I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society was established 137 years ago. This pioneer institution is unique in that it has no shareholders and the greatest part of its profits is accordingly transferred to the reserves. However, 10 per cent of its profits are paid out every year to about 126 charitable and educational institutions such as the Universities of Stellenbosch, Cape Town and South Africa.

The Society to-day functions in terms of Act 4 of 1949, as amended by Act 15 of 1965. Up to the present the Society has not departed from its basic objects and has at all times conducted its affairs strictly in accordance with the highest traditions of banking practice. As a result of the length of time that has elapsed since the passing of Act 4 of 1949, and the drastic changes that have occurred in the methods and practice in respect of the running of a savings bank and the requirements of the Banking Act of 1965, it has become necessary to amend the constitution of the Society once again, in order to keep pace with all the changes which modern banking practice has undergone and future trends in banking.

In order to enable the Bank to occupy its rightful place in the sphere of modern banking, it has been decided to consolidate and amend the existing legislation relating to the Society.

The powers and objects as stated in clause 5 of the Bill have been formulated as widely as possible, not only to enable the Society to extend its activities, but also to eliminate the need for amending its constitution from time to time in future and also to offer its clients a greater variety of and more comprehensive services in all branches of banking. At present the Society is handicapped too much as a result of its limited powers and is consequently obliged to refer clients to other concerns for the additional services they may require.

Hon. members will notice that in the concluding paragraphs of the preamble to the Bill, the nature of the proposed amendments and the reasons therefor are set out. Therefore it is not necessary for me to repeat them here, except to add that many of the omissions of provisions of the original Act are calculated to modernize the Act, while others again are consequential amendments which proved to be necessary in order to eliminate obscurities and ambiguities. I have pleasure in moving the second reading.

The Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society has its roots deep in the history of South Africa. It was established under the governership of Sir Lowry Cole in 1831, and it has served the people of South Africa loyally and well during all of that time. It is a unique South African institution, as the hon. member for Parow has said, in that it distributes annually an amount of 10 per cent of its profits among charitable, benevolent and educational institutions. It has no shareholders and the balance of its profits, after the distribution of the 10 per cent and after provision for income tax, is put to reserve. The reserves of the bank as at the end of the last financial year, stood at over R2 million. It is in fact South Africa’s oldest savings bank and it caters particularly for the small man. At the moment there are 39,000 depositors, who have deposited in savings an amount of R17 million. Savings are invested by the bank in mortgage bonds, and the mortgage bond investments of the bank at present stand at R11.25 million, while investment in gilt-edged securities amounts to R5.25 million. I think it is interesting to record that the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank is managed by nine directors and has over 100 members who take a keen interest in its affairs.

There is a prescribed minimum of 100 members who are elected by majority vote after being proposed and seconded, but there is no other restriction on anyone becoming a member of the Society. The only qualification for membership is that they have to live within 50 miles of the City of Cape Town.

As the hon. member for Parow has said, the Savings Bank acts under Act 4 of 1949, which was passed some time ago, and it has become necessary once again to revise and amend the bank’s constitution to cope with the changes in modern banking practice and to cope with the possibility of future changes. Therefore I would say that with a bank with a record such as this, we can confidently look to support from members on both sides of the House in the passing of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

(Third Reading)

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Simonstown and all the hon. members of this House for their unanimous support of this Bill, and also to express my thanks for the opportunity which the House has afforded me to take the Bill through all its stages.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (a) its provisions do not disclose adequate plans for the economic development of the Bantu areas;
2. (b) the board of directors as provided for in the Bill will be unable to fulfil its duties and functions impartially and adequately; and
3. (c) the provision for Parliamentary control is ineffective”.

A similar amendment was moved by the hon. member for Constantia in 1959, when the original Bantu Investment Corporation Bill was introduced, and he then stated, in moving his amendment, that he regretted having to do so. I say the same thing. I regret that it is necessary for us to move an amendment at the third reading of this Bill. We had hoped to be able to co-operate with the Government and with other interested bodies in formulating and bringing to this House some plan which would be satisfactory and acceptable to us, to the Government and to economists as a whole.

We are worried, as are leading economists, Nationalist thinkers and even officials of these corporations themselves, as to the suitability of the development which is now proposed. Our concern is not that there is no development; our concern is that the development is not sufficient to meet the exigencies of the situation. The Minister himself has said that there is nothing new in this Bill; it is merely a continuation of existing conditions. The hon. the Minister said, in his reply to the second-reading debate, that it was not necessary to send this matter to a select committee because we had the existing laws to go by and we could test the efficiency of the plan by referring to the efforts of the existing corporations. We say that because of the history and the record of the existing corporations, we felt a need for the appointment of a select committee to consider this whole position.

When it was proposed to create the Bantu Investment Corporation the then Minister of Bantu Administration and Development foresaw great development ahead. He said this institution would fire the imagination of the Bantu and that they would flock to this institution with their investments. But where do they, in fact, invest? They do not invest in the Bantu Investment Corporation on nearly the same scale as they are doing with commercial banks and building societies. As a matter of fact, they are critical of the Bantu Investment Corporation; they are critical of the present system. They say it takes far too long for them to obtain loans—up to six months. In places like Umtata the Bantu are now buying properties and want loans to build. They used to be able to get loans from building societies but this has since been stopped by the building societies. Now these Bantu have to apply to the Bantu Investment Corporation, but every application has to go to Pretoria and applications are inordinately delayed. So, they are in fact not satisfied. This institution has not fired their imagination. On the contrary. The establishment of this Corporation was to bring a new era of Bantu development. When the discussions on the creation of this corporation took place in this House, the hon. member for Constantia quoted from an interview which the then Minister gave to Sondagnuus. The Minister did not at the time deny the accuracy of the report. According to that report he said—

The report then went on—

Now I want to ask, what has happened about that? Was any overseas capital in fact invested in this corporation? I should like this hon. Minister to tell us. The Minister says “No”. But such investments were in any case not necessary because as it is the Corporation has been unable to use the funds put at its disposal. According to the accounts of the two corporations they have invested moneys in Saambou and in the Nasionale Bouvereniging.

When the original legislation was introduced —I keep on referring to the original legislation because the Minister tells us that this new legislation brings nothing new—the then hon. member for Springs forecast that the Minister would have to come back to this House to amend the provisions of that legislation because the legislation would not give satisfaction. Well, it did happen in fact, because a few years later we had the Bantu Homelands Development Corporations Bill and now we have this Bill.

One of the objections to our suggestion that money, free money as opposed to Government money, should be allowed in is that it will lead to large concentrations of white people in the reserves. But I want to say that if any development in whatever respect is to take place at all there shall have to be concentrations of white people. What is happening to Umtata at the moment? It is whiter than it has ever been. As a matter of fact, there are insufficient houses to house the Whites and as a result the Government has to put up prefabs and is now going to build another block of 20 houses. So, there are insufficient houses for the white people because of the development that is taking place there. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education keeps on asking us—I do not know why he repeats this particular question—whether we shall allow O.K. Bazaars to go to Umtata. Well, why should O.K. Bazaars not be allowed to go to Umtata? Volkskas has gone there. And that is not all. Other chain stores have established themselves in Umtata. Even a printing press has established itself there after the Transkei was given self-government. This printing press forms a branch of Nasionale Pers. The Nasionale Boekhandel has now got a subsidiary in Umtata. So, there is nothing wrong in these people going there. Provision has been made for them to go there. They buy or hire properties in the white areas. If this is so, what then is so wrong about O.K. Bazaars going there? Why should the hon. the Deputy Minister single out this particular undertaking? I say that these other undertakings, undertakings closely connected with the Government, would not have gone there if it was not necessary for them to go there and if there was no opportunity of making a profit. Do Government members want to suggest that these undertakings have gone to Umtata to exploit the Bantu people? Is the Afrikaanse Pers going to exploit the Bantu? Is the Nasionale Boekhandel going there to exploit the Bantu? Is Volkskas going there to exploit the Bantu? You see, Sir, it is absolute nonsense to talk as Government members do on this matter.

In terms of clause 24 of this Bill the Minister will control the boards of these corporations. Although we do not like this clause we have not opposed it in the Committee Stage. We did not do it, for an obvious reason. On an earlier clause we had moved that the Controller and Auditor-General be authorized to audit the accounts and books of these corporations, but that was turned down. That being so, we could only accept the only other form of control offered by this Bill, i.e. that the Minister will have the power to act on behalf of the trustee and can interfere in all matters. That being so, we can hold him responsible and bring him to account in this House where matters have gone wrong. It is because the clause contained this possibility for the exercise of some form of control that we accepted it. But nevertheless we say it is wrong for the Minister to take these powers. He may force the boards to act in a way he wants them to act; he can stop development if he wants to; or he can force them into development which they may regard as unprofitable.

As we have said, we want development, but we want development on a proper scale. It is no good suggesting to us that the scale of development must be in keeping with the ability of the Bantu to absorb that development. That is absolute nonsense. The Minister, for instance, says that there must first be human development, that agricultural development goes with human development or vice versa. But, as I see it, there can be no agricultural development on any scale at all under the present system of land tenure. We have debated this point in this House already. We say that in order to get proper agricultural development the entire system of land tenure will have to be changed. Those Bantu living on uneconomic holdings will have to be taken off. But that cannot be done unless other work is provided for them, work in industries for instance. They shall have to be accommodated elsewhere when taken off the land. So we say that if human development is to go together with agricultural development that there will be no human development either. We, as I say, wish to help. Our past experience has proved that the proposals of the Government are a failure. We want to inspan all the human resources at our disposal in the development of these areas. Dedication, as I have said before, is not enough. Why could we not send this matter to a select committee? Why can we not consult with other people? Why can we not consult with economists and others? After all, the Prime Minister found it necessary to appoint another board of advisers for him when he appointed his Economic Advisory Council. We want to stress again that our fundamental objection to this Bill is the lack of control that Parliament will have over the money which is to be expended. Millions are going to be expended there. Mr. De Wet Nel spoke of towns the size of Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban being built in the reserves. If that is so, Sir, who is going to build them? Where is the money going to come from? We will have to supply the money. We will have to furnish the money, Parliament will have to give it and we ourselves will not be able to control this money which we will give. We do not like either the attitude of this Minister or that of other hon. members on his side who say that this development will take place and they will carry out their policy no matter what the cost.

