary or suitable for settlement purposes, that is to say, agricultural land could be disposed of under the Land Settlement Act, and it was therefore unnecessary to incorporate such a power in the Disposal Act as well.

In the meantime, as I have said, the Land Settlement Act has been replaced by the Agricultural Credit Act and the Land Tenure Act. The Agricultural Credit Act authorizes the Agricultural Credit Board to sell or lease State land for farming purposes by way of rendering assistance, while the Land Tenure Act provides that if land is not suitable or required for farming purposes, such land may be disposed of under the State Land Disposal Act.

In the usual course of events State land is divided up into economic farming units and only made available to farmers lacking in capital resources. However, it may happen that an expensive property has to be purchased in order to protect a State mortgage bond or that agricultural land may be utilized to greater advantage as an extension of adjacent land. Understandably some of the buyers will be well-to-do persons falling outside the category of farmers to whom the Agricultural Credit Board may render assistance.

The Agricultural Credit Act does not prohibit such a sale, but it would not be in accordance with the spirit of the Act and, moreover, there is no justification for giving such a buyer the benefit of the subsidized rate of interest of 5 per cent. As the hon. House knows, persons receiving assistance through the Agricultural Credit Board, receive such assistance at the fixed rate of 5 per cent.

It is therefore proposed to repeal the restrictive provision in the State Land Disposal Act, so that such a sale may be concluded under that Act.

If this proposal is accepted and a portion of State land is sold to a person who already owns other land, it may happen that one or both portions are uneconomic. In accordance with the policy of creating economic units as far as possible, it may then be necessary to place a prohibition on the separate alienation of the respective portions. That goes without saying. If the State assists people to get economic units, the State must take steps to prevent such separate alienation in the future. The authority to impose such a coupling condition on private lands is therefore being inserted into the Act.

It can be foreseen that circumstances may arise in which it will be desirable to separate such coupled properties, and therefore it is also being provided that the Minister may consent to such action. In case, however, it is deemed necessary to couple such uncoupled property to other land, or to impose some other restriction, the Minister is being granted the power to grant conditional consent, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law.

A further provision of the Bill deals with rights which the State has in respect of private land. On the one hand, State land is sometimes alienated subject to certain conditions, such as the provision that the land may be used for, say, recreation purposes only and that as soon as it is no longer required for such purposes, it must be transferred back to the State at the expense of the owner; or, for example, a provision that the State may at any time, with or without paying compensation, repossess the land or any portion thereof for public purposes, sometimes subject to the payment of compensation for improvements. On the other hand, the State also obtains rights in respect of private land, such as a right of way, a servitude of aqueduct, etc.

In the past the said rights have been waived or they have been amended on the assumption that the State required no statutory authority to deal with a right which it had reserved or obtained. It is, however, deemed desirable to provide specific statutory powers for such actions, and these are now being requested. In addition it is being provided that the powers which the State President has in this regard may also be delegated, as is already the case in respect of other similar powers.

We on this side of the House shall support the Bill. We feel that the measure which is being asked for here, is necessary to facilitate the administration of these laws. There is one clause which provides for the alienation of mineral rights on State-owned land. We can quite understand the example mentioned by the Minister, and it is quite in order, but we should like to have the assurance that this will not easily be applied, and that mineral rights on other State-owned land will not easily be alienated. With these few words we shall support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.