I am not going to suggest that the Minister is going to squander the money wittingly, or that the directors are going to do that. I am not suggesting that for one minute. But, Sir, in any big organization of this nature, if there is to be any proper planning at all, there is a variety of types of people employed. They are not all honest. They are not all free from corruption. The Minister will know that, and he will know that he has an added difficulty in assuring that he gets the right people into all his corporations to assist him …

Who are not all honest?

I say all the people that you will have to employ may not be honest.

On the board?

No, I said not the board. The Minister is not listening.

No, I want to get clarity.

I said the Minister and the board will not wittingly waste the money, but they have to employ a large staff.

In that large staff everybody is not going to be honest or free from corruption.

Is that not a universal phenomenon?

That is the point. It is a universal phenomenon. That is what I am saying. The Minister cannot understand it. That is just what I am trying to point out.

I want to go further. The Minister is going to be handicapped in getting the right people to work for him because of the manpower shortage. He knows that there is such a manpower shortage to-day and it is difficult to get the right people. He is going to suffer from those difficulties as well. We say with the best of intentions there may be wastage of money in these organizations. The public are not investing in these organizations on a voluntary basis. They are not rushing forward to invest their money, to negotiate loans and that sort of thing. The money is coming from the taxpayer. He does not give it voluntarily. We take it from him by force and we give it to these organizations. Therefore we should be in the position to see to it that their money is not being wasted. Under the present system we will not have that opportunity. We have referred to other accounts—for instance the S.A.B.C. accounts. We have referred to the present accounts before us and to what little information is before us. But we have had experience of what happens if the Auditor-General examines the books and makes the reports. Then we have every opportunity in the select committee of getting all those people before us, to come and give an explanation and to give an account of their stewardship.

Now the hon. the Minister and others ask why did we not make some provision for that in 1940 when we established the I.D.C. I want to say that the I.D.C., as it is to-day, is quite a different body from what it was in 1940. The constitution of the body has been changed many times. It is now doing things which we never anticipated in 1940. But, Sir, we have learnt our lesson because of what has happened to these organizations. We have over the years, for at least 15 years, been trying to get a select committee or some body appointed to scrutinize the activities of these different associations. So, I say that the hon. the Minister must not say, because in 1940 we established the I.D.C. without the Auditor-General’s audit, that we must now do the same. We have to learn and profit by experience. That is why we want to take steps now to see that we do not make the same mistakes again.

Sir, we are not satisfied that this Bill is the foundation for the necessary development of the reserves and we are not satisfied that this Parliament will have proper control of the funds which we are to give to this organization. Therefore I move my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, during the second-reading debate and again now the Opposition raised two objections to these measures. The latest one, which they also emphasized heavily yesterday, is the “socalled parliamentary control”. I am also using that term because parliamentary control ought to be exclusively associated with money which has been appropriated by this House. This measure does not only make provision for money which will be spent from funds which are appropriated by this House, but for money from many private undertakings as well. It would probably be the most unprecedented development in the history of parliamentary control if control should be exercised over private undertakings and interests, something which has never occurred anywhere in South Africa. I take second place to none in this House who plead for parliamentary control, but then it should be in regard to matters for which money has been appropriated by this House for specific purposes, when that money has subsequently not been spent for those purposes. This is not the case here. That is why the Opposition’s objections are altogether wide of the mark. They think to make a popular slogan out of it. They think that if one has parliamentary control over these matters, this will carry weight with the nation. The money which is being spent is not being appropriated exclusively by this House. That is why I cannot see any sense in having parliamentary control over money which belongs to private individuals as well. I should just like to repeat one point which the hon. member for Heilbron raised yesterday. Would the hon. gentleman be satisfied to have their income-tax forms and those private accounts of major undertakings who will have a share in this if they have their own way, gone through by the Auditor-General? Of course they will not want to do so. It is merely, and remains, a political slogan and nothing else. That argument falls quite flat—let me just deal with it finally—because it is not only money which has been appropriated by this House which is being spent. That is why one cannot have parliamentary control over it. I hope the hon. gentlemen who were guilty of such nonsensical arguments will now abandon them. The hon. member who has just spoken and who also introduced the debate from his side the other day, said that the United Party was in favour of homeland development but not of the methods which the Government were applying. Before I deal with the methods, I should just like to refer you to the radical difference between the purpose of homeland development as seen from the Opposition side and the purpose of the Government. The Government maintains that development of the homelands should be to the sole advantage of the inhabitants of the homelands. It is the standpoint of the Government that because they are homelands the homelands should be developed to the exclusive advantage of the Bantu. The Opposition maintains that they also want to develop the homelands, but their principle condition is that the homelands can and may only be developed if the development will mean that the areas will become an E1 Dorado for outside investors. That is their condition. There is therefore a tremendous difference between the aims of the Government and those of the Opposition. The Government maintains that it should also be possible for the inhabitants of the homelands to make contributions because what is taking place here is the upliftment and development of their geographical area, of their own homelands. Because they are resident there, all their institutions must develop and expand there, because these belong to them. On the other hand the United Party maintains that this is all very well but they do not want it, they will oppose it if the areas cannot be converted into an E1 Dorado for major capital investors.

What did the Tomlinson Commission state?

I will not allow myself to be led astray by that nonsensical remark. I shall emphasize this point over and over again, i.e. that the slogan which the United Party is now making is that they want to develop the homelands, but that they should be pleasure gardens where financial demigods and exploiters can reign supreme. In this respect the United Party differs from the Government. The country must be carefully informed that this slogan of the United Party means that the Bantu homelands will not be homelands in the true sense of the word. It will not be possible for the Bantu to live happily in their own homelands. The United Party is desirous that the homelands should be an E1 Dorado, a rich and pleasant country where major capital investors can exploit the people. [Interjections.] Yes, the name they mentioned there is one of many. If that side were to have their way, not only the O.K. Bazaars, which they are so eager to admit there, will move into the homelands but many other undertakings will also exploit the homelands and undertake development only in order to skim off the cream for the outside investor while the Bantu will have to remain for ever subordinate and ultimately succumb economically because they are not receiving the cream but only the watered-down dregs. The major investors, the people for whom hon. members on the opposite side feel such concern, will skim off all the cream of the homelands.

The Hoggenheimers.

Yes, Hoggenheimers. After all, he is that side’s boss. He is the man who gave the United Party £4 million in 1953 with which to fight the election, and they still suffered a worse defeat than ever before. He is the United Party’s boss, he is the man for whom that side is really pleading. It is his condition, nobody else’s. Yes, Hoggenheimer is the man. When he was still in this House he stated from the opposite side that he had given the United Party £4 million. Of that amount £800,000 disappeared which that side could not account for. He said it there. I am saying it to the hon. member for Hillbrow so that he can remember it.

Order! Would the hon. member please return to the Bill? The hon. member must discuss the Bill.

Hon. members on the opposite side came forward with their motions …

Order! It is the task of the Chair to stop them from doing so.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but those hon. gentlemen introduced a motion here. What their motion really signifies is that that same man who gave them that £4 million must now be allowed into the Transkei. That is what their motion really amounts to. We know only too well what the true plan of that side is.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, you have already spoken on many occasions and in any case I know that you want to ask a nonsensical question. I know the hon. member. He is full of nonsense this morning because he knows that his entire argument is nonsensical. Now he wants to come forward with nonsensical questions as well, and I simply do not have time for that now. The basic reason why the United Party is adopting this particular attitude is because they are still somewhat indebted to their boss who gave them £4 million in 1953. I think he informed them that he would now like some of his interests still due and that they should discuss the matter along these lines. After all, this is a rich and pleasant country, and once the Government has finished developing the infrastructure, the country will be nicely ready and he simply wants to walk in there to derive the benefit of this infrastructure.

Where is this infrastructure.

I cannot show the hon. member but the hon. member need only drive through there in his shiny motor car, he and the people who received that £4 million, and they will see what tremendous expenditure has already been incurred in developing the infrastructure in the Transkeian area as well as in other areas. The hon. members should go and have a look at the fine roads which have been constructed there. They must go and have a look at the dams and the water and all those developments. All these things have already been done, but the bosses of their menials on the opposite side would not have spent a penny of that £4 million on the infrastructure. That they would not have done. But now that the Government has done so much in that respect, they would also like to see the areas being developed. They are also saying that they would very much like to develop the areas, but they stipulate certain conditions. But this side will not concede those conditions. Our condition is homeland development to the advantage of the Bantu and not the advantage of those “boys” who received the £4 million in 1953. [Interjections.] The hon. member should not be uneasy now because that side, according to what the former member for Kimberley (City) said, cannot give an account of that £800,000. That side is preaching so many sermons, they are pleading so seriously, and it is time the people outside knew why they are acting in this way.

I now want to say a few things about the methods to which the hon. member is objecting so much. The hon. member complained that there was no work for Bantu in the homelands. What tasks are awaiting the investment corporations? Let me mention a few and then the hon. member must just try and reassert that these projects will not supply any work. Their task will be to inaugurate industrial, commercial, financial, mining and other businesses and undertakings. What person in his right mind will assert that these projects will not provide work on a considerable scale? This is the objective; this is one of the tasks which will have to be fulfilled there. What is also being envisaged is to lend assistance in inauguration and expansion to Bantu persons in the Bantu homelands. That side is objecting to this. It is one of the methods they do not like. They do not want the Bantu to be helped. No, an aldorado must be created there for white investors from outside the areas. That is the condition of the hon. gentleman on the opposite side. They do not want opportunities to be created for the Bantu there. They want white capital to be invested there so that they can go and erect their shops there and establish their exploitationist undertakings there. What is also being envisaged is to benefit and to develop projects. Will that not supply work? The hon. member who represents the Transkei in this House has stated that he is opposed to methods of that kind. This is one of the methods he is objecting to, and it is a method for which this Bill is making specific provision. Sir, that hon. member must not sit there and turn pale now. The Bill also makes provision for “capital provision and instruction”. That is for the Bantu, but the hon. member does not want it. They want white investors to have the opportunity of making large profits.

But after all you were always a socialist.

Another method for which this Bill is making provision is to purchase land and buildings, but the hon. gentleman is objecting to that as well.

Where did I say that?

The hon. member stated that he was opposed to the methods. Is that not one of the methods? [Interjections.] I think I am normal; I feel normal, but it seems to me the hon. member there is not normal. But I shall proceed. The hon. member stated that there was no work for the Bantu. Here the Bill is making specific provision for the training of the Bantu, but he is opposed to that. The Bill states explicitly that that will be one of the tasks of this corporation. The Bill is making provision for the provision of labour to the Bantu, but the hon. member is opposed to that. He must not distort his own words. He began his main attack —and this is how all the newspapers in South Africa reported him—by saying that he objected to the methods which are being applied; I am now quoting to him from the Bill what methods are going to be applied, and he has turned pale; he is disconcerted at his own words.

In terms of this Bill it will be possible to lend out money without security, but that the hon. member does not want. No, one must not lend money to the Bantu. No, only Hoggenheimer should have the right to invest money in the Bantu homelands.

No, not Hoggenheimer —the Broederbond.

The Bill is making specific provision for the Corporation to act as an agent. The hon. the Minister emphasized repeatedly under what conditions white capital could be invested in the homelands. It will be possible for the corporation to act as an agent here. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I should just like to know from you whether you gave me leave to speak, or someone else?

The hon. member may proceed.

You gave me leave to speak, Sir, but there is another hon. gentleman here who wants to take the words out of my mouth. In the days when I was “Speaker” I saw to it that only the man who had been given leave to speak, spoke and nobody else. The Bill is making specific provision that the corporation can act in a protective capacity in the interests of Bantu development, so that the development of the Bantu homelands will not be left to the mercy and the abuses of investors who are under no control. The hon. member is opposed to it being possible for the corporation to employ officials, but he is asking for land to be purchased for housing for them. He objected to the appointment of officials there, and this is one of the methods for which the Bill is making specific provision. He came forward here with the plea that houses should be built there. For whom must the houses be built? The white officials whom he does not want to see appointed there? He is against the methods, and this is one of the methods of developing the homelands. The Bill makes provision for the corporation to inaugurate, launch and plan any project which is conducive to the development of the Bantu homelands, but that the hon. member for Transkei does not want. No, the Transkei should only be developed in the interests of overseas and foreign capital investors.

Mr. Speaker, we come now to another matter in regard to which hon. members on that side also made a terrible blunder. They are always telling people outside that they are just as eager as we are to see the 1936 Act being implemented, and that they are just as proud as we are of that Act, but here the hon. member for Transkei, as well as the hon. member for South Coast, came forward and stated that it should be possible to purchase land in the Bantu homelands for Whites. If it is possible for one to purchase land in the Bantu homelands with a view to establishing Whites there, what is going to happen tomorrow or the day after; must one allow a major white complex to develop there again which will subsequently have to be bought out? I want to ask the Opposition whether it is political honesty to say that they adhere to the 1936 Act? Where can one find a more cunning method of disabling the 1936 Act than to go and make another act in which one makes provision for it being possible to purchase land for Whites in the Bantu homelands again? Sir, have you ever heard of a more cunning tactic in your entire life? Is it any wonder that South Africa sometimes has such a terribly bad name overseas? If South Africa is at this stage earning a bad name overseas then it is because those hon. members go overseas and announce their policy there. It is then interpreted as being the white policy of South Africa, for then the people overseas say: “You adopted an Act in 1936 in terms of which so much land would be placed at the disposal of the Bantu, and now you are buying that land up. What is now to become of the 1936 quota?” Sir, have you ever seen a more cunning method of blackening South Africa’s name overseas and of creating the wrong impression in the outside world? Since 1936 we have been purchasing one piece of land after another in order to make up the full quota of land for the Bantu. Here the United Party are coming forward to-day and they want us to pass an Act which will enable us to invest white capital in the Bantu areas again and to make white land tenure possible. Can you think of anything which would give South Africa a worse name than doing this? If we were to do this, people abroad would tell us: “You passed an Act in 1936 to purchase so much land for the Bantu; it was not the Bantu who made that Act; it was the white man who made it, and now when you have to implement that Act you are so dishonest that you are purchasing pieces of land for the Whites again.” [Interjections.] Sir, when hon. members of the Opposition have been exposed, they take refuge in this kind of tactic; they pretend to be sensitive in regard to this matter. Do you find it strange, Sir, that the public today has no confidence whatsoever left in the so-called attitude which is being adopted by the Opposition. They have been adopting this attitude on the Witwatersrand as well. There, too, they have pleaded time and again for the Bantu to be allowed to own land. The Opposition wants it to be possible for the white man to purchase land in the Bantu areas, and in turn it must be possible for the Bantu to purchase land in the white area. They want to make integration a reality in every possible sphere, territorial, political and industrial. In every possible way they are endeavouring to make integration a real policy in South Africa. But these things as well will be tested again from time to time. It will again be possible to test the will of the nation in this respect.

I therefore maintain that since the Government is coming forward with this measure today—if you look at the Minister’s speech— you will see that it contains volumes in regard to the prospects for tremendous developments which we foresee within a short period of time, so that a day will come when there will no longer be such an insistent nagging in regard to the rate of development in the homelands. This measure is making provision for efficient development, and not only for development, but for the protection of that development. To my mind it is of fundamental importance that we afford protection for that development, so that a process of integration will not in future take place, where Whites can purchase land in the Bantu areas and the Bantu in the White. Let me say that if the Opposition intends proceeding with their plea in allowing development in the homelands to take place only on condition that it can serve as an Eldorado and an area of exploitation for their investors, they will once more, as in the past, be rejected.

One last word about the hon. member for Houghton. If the insinuations in the Press reports are correct, then there are many signs that she intends joining the National Party. [Laughter.] I want to make the road easy for her. I want to mention the example of a great man, Churchill. When he was asked “But what did you say when you were a member of the Labour Party?” he replied: “Oh, I said many silly things when I was a member of the Labour Party, and I became tired of saying silly things and I decided to stop saying silly things.” Well then, if the hon. member wants me to make the road easy for her, I can only say to her: “Stop saying silly things and you will find the road quite easy and very broad.”

The hon. member for Krugersdorp has been providing us with pleasant entertainment for 25 minutes, but it was very difficult for me to make out what the content of his speech was. However, he tried to intimate that the attitude we on this side were adopting was to allow the Oppenheimers to enter the homeland areas and become exploiters there for their own advantage. But surely that is not true. Is it not true that the Government itself asked Mr. Oppenheimer to investigate the area near Mount Ayliff with regard to the mining industry? The Government issued that invitation itself, but now the hon. member is saying that it is the policy of the United Party which will lead to those people in the homelands being exploited.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp ought to realize that if there are industrialists and businessmen who are interested in the Bantu areas, they will not be confined to people who are against the Government. I want to refer the hon. member again to an article which appeared in Volkshandel. There they stated very explicitly, under the headline “White Capital and Initiative for the Bantu Homelands”, that (translation)—

These are the Afrikaans businessmen, members of the public who are supposed to be favourably disposed towards the Government’s attitude. They themselves state that the role the Bantu Investment Corporation can play is a limited one, but if one allows the Whites with their capital and initiative to enter, one will have expansion because they will have to protect their interests there. Is the hon. member for Krugersdorp also prepared to label those people as Oppenheimers? He stated that we are advocating this policy because we are indebted to the Oppenheimers to the tune of millions of rands; we owe them R8 million or R20 million, but I am now asking to what extent that Party is indebted to the Afrikaans Oppenheimers? Or are they stating this matter as they have stated it in the Volkshandel because they regard it to be in the interests of South Africa that the Bantu areas should be developed, as hon. members on this side also view the matter? But according to that hon. member, all who are sitting on this side and the businessmen and industrialists who support us are only prepared to enter that area because we want to have dividends and make profits, but we are not interested in what becomes of the Bantu. If one wants to support legislation such as this, as well as that which was piloted through this Parliament nine years ago—and in his reply to the second reading the hon. the Minister stated emphatically that there was nothing new in this Bill—against what background must we support it? After all, we must support it against the background of the success which hon. members on the opposite side have had with that legislation. But what success have they had? The hon. the Minister told us of the small measure of success they had had, the few contours, the few garages and the dams, etc., which they had constructed there and the businessmen and the technical staff which they had in due course obtained, but surely it means absolutely nothing. In 1959 the hon. the Minister—he was at that time not yet Minister— said in this House (Hansard, volume 99, column 692)—

Let us now see what the hon. the Minister and his Government have done in this regard during the past nine years. Is the hon. the Minister justified in asking us to support this legislation on the grounds of what they have achieved in this sphere during the past nine years? Where are the monuments they have erected in this sphere? Can they state that they have kept tens of thousands of Bantu in their homelands, that they have established scores of new industries, or that scores of business undertakings have been taken over by the Bantu? Can they boast of this? No. For ten years they have had the opportunity of utilizing the initiative of the Bantu to the benefit of the Bantu themselves, but with what results? Nothing to be proud of. And you must remember, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Minister said in regard to this legislation that it really contained nothing new. Now this hon. Minister and the Government come along and inform us that the development of the Bantu homelands is for them a serious matter. Surely this does not tally with the facts. They have had the Magna Carta for the development of Bantu homelands in their hands for ten years and have accomplished nothing with it. Now they are asking us to support them! We cannot do so because they have achieved nothing over the past ten years. All that has happened is that an increasing number of Bantu are still making their way to the white homelands to find a livelihood there.

Let me refer the hon. the Minister to a speech made by Professor Page, professor of regional planning at the University of Stellenbosch. Last year in September he had the following to say at Clanwilliam in regard to border industries (translation)—

The border industries near Pretoria, Durban and East London are extremely successful points of growth. At present a local removal of factories from these cities is taking place, but it is clear that the underdeveloped areas, under which the Bantu homelands fall, will not benefit by this development.

In other words, the Bantu are not benefiting by the development in their homelands. How are they going to benefit now if the Minister only intends continuing in the same way they have done over the past ten years without their having achieved any appreciable results? Under the circumstances we on this side of the House do not have overmuch confidence in this legislation. It does not go far enough. Sir …

… I do not know what more I can say!

Because that hon. member is the chief information officer of the National Party, he need not think that he has a monopoly of knowledge. I maintain that this legislation is merely an attempt to placate supporters of that side of the House outside because they are impatient that such an extremely small measure of progress has been made in the homelands. Hence this legislation which is being held up to them as a new method of setting development in the Bantu homelands in motion. Those people outside are undoubtedly dissatisfied because development in the homelands is too slow. But this legislation will not satisfy them either; it will not bluff them. The Government has a number of problems in this regard. Only largescale development in the Bantu homelands will create enough suction power to draw the Bantu back to the Bantu areas from the white areas. We find it inexplicable that the Government has not yet allowed white capital into the homelands. Another problem is that generous utilization of the tax-payer’s money has never been a popular way of setting development in motion.

But I should like to know how development of some magnitude—and I emphasize magnitude—can take place with more Government officials? For if the Minister wants to put this legislation into effect it would require a tremendous Government Department, that is if he wants to bring about economic development of any magnitude in the Bantu homelands. We are entitled to ask this, particularly if we bear in mind what has been achieved, or rather, what has not been achieved, over the past nine years. All right-minded South Africans agree that there should be development in the homelands. But if this development has to take place merely as a result of an attempt by the State, it will never be achieved. The Minister does not have the necessary manpower, nor can he offer the necessary degree of competition to private initiative in order to find the right people and set large-scale developments in motion. We say that an attempt on the part of the State alone to set development in the Bantu homelands in motion will not succeed. On the contrary. The pressure on our white cities will become greater unless the Government is prepared to accept the motion made by this side of the House, that is, to allow white capital and initiative into those areas.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Hon. members will be aware of the uncertainty which exists in the financial markets of the world, leading, inter alia, to the closing of the London Stock Exchange to-day and to the prohibition of dealings in foreign exchange by British banks.

These events might cause great uncertainty and speculation in South Africa too. In order to avoid unnecessary disruption, the Government has decided that the Johannesburg Stock Exchange will be closed to-day. No stockbroker and no dealer in stocks and shares may to-day buy or sell or otherwise deal in any stocks or shares, whether on behalf of another person or not.

Furthermore, no bank or other authorized dealer in exchange may enter into or conclude any gold or foreign exchange transactions today or to-morrow.

The necessary proclamation will be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, if anything has once again been clearly revealed by the discussion of this Bill, it is the difference between the policy of the Government and that of the Opposition in regard to our Bantu affairs.

Just before the hon. member for Newton Park resumed his seat, he dropped this remark, i.e. that they cannot support the legislation and that it cannot succeed unless the Government accepts that white know-how and initiative should develop the homelands. In the course of this debate we have learned in various ways how that white capital, know-how and initiative should be applied in the homelands. I asked the hon. member for Transkei by way of an interjection—I hope he is not going far away, because in the course of my speech I should like to deal with him—how that white capital and initiative should be applied in the homelands. Should it be on a free basis, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout intimated here? He then stated: “No, control.” I then asked him what control should then be exercised over white capital and know-how to which he replied that they should not own land. That is the only control which the hon. member is prescribing that his Party will exercise over the industrialist, the person undertaking mining ventures there, or businessmen of whatever kind. There will simply be no land tenure. For the rest capital investment there will be unrestricted.

No, no.

It was also indicated here that the profits should all accrue to that investor. Now the hon. member for East London (City) is saying “No, no”. He can inform us later on as to the way in which they want to utilize the profits there, and what share the Bantu will have in those profits made within the homelands.

But, Sir, before I elaborate further on the difference in policy between the two parties, I would just like to deal with a few matters which the hon. member for Newton Park mentioned here. Inter alia, the hon. member stated here that if these measures which have been applied, i.e. the Act which established the Bantu Investment Corporation in 1959 and the Act which established the Development Corporation in 1965 were a success, the Minister should after ten years—it is not even ten years but we shall leave it at that—really have been able to display monuments of success. But there are monuments which can be displayed. But the United Party also governed, and for much longer. The hon. member for Transkei boasted here the other day of what methods they followed in developing the Bantu homelands. He mentioned here that they had even utilized the know-how and knowledge of overseas advisers, and that with these means, with that knowledge and advice, they would have continued developing the area. I do not want to do him an injustice. I wrote down his words here. He then said: “We failed, but our prognosis will prove true”. That is all they are able to show after all those years. They had one little monument, namely Good Hope Textiles at Zwelitsha near King William’s Town, and that was in a sad state of affairs when this Government took over and we continued with border industries on a sounder basis. No, Sir, if there are people who have failed to make a success of homeland development, then they are sitting on that side of the House, despite their policy of free white capital, know-how and initiative, in order to develop those homelands. Even if we were to comply with those conditions which the hon. member for Transkei laid down, i.e. that there should be no land tenure, what assurance do we have that the Bantu there are going to derive any benefit other than that they will become the employees of those who are going to invest their capital there? According to what we have heard from the United Party in the debates over the past few days, we have had to infer that it is their standpoint that the industrialist or the investor should also go and invest there on a free basis, the only exception being that they may not own land. Then the profit is all theirs. I say that, if there is a discussion which revealed the difference between the policies of the two parties, then it has been the discussion of this Bill up to its third reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. Deputy Minister a question: If the Government has applied its policy and it has shown no results, is it not time it amended its policy?

But, Sir, that is what I was explaining to the hon. member and the Opposition, i.e. that the policy which has been applied, has achieved successes and that by means of this legislation we are building on this in order to increase the successes. I also pointed out that the policy which hon. members advocate has already been applied and that its lack of success has been proved time and again. Hon. members on the opposite side have, after all, admitted that lack of success. How can the hon. member ask me this question now, i.e. what proof is there of the success that has been achieved? If ever it was proved that the policy of the United Party had failed, including the policy which they are now advocating for the development of the Bantu homelands, then that proof was furnished up to and including 1948 during the period in which their policy was being applied.

I would still like to make this remark for the benefit of the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member should not always want to belittle what has been done in the Bantu homelands. There is not one of us on this side of the House who would say—and I want to use the following words with the consent of the hon. member for Krugersdorp—that Eldorado’s have been established there. But to say each time: “You can only show a few dams, only a few grass strips, a few grazing camps, only one little factory here and there” is being nothing else but derogatory. No, Sir, great progress has already been made with the development of the homelands. But the progress will have to be even greater and the rate will have to be accelerated. That is what we propose. The rate will also be accelerated by means of this legislation which is now before this House. It is for that purpose that this legislation was introduced, i.e. to accelerate the rate, to establish more corporations. Hon. members must not ask us here to amend the legislation because the Bantu Investment Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation and corporations in other homelands have been a failure. If they have been a failure, why should we then, through this legislation, retain the implications of those two Acts which created the Bantu corporations? Why are we retaining the Xhosa Development Corporation? Why is it making provision for the creation of additional development corporations for other ethnic units? No, Sir, the proof of the successes which have already been achieved by former legislation and through these existing corporations are embodied in this legislation because these corporations are being retained. The hon. member quoted here that somebody is alleged to have said that homelands are deriving no benefit from the development which is taking place on the borders as a result of the establishment of border industries. The hon. member can quote that statement of the learned man, but I think the results prove just the opposite. The Bantu who are earning their money on the border are also benefiting the Bantu in the heart of the homelands. With this legislation we are not discussing the benefits of border industries. This legislation now before the House is aimed at promoting development within the homelands themselves. The hon. member is accepting in advance that the Government will fail because of the lack of necessary man-power. He stated that the developments which will have to take place will have to be done by officials only. It is correct that officials of the B.I.C. and of the various development corporations for the various nations will be utilized. There will also be officials of the corporations to be established. However, there will also be experts in this field, i.e. directors of the B.I.C., the boards, as well as the advisory boards, who will gradually be trained to acquire knowledge. Those peoples’ knowledge will be put to use. The hon. member came to a different conclusion simply because those peoples’ knowledge will be put to use. I do not know whether the hon. member’s facts are correct, but he implied that it was this side of the House which had wanted to benefit Mr. Oppenheimer and had invited him to do certain things.

Oppenheimer was employed at Insizwa, as the Minister will tell you.

Well, we believe Mr. Oppenheimer has a sound knowledge of mining matters in particular, and it is very typical of this Government to make use of Mr. Oppenheimer’s knowledge, know-how and initiative. He will be the type of man, together with other people who also have that knowledge, who will be able to serve on a board and will be able to give instruction and convey the technical knowledge they have to benefit the development of the Bantu homelands. It will take place on that basis. The difference between our policy and the policy of that side has been emphasized here repeatedly.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to drag in the name of a very important industrialist here across the floor of this House. I am not doing so because I have no respect for him. In fact, I have the greatest respect for his knowledge and know-how in this field. I am using his name because the hon. member has already, in his speech, dragged his name into this debate.

It was in reply to what an hon. member on the Government side had said.

I do not want to belittle the gentleman in any way. I only want to point out that people who have the necessary knowledge can be utilized in our development programme for the Bantu homelands. The difference between our approach and that of the opposite side is that the Opposition want to give those people vested rights in the homelands, rights which the Bantu will not be able to utilize, rights which will ultimately have to be acquired again on behalf of the Bantu.

I do not want to go into the same aspect which the hon. member for Krugersdorp dealt with. However, I want to point out that as regards our policy we agree that white capital and white know-how must be utilized and harnessed in order to develop the Bantu homelands. However, it must take place to the advantage of the Bantu themselves. No vested white interests must be allowed into the homelands. For the same reason it is our policy that the Bantu should have no vested interests in the white homelands.

How are you going to use the capital of the Whites in the homelands?

At least let me finish this argument: I shall then reply to the hon. member. The United Party’s standpoint is that the capital of the Whites must be invested to the benefit of the Whites. It must be invested in the homelands to the benefit and profit of the Whites. In the same breath that side maintains that the Bantu should also have the right to enjoy proprietary rights in the white areas. They must be allowed to have businesses here. They must be allowed to have vested interests here. That is why I say that the debate on this legislation has indicated once again how far the two parties differ in respect of their approach to the development of the Bantu. This side repeatedly emphasized separate development, a process which is conducive to increasing separation. On the other hand it has become clear that the Opposition standpoint amounts to this: They desire less separation and more common interests, which will end in integration. Certain hon. members on the opposite side became hot under the collar the other day when we said that their policy implied integration. I do not to-day want to state that the United Party policy is one of integration, if they do not like that. But the system they want to harness in order to develop the Bantu homelands can only result in an increase in integration between the various Coloured groups.

We are dealing here with the Bantu areas, and not with the white areas.

I have in fact pointed out the difference between this side and that side as regards the approach to development in the Bantu areas. I also pointed out the difference in our approach as regards rights which Bantu in the white areas should or should not obtain. I do not think the hon. member followed my entire argument; otherwise he would certainly not have made that interjection. Perhaps the hon. member was a little late in coming into this House.

I want to return to a few remarks made here by the hon. member for Transkei. He referred to the hon. the Minister’s speech where the Minister stated that the development must keep pace with human development. The Minister also said that agricultural development is one of the first stages, not only of the development of the homelands, but also of human development. When that was said hon. members on this side said “Oh, that is all nonsense —do the job”. They say the work must be proceeded with, factories must be established, the mines must produce, development in the agricultural sphere must take place, irrigation dams must be built, fencing must be put up, camps must be made, irrigation schemes must be laid out, etc. Greater intellects than those sitting on the opposite side have pointed out that development will mean absolutely nothing if it does not keep pace with human development as well. I want to quote something I mentioned last Friday morning in the Other Place. I was then quoting from a report drawn up by Professor Van Wyk of the Fore Hare University College, when he went to institute an investigation into agricultural development, at the request of the Lesotho Government. That learned professor reaffirmed in his introductory remarks that development is a hopeless failure if it does not keep pace with human development, i.e. if men cannot absorb it. Sir, if there is any party that ought to know how essential it is that development should keep pace with human development, then it ought to be the Party sitting on the Opposition side. Surely they know that they achieved no success with their planning. They know that their officials did not always have the right to explain to people how essential it was to build a dipping trough, and where a dipping trough had in fact been built, it was often destroyed.

You are talking nonsense now.

No, I am not talking nonsense. It has been proved that wherever human development does not keep pace with his physical development, it has been a failure. This professor and others have repeatedly pointed out that human development must keep pace with physical development, otherwise that physical development goes by the board. The hon. member stated here that there was no possibility for agricultural development as long as the present system of land tenure continued. The system of land tenure among the Bantu, as the hon. member knows as well as I do, differs from one tribe to another and from one nation to another and from one place to another, but in the majority of cases land tenure is communal. I do not think the Bantu are very keen to renounce that system of communal land tenure, but the Bantu are in fact inclined to accept planning. I want to admit candidly here that it is not always so easy to get them to accept planning, but progress is being made there as well, so much so that practically half of the Bantu area has already been planned. That planning entails that a limited number of people will remain in a specific area, even though the system is one of tribal ownership. Only a limited number of tribal members remain on the land and the others go to the border industries which we have already created and to the homeland industries which are to be created and to businesses such as those the hon. the Minister mentioned in his speech.

Where are they in the Transkei?

That hon. member ought to know.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

I wish to move the motion as printed in my name—

1. (1) disintegration of family life;
2. (2) increase in crime;
3. (3) restrictions on economic opportunity;and
4. (4) inadequate provision for education.

Mr. Speaker, you will realize that this is an enormous subject which I am going to attempt to cover in a very short time. I have here a volume of Butterworth’s “Consolidated Legislation”, I have received several of these volumes since they were issued, and this is the only one which has one subject-title only. It is entitled very simply, “Bantu”. Every other volume that I have received covers anything from six to 12 subjects. The African has been so specially selected for legislation by this House that this entire volume of laws is concentrated on the Bantu only. If one adds to this volume all our common law, which also, of course, applies to Africans, and all the other statutory laws which also all apply to Africans, with the exception, of course, of the laws which apply specifically to Coloureds and Indians only, one can well realize that the South African African is probably the most legislated-against creature in the world to-day.

But there are many more Acts in connection with the Whites—in fact too many to incorporate them in one volume.

All statutory law applies to Africans, such as all our criminal law and also all the common law. The Government, however, is undeterred by the fact that already there is a vast volume of law on the Statute Book controlling every facet of life of the African from the day he is born till the day he dies—where he may live, how he may live, his mobility, and what job he may take, etc. But undeterred by this, every single session the Government introduces more laws, and by means of administrative directives and ministerial chits which are sent round the country, more and more control is constantly being imposed on every aspect of the life of the African. Sir, I believe it is high time that we called a halt to this spate of legislation, that we took stock of the existing position and that we appointed an objective, judicial commission of inquiry to go into every aspect of law as it at present affects the lives of the people concerned, laws about which, I might add, they themselves had no say, laws about which they were not consulted and laws which are being imposed upon them entirely by this white Parliament of South Africa. I think it is time we examined the effects of these laws on human beings, on the economy of South Africa, and on society as a whole.

It is over 20 years since we had the last proper judicial commission of inquiry into laws affecting particularly the urban African. That inquiry was conducted by the Fagan Commission, which was appointed in 1946 and which reported in 1948. It is interesting that even then, 20 years ago, the Fagan Commission came to the conclusion that there is an indestructible tie between the black man and the white man of South Africa. They summed up the situation very crisply by saying: They need us and we need them. Twenty years ago the Fagan Commission recognized that it was absolute folly and that it was flying in the face of reality to ignore the fact that there was already a large permanently urbanized African labour force settled in our cities and, to all intents and purposes, determined to stay there all their lives. In those days already the Fagan Commission came out with the strongest possible condemnation of the effects of the migratory labour system on the family life of Africans, and it quoted with approval the words of the Social and Economic Planning Council (report No. 9) which was under the chairmanship of Dr. van Eck. It quoted with approval the words of that council which said—

In other words, the Fagan Commission regarded as no longer feasible and indeed utterly undesirable the legislation which had already been passed affecting Africans and which was based on the recommendations of the Stallard Commission, which reported in 1922. Sir, this the Fagan Report said 20 years ago. The Stallard Commission enunciated the principle that the African should be allowed in the white towns only as long as his labour was required by the white man and that he should depart therefrom when he was no longer required to minister to the wants of the white man. And it was on the recommendations of that commission that all subsequent urban legislation was based. I think it is ironical that to-day, 20 years after the Fagan Commission reported, with all the enormous post-war industrialization that has taken place in South Africa over those 20 years, with the visible growth of vast urban African townships containing hundreds of thousands of African families, permanently settled, and with hundreds of thousands of children born in those urban areas, the Government is to-day set on steering the whole direction of policy affecting urban Africans back to a policy which in fact failed 45 years ago in the days of the Stallard Commission, which made its recommendations for conditions which were vastly different from the conditions which obtain today. In a fortnight’s time, on the 1st April, to be exact, drastically far-reaching regulations will be gazetted concerning the compulsory registration of every single male African between the ages of 15 and 65 in the Bantu areas and concerning every female African work-seeker living in those areas. Those people are going to have to register compulsorily, and when they are recruited the tribal authority is going to be rewarded with a fee of R1 per head, and thereafter all this labour is going to be regulated entirely on a migratory basis. In other words, the migration of labour is the policy of this Government and all future labour coming into the urban areas is going to be on this migratory basis. The African is going to be converted into an economic labour unit, nothing more and nothing less. The whole future of industrial labour in this country—not just mining labour as we have known it in the past and not just a portion of industrial labour as we have known it in the past—is going to be based on migratory labour. Sir, we often hear the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration saying: “This system has worked on the mines; why can’t it work here?” And we have heard the Minister of Bantu Administration saying, “It is no different from what happens in Lesotho, in Swaziland and Malawi; they all rely on migratory labour”. May I point out to the hon. the Minister that there is a complete conflict between saying this and saying what he said in this House only a day or two ago when he assured us that despite everything that was going on in the homelands, the South African reserve African is still regarded as a South African citizen. Thus he is entirely different from the African who comes from Lesotho or Swaziland or Botswana or Malawi or anywhere else in Africa for that matter. He is a citizen of this country and as such he should surely be allowed the most elementary right of a citizen of this country and that is the right of mobility and the right to sell his labour in the best possible market. So I discard that argument advanced by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development entirely.

I will return to the situation on the mines in a moment, but I want to say at once that the migratory labour system is never a desirable system. It is always a symptom of poverty, of under-developed areas where people are forced to leave those areas in order to seek a better livelihood elsewhere. This is not the desirable system that we should be seeking. It is an undesirable system which we should be seeking to counter, for very good sociological reasons which I shall mention in a moment. I say that the system is always bad because it is a symptom of poverty, even when people voluntarily leave those areas, such as the workers in Europe. Even then I might point out that the migratory workers of Europe, the people from Italy who go and work somewhere else, are all being legislated for in an entirely different way by the Treaty of Rome, which by 1970 is going to change the whole basis of migratory labour in Europe into a much more permanent labour force, allowing them, for instance, to take their families with them and to settle in the new countries if they wish to. I say it is a bad thing when it is a voluntary system, but it is a highly objectionable system when it is actually forced on workers, as we are going to do in this country, and I believe that it is utterly deplorable when it is deliberately used to disrupt labour that is already stabilized; and this, too, is precisely what the Government intends to do. Not only is the Government going to make it impossible for any further permanent migration of labour to take place from the rural areas to the urban areas, which is a natural concomitant in every single industrializing country. Not only is the Government going to stop that, but it is also, according to every policy statement that I have heard or read over the past two or three years by the Minister or the Deputy Minister, now going to embark on a definite assault on the rights of Africans who are to all intents and purposes already permanently settled in the urban areas. This is being done by means of directives and by means of whittling away the rights which these people enjoy. It will turn them into an insecure and rootless community, with absolutely no entitlement to normal family life, no incentive to plan for the future, and no security in the present. There are two cornerstones, or there have been up to now, to which a privileged section of the African urban community could cling, and they are being undermined. The one was the right to own or occupy 30-year leasehold houses, and the other was the special right conferred by section 10 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act. Both these are being undermined. Already the Government has announced that it is going to do away with all further 30-year leasehold schemes, and I say that of all the mean actions of this Government—and there have been many mean actions of this Government—the ban on any further home ownership for urban Africans is, I think, one of the worst. I also think that it is one of the most criminally stupid actions, because it strikes at the middle class, stable, responsible, thrifty elements among the urban Africans, and the middle-class bulwark against Communism, about which we hear so much in this House. All the freehold property rights which formerly could have been enjoyed—and there were not many —by Africans in Alexandra Township, Sophiatown or Lady Selborne, have long since gone under this Government. All that has remained is the right to build or to buy houses on 30-year leasehold, and in such homes the professional class, the middle class, the semiskilled Africans invested their savings and their aspirations; that is the important thing. In Soweto there are already some 8,000 homes owned by Africans on the 30-year basis. The Minister said they would remain undisturbed in their ownership, until further notice. What that means is anybody’s guess in these days of broken assurances by the Government. In any case those owners have already lost the right to bequeath their homes to their children and they are not allowed to sell those homes to anybody other than the local authority. So that all the fine words we have heard in this House about building up communities and a community spirit among the different race groups are absolute hypocrisy in the face of this devastating assault on home ownership.

I must say that utterly cynical, too, are the words uttered by the hon. the Prime Minister in Windhoek last year—and they clearly apply to white people only—when he said—

Well, this applies to the white man only. Also, one would have thought that it would have been a foregone conclusion in this Christian country that you do not try to take a man’s wife and his family away from him. But here, too, the axiom applies to white men only. Every year, through legislation or ministerial chit, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for the African to maintain any form of normal family life. All are to be temporary sojourners, who are here only as long as their labour is required by the white man, and in every urban area in South Africa countless African men and women are living in constant fear of having their married lives disrupted. The position of women, I might add, is particularly precarious. They are having all their rights whittled away. Their qualifications are being undermined all the time and, what is more, no women can be placed on the waiting-list for accommodation in the future. Already thousands of women and children have been endorsed out of the cities, some to the Native Reserves and some to spend their lives rotting away in resettlement areas like Sada. They are the victims of influx control; they have nowhere else to go. They do not belong in the ordinary Reserves, and have to go to these settlements. There go the pensioners whose working days are over. There goes the widow whose house has been taken away from her, and there go all the wives and children who do not qualify to stay with their husbands under this constant assault on the rights which have existed up to now under section 10.

There is no work in these miserable areas, but there is plenty of poverty and despair. Already in Langa where the menfolk are left behind, and in other towns, there are thousands upon thousands of so-called “bachelors” living in so-called bungalows which are really dormitories or compounds, as they were called in the olden days. Some live 40 to a room, where they eat and sleep. In Langa 26,000 of these so-called “bachelors” are housed in these quarters; 68 per cent of them were married men at the last count, and all of a sudden it is impossible to obtain these statistics. More and more I find that statistics are not available, and of course they are not available because of the sorry story they tell, which is something which the Government does not care to make public. These married men are away from their wives for at least a year at a time. Is it any wonder that the illegitimacy rate in Langa is between 25 per cent and 40 per cent, according to sociologists, and about 33 per cent in Soweto. Sir, we have a select committee of this House sitting right now on a very peculiar little Bill which deals with homosexuality among consenting adults, and it gets curiouser and curiouser when one remembers that the very labour system that the hon. the Minister is going to introduce is the strongest possible incentive towards homosexuality. If one reads the report of the Economic and Social Planning Council, one sees that it said in Report No. 9 many years ago that there was widespread prostitution and marriage instability, adult crime and juvenile delinquency, and that venereal disease and sexual perversion are among the effects of the migratory system, and they are aggravated by the abnormal sex ratio in the rural and urban areas.

The African male to female ratio in the urban areas has already risen to a dangerously high level in our cities. In Langa, I understand, it is already 10 to 1, and it is going to rise to an even higher disproportion as the new system is imposed and as more women and children are endorsed out. One does not need to be a trained sociologist to know about the correlation between crime and poverty and the correlation between crime and broken families. I say that our urban townships already provide an absolutely textbook case illustrating the effects of this correlation. In Soweto alone, 1,000 murders per annum are committed. Throughout South Africa 3,000 murders per annum are committed, and much of this crime occurs in the urban townships. Law-abiding Africans are terrified to go out at night. Indeed, they are assaulted and robbed in broad daylight. Juvenile delinquency has increased every year. There is no compulsory schooling and often no parental control. There is no security and a lack of opportunity to obtain well-paid work. It is no wonder that there is so much crime in these urban townships.

According to the UN. Demographic Year Book for 1961, we have the fourth highest homicide rate in the whole world, only exceeded by countries like Colombia, Mexico and Nicaragua. Our non-White prisons are bursting at the seams, unfortunately not only with hardened criminals whom everybody in society, Black or White, wants to see locked up there, but mostly with statutory pass law offenders, to whom the police devote so much of their attention. The mass raids that take place result in hundreds of people being arrested, only a few of whom are the hardened criminals who should be locked up. Into the police vans go the pass offenders, the men and women whose crime it is that they are seeking work in the urban areas without permission, or that they have not a permit to be in the urban area or have forgotten to carry their registration books on them. In Johannesburg alone, 36,000 Africans were prosecuted in one year for contraventions of influx control and pass laws and trespass. In October 1967, 1,000 pass offenders were convicted in Port Elizabeth, and 21,500 men and women appeared in 1967 in the Bantu Commissioners’ Courts in Observatory in Cape Town. In one year over ½ million prosecutions took place in South Africa for the transgression of laws which apply solely to Africans, curfew infringements, poll tax evasions and influx control. Sir, what a great waste of manpower, and what an absolutely ludicrous way of manufacturing gaolbirds, and yet that is what we are doing in South Africa.

I could say a great deal about the Government’s policy of not providing sufficient schools in the urban areas, which is a contributory factor towards juvenile delinquency. We all know that it is Government policy now that secondary and high schools shall be built in the rural areas and that vocational training schools shall also be built in the rural areas. That means, of course, that thousands upon thousands of children in the urban townships are turned away from school every year. We do not build enough primary schools and of course even fewer secondary schools. Of course it is on secondary education that we should be concentrating if we want to develop the African population and certainly if we want to start developing the Bantustans with their own professional and trained people. This building of schools outside the urban areas is done for a good purpose, according to the Government. It is done to lure the children away from the urban areas and make them what is known as “homeland-orientated”, hoping that they will not come back and, I might say, putting every difficulty in the way of their returning, to the urban areas. Equally I could spend a great deal of time going into details in regard to the economic effect of the Government’s policy. I shall simply say that so much has been written on this, reams and reams of it, that it is obvious that the migratory system is costly and wasteful and results in a high labour turnover, which in itself reduces efficiency, and of course it leads to the inability to train people to take skilled jobs.

Believe me, we need skilled people, because advances in industrial technology require higher-trained and more skilled men and not fewer skilled men. This of course is one reason why a system which may have sufficed— and I put it no higher than that—for the mining industry is not suitable for the manufacturing industry. In the mining industry there is sharp differentiation between unskilled and skilled work, and there is not the tremendous ladder of semi-skilled machine operatives’ jobs which makes trained labour so urgently required in the manufacturing industry. Therefore what suffices in the mines, economically, does not suffice in the manufacturing industries. Prof. Hobart Houghton has summed up the whole of this migratory system most eloquently when he describes it as a system which means that “two million men are perpetually on the move, men of two worlds lacking the feeling of belonging anywhere”.

Now a great deal of what I have said is not new. It has been said by others before me and it will certainly be said again by others after me. It has been said to no avail.

There are many people who hate this country just as much as you do.

No, I do not hate this country; I hate the Government’s policy and I make no bones about that. I think it is a dangerous and represensible policy which leads to misery, crime, poverty and to all sorts of social evils. I hate the Government’s policy, but I do not hate this country. On the contrary, I love this country. If what sociologists, educationists, economists and politicians say carries no weight with the Government, it just may be that the growing uneasiness in church circles may have some influence on the Government. Perhaps something of what the churches are saying these days to indicate the growing uneasiness of all the churches about the migratory labour system might have some effect on the Government. [Interjections.] The Cape Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church made the strongest possible condemnation of the migratory labour system in 1966.

You are wrong.

I am not wrong. I have their exact words here. They spoke about the cancer which rages in the lives of the African population and they called for a thorough investigation to be made. That was adopted by the General Assembly of the Dutch Reformed Church. Dr. Badenhorst, the Mission Secretary of the Transvaal Synod of the D.R. Church, said much the same in November, 1967. What was said two years ago applies with even greater force to-day.

If ever there was a matter, said Dr. Badenhorst, about which a Government commission of inquiry should be set up, it is the family life of the African. The Methodist Church at its conference during 1967 asked the Government to investigate the effects of the Urban Areas Act on African family life. The Johannesburg diocese of the Anglican Church last October adopted a most strongly worded resolution condemning laws and administrative action which, in pursuance of the Government’s policy of apartheid, prevent or militate against the continual relationship of marriage and stable family life of the African. The Christian Council, to which most churches are affiliated—except the Dutch Reformed Church —has called another conference on this question of the family life of the African. The conference of the Catholic Bishops has declared that the erosion of African family life was a matter of growing concern. But also the officials, apart from the churches, who have to administer these laws are showing a growing concern over the laws and regulations about the employment and movement of Africans in the urban areas and are calling for a greater degree of flexibility as well as for fewer laws.

The retiring president of the Institute of Administrators of Non-European Affairs, Mr. T. W. A. Koller, in his address to a conference of the Institute last November said—

He might as well have added “and those people in Cape Town who pass laws”—

He suggested that—

He suggested the formation of a small permanent advisory committee, a committee which the Government could consult before any further laws were introduced. A couple of weeks ago in this House the hon. member for Brakpan complained bitterly that municipal officials were virtually sabotaging the Government’s policy in regard to the urban Africans and he launched the strongest attack against those officials who were not carrying out the Government’s policy. But, apparently, the hon. member does not realize how difficult it is to implement this policy, how impossible it is, as a matter of fact, of implementation. For one thing, it goes against all economic laws. When people are starving in the reserves or being paid a mere pittance on white farms it is natural for them to come to the urban areas to look for work. If the Government wants its system to work it would have to have one policeman for every African in the country and gaols with elastic walls. The Government’s policy is impossible to implement. It is not a matter of the urban authorities deliberately flouting the Government, however much they may disapprove of the Government’s policy. It is a matter rather that the Government who passes these laws and sends administrative chits around the country, does not have the faintest idea of what it is like to deal with the results of these laws and administrative chits.

I now have to quote the golden words of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. At that same conference of administrators of non-European Affairs he said it was the Government’s “holy conviction” that it was moving along the right road. Well, Sir, I am looking in vain for the halo around this gentleman’s head. But I want to tell him that once again I disagree with him profoundly. I believe there is nothing holy in the Government’s policy in regard to the urban African. Basically it is an unholy policy; a dangerous policy. The hon. the Deputy Minister ought to know what happens when poverty and broken up family life occur on a large scale in cities. He should look at America as an example. The hon. the Deputy Minister apparently thinks that the introduction of civil rights there led to the crisis. But let me tell him that every commission in America which investigated these urban crises, as well as every trained sociologist and economist who have gone into this matter, have come to the conclusion that it is poverty and broken family life that have caused this tremendous unrest in America.

But they have riots there while we have none.

That is so because you keep the Africans down by sheer force. We have law and order in this country but at a cost—the cost of oppression.

You have lost your influence with the Bantu. That is the trouble with you. They take no notice of you any longer.

I should like to see a little more of democracy in this country and a little less suppression. I should like to see a little more attention to the underlying problems causing unrest, instead of just more punishment and more policemen. That is not the way in which to handle this problem on a long-term basis. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister as well as the Minister— whose new regulations are to come into force on the 1st April—that it is a shameless exploitation of the African to regard him only as a labour unit and to exclude all his other human aspirations. The hon. the Deputy Minister at the conference to which I have already referred said that the Africans’ stay in the urban areas was to be regarded only as a phase of their life. They only earned their income there. Can you imagine it, Sir! The African spends his entire working life in the white areas and yet the hon. the Deputy Minister says he “only” earns his income there. The hon. the Deputy Minister does not want him to have any aspirations to enjoy a family life, to security or to spend his old age amongst his friends. That does not count with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I say this system is thoroughly cruel. It leads to misery, poverty, juvenile delinquency and groaning gaols. What is worrying me most is that it is going to leave in its trail a heritage of hatred, of bitterness and ultimately of violence.

For all these reasons I call upon the Government to call a halt to this spate of legislation and the additional burdens they are constantly laying on the urban African population as well as on the rural Africans—because the two go together—and to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry to make a thorough research into all the factors I have discussed this morning.

All that dropped from the lips of the hon. member for Houghton was vinegar mingled with gall and not a drop of honey. Hardly ever have we had to listen to something like that in this House. She adopted a one-sided and unfounded attitude. We have great respect for the hon. member as a person, but her policy and that of her party carries the germ of death for South Africa. There is no justification for her policy in this country and the sooner she disappears from the scene, the better it will be not only for the Whites, but also for the non-Whites. All she does is to sow suspicion and to create false hopes without contributing anything constructive by way of a solution to this very difficult problem. I strongly want to urge the hon. the Minister to reject this motion of hers with the contempt it deserves.

She painted a picture of the desperate conditions under which the non-Whites in South Africa were allegedly living. She painted a picture of famine which was prevailing. I challenge her to say where there is famine in the Republic of South Africa.

You make me laugh.

Come and see what it looks like in the Ciskei.

I challenge that hon. member as well to prove that. The hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself and the hon. member for Houghton ought to be ashamed of herself for having alleged here that famine was prevailing in the country and that nothing was being done about it. [Interjections.] It was shameful of the hon. member to have tried to paint such a picture, such a one-sided picture. I want to tell her that as far as the economy of the Bantu is concerned, things are going very well with them. Here I am going to refer to what was said by somebody for whom they have great respect, and that is nobody but Mr. Carr. He made a statement as was reported in The Sunday Times of 11.4.1965. If one looks at the tremendous economic revival there has been since 1965, the conditions of the Bantu must be better to-day than they were at that time. This is what he said—

What has that got to do with the reserves?

If the hon. member had taken the trouble to go and see what was being done for the Bantu in the Bantu homelands, she would have painted a different picture here to-day. She must go and have a look at what the Government is doing there to raise the Bantu from the poverty which existed there; then she would not have spoken as she did to-day. Now I want to ask the hon. member: Where in the wide world is there another government that has placed legislation on the Statute Book for developing the under-developed areas, the so-called “depressed areas” by pumping white capital into them and by employing white skill to the benefit of the population?

Where?

In the Transkei. Go and see what is happening in the Transkei. The hon. member is another angel of death—he flits about like a black fly in this House. That is what is wrong with the hon. member for Transkei. He lives there but he is blind and cannot see what is happening there. The hon. member once spoke of “three blind mice”, but he is the blindest mouse in this House. We are sick and tired now of the stories we hear here. We are sick of them. Every stroke of work the Government has done for raising the Bantu is being belittled. Now I challenge the opposite side to deny that they will be the first ones to brand us in Pretoria West as negrophilists because of what we are doing. They will say we are doing too much for the Bantu in the Republic. [Interjections.] Yes, those hon. members will do so. Look at the pamphlets the United Party is issuing there now. Every word spoken by me here to-day and every word which the hon. the Minister is going to speak, will be used against the Government in Pretoria West. Then the United Party will say, “Look what they are doing for the Blacks”. Who is going to spread that story? The United Party that is sitting over there in great expectation. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that what she said here to-day, was shameful. She wanted to make out that the system of migratory labour was the cause of the trouble. The hon. member is so concerned about the question of migratory labour. But are all of us who are sitting in this Parliament to-day not migratory labourers too? Is the hon. member not a migratory labourer too? Is she too not absent from her home for six months? [Interjections.] The hon. member is only concerned about the non-Whites.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No. If the hon. member gives me five minutes more I shall give him an opportunity of doing so.

Have you brought your wife and children with you?

No, my children are not with me; my children are at school elsewhere.

And your wife?

My wife is with me in Cape Town. But the wives of how many hon. members are not here in the Cape because of circumstances? Ask the hon. members sitting in my vicinity. Ask the hon. member for Houghton where her husband is. [Interjections.] The hon. members opposite have such a great deal to say about the system of migratory labour and they are so concerned about the non-Whites. What about our construction workers in the Republic?

But they choose to do that.

Do they choose to do that? No, it is not a question of their choosing to do that. If work has to be done somewhere else, he has to go there. We who represent constituencies of workers can give the hon. member interesting details. How many of our white workers are not absent from their homes for many months because they have to go and work somewhere else? What about our road workers? What about the men who build roads? What about our railway workers?

It is all temporary.

The migratory labourers are temporary too. I should like to say the following in connection with the system of migratory labour. As I was saying, in this regard there is a world of difference between this side and that. We believe the Bantu eventually has to find his good in his homeland. Our economy is going to be built on a system of migratory labour in the future. Therefore I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. Seeing that we have to develop this system of migratory labour, I want to suggest more frequent return visits to his homeland for the Bantu who has to come from his homeland to work in our cities. We must arrange matters in such a way that he will have the opportunity of visiting his homeland, say, every three months. This does not simply mean that he must now have an easy life. While he may now be working eight hours per day, for example, he will have to work, say, nine or nine and a half hours per day so as to enable him, by making up for the time he will be on holiday, to have time off to visit his homeland after, say, three months. I want to go further than this and I hope the hon. member for Houghton will support me. I want to suggest that the industrialist be obliged to contribute to the Bantu’s travelling expenses to his homeland. The State too must make its contribution and institute special concessions for making it cheap for him to go to his homeland, so that the Bantu too may be happy in his family circle.

I want to tell the hon. member that we may argue as we like all day long, but we shall never see eye to eye, because there is a world of difference between the policy of the National Party and that of the United Party.

I am Progressive Party.

Ah well, as far as the Progressive Party is concerned you have no policy; you are just messing up things in the country. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member spoke about family life as well. Is the family life of the Bantu disintegrating purely on account of the migratory labour system? No, that is not the only cause. Has there not been a large increase in the disintegration of family life amongst the Whites as well since World War II? Is the problem not much greater than we think? I want to suggest that we institute a very thorough investigation into this matter. Does the lobola system not play a very major role in the disintegration of the family life of the Bantu?

No, of course not.

No? As far as the hon. member is concerned, it does not play a major role. There is only one thing which the hon. member wants to see. She is so biased that she can never see anything beyond her black glasses. I should like to ask the hon. member whether she knows what is happening in the Bantu homelands? Does she think family life in the homelands is so beautiful and so noble and so fine? Has she made a study of this? No. The hon. member snatches a few ideas from here and a few ideas from there, but she is not prepared to take a look at the wide picture. I want to tell the hon. member things have never been going as well with the Bantu in South Africa as they are going to-day.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, this morning this House listened to what I think was one of the most vicious speeches ever made in this House. A plea was made, not for this country, but for consumption by those people overseas who do not approve of the principles and the non-White policy of this country. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Brakpan. Let us go back somewhat in history. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton what happened from 1933 to 1948 when that side of this House was in power. What did they do for the non-White? A picture was painted here this morning with the object of illustrating that this Government was suppressing the non-White of this country and that we were opposing him in all spheres by means of legislation. But that is not so. I want to ask the hon. member whether she recalls the disorder and chaos which existed in the days of Sophiatown, Alexandra, Newclare and Page View. Does the hon. member know those places? I want to extend an invitation to that hon. member to take a drive with me through Soweto. I know Soweto from one side to the other.

So do I.

Yes, but I know it at first hand. For the past 16 years I have had experience of the matters I am discussing now.

What has this National Government done for the non-White in this country? Let us just look at a few figures. In the first place I want to pay tribute not only to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development for the work it has done, but also to those city councils that are implementing the policy of the Government, and have appointed men to the top posts who are conscientiously implementing the policy of the Government. If the hon. member had rather said that the city councils of Johannesburg, Durban and Port Elizabeth had failed in the beginning, and were still failing to some extent at the present time, to implement the policy of the Government, I would have agreed with her. Why were Meadowlands and Diepkloof established and why was the Resettlement Board instituted? That was done in order to do those things which fit into our policy and which the Johannesburg City Council and its officials did not want to do.

The picture we had from the hon. member for Houghton this morning, was the black side only. She was trying to escape from reality and omitted to say what the real state of affairs was. I just want to tell her that 14,000 dwelling units were built in Meadowlands alone during the past decade, chiefly for people resettled from Sophiatown. Nobody dared travel through Sophiatown at night. I went through Sophiatown at night in order to do my work and my duty, but we were always under police protection. To-day one can travel through Meadowlands by day or night because it is peaceful. Let us look at Diepkloof. In recent times 10,500 families have been resettled there.

These figures do not apply to the West Rand only, but also to the East Rand. Mr. Speaker, do you still recall the enormous squatters’ settlements near Anzac and Springs and in the vicinity of Pretoria, etc.? This side of the House had to do the clearance work. That side of the House always refers to the war which was in progress while they were in power and as a result of which they could not do that work. In reply I want to tell them that the war ended in 1945. What did they do from 1945 up to 24th May, 1948? What did they do from 1933 up to 1939? They did absolutely nothing. These are the facts. Let us take a town like Springs. I want to mention figures in order to illustrate what Springs recently spent on its non-White population in respect of housing only. It spent R4 million on housing alone. This does not include schools, hostel facilities, etc. Boksburg spent R3 1/4 million and Benoni R7 million. Here we were faced with United Party city councils, but they were prepared to co-operate with the Government and to carry out its policy.

But this is not all. Those hon. members opposite maintain that we are suppressing these non-Whites. This is not so. As far as health is concerned I want to say that the Provincial Council of the Transvaal alone spent more than R19½ million on health, hospitalization and clinics for the non-Whites in the Transvaal last year. I challenge the other side of this House to tell me what other part of the world, yes, including even the mighty America, has done more pro rata for its non-Whites than this country. Even the mighty America has not done more on a pro rata basis. I challenge them to try and disprove this.

Let us take the townships which have been established. When was Soweto, the largest township in the Republic of South Africa, established? This township was established in the time of this Government. Before such time these Bantu were living under very difficult conditions in the slum areas of the Witwatersrand.

That hon. member also spoke of the system of migratory labour. I myself am a migratory labourer. For six months I live in the Cape without my wife. Nor does the husband of the hon. member for Houghton live here. The condition of both of us is still quite good. Consequently migratory labour cannot really be such a bad thing. I want to say that this is a sacrifice demanded of her and of me as of scores of other people. This is a sacrifice which one has to make if one wants to care for one’s family. It is impossible to resettle the families of all migratory labourers from the Transkei or from Botswana or from the Peddie area or from the Nyasaland area on the Witwatersrand. This cannot possibly be done but what we do is to provide employment for them there. The mines have been using migratory labourers for the past 40 years and I have never heard that side of this House objecting to that. Why not?

I did.

You did not do so while you were a member of the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, let us have no illusions about this. I am a champion of the system of migratory labour and I trust that the day will arrive when every Bantu in our white areas will be a migratory labourer.

Mr. Speaker, what did we hear from that side this morning? It was said here that the Government was not doing anything in regard to education. Show me any Bantu township which has been planned on the Witwatersrand where no provision has been made for Bantu schools.

What about Graaff-Reinet?

If there is no Bantu school in Graaff-Reinet that hon. member must see to it that a school will be built there. Take, for example, the sports facilities which have been provided for the Bantu. Just go and have a look at the Orlando stadium, one of the best-equipped sportsgrounds in the country for non-Whites. I challenge hon. members opposite to prove to us that we have not been doing our duty as regards the Bantu. We are doing our duty and we know what our duty is but the trouble is that the Opposition knows that we have gained the confidence of the non-Whites. I invite any hon. member opposite to go on visits of observation with me. I shall give them my address and they can make an appointment with me. I am prepared to take them to all those Bantu townships. One of my Bantu constables once told me, “Sir, when I lived in Sophiatown and slept under a few sheets of tin only where I froze in winter and was drenched in summer, nobody took any pity on me but now that I am living like a human being in a small house of my own now they tell me that I should go on strike. How can I do something, like that?” The non-Whites realize that the intentions of this side of the House are honourable. Sir, the hon member for Houghton is very quiet now. She is quiet because the truth hurts. ’This morning she furnished so-called facts but she cannot prove any of them.

Incitement.

Yes, incitement for the outside world.

I quoted your own Minister’s figures.

That is not so. The hon. member spoke of businesses. Sir, no Bantu area is established anywhere on the entire Witwatersrand complex in which no provision is made for a business complex. Those businesses are run by the Bantu themselves and they rent those premises from the city council. In this way the Bantu are being trained to serve their own people.

In conclusion I just want to repeat my invitation to hon. members on that side of this House. If they contact me, I shall take them through those areas. They need not ask one of the officials to take them there; I shall take them there myself. I am sure they will come back feeling ashamed of themselves.

The hon. member for Stilfontein, who has just sat down, started off by launching a personal attack, as usual, upon the hon. member for Houghton.

Are you feeling sorry for her?

He then climbed on to, the old hobby horse of using the Johannesburg city council as a whipping-boy. As usual, of course, we had the old story about the council doing nothing for housing and about the re-settlement board coming, into being. I want to say to hon. members opposite that this is a horse which will pot. run any more, because the people in South Africa know that the Johannesburg City council has been responsible for building thousands of houses in Johannesburg. They know that when there was a lack of money, it was the Johannesburg City Council which approached the mining houses and got money to build houses. I hope we will hear no more about the re-settlement board and the removal scheme in Johannesburg because hon. members on that side know that the only reason for the coming into being of the re-settlement board was the fact that the United Party City Council decided that where you take away freehold. you should give freehold in return. They stood on a principle and for that reason the re-settlement board came into being. Let hon. members opposite look at reports from the re-settlement board and they will see there that on many occasions the re-settlement board has thanked the Johannesburg City Council for the co-operation and assistance received from the Council with regard to the provision of services for these housing schemes. Do hon. members opposite forget that it was the Johannesburg City Council who trained Bantu building workers who eventually were building as many as 40 houses a day in Johannesburg? I have never said and we on this side have never said that the Government has done nothing for non-white housing. One gets sick and tired of hearing this same old story that the Johannesburg City Council is doing nothing for Native housing. We know that it is purely because the Johannesburg City Council is a United Party-controlled Council that these things are being said. It is a very bitter pill for the Government to swallow that they are running the country and that the United Party is in fact running the City of Johannesburg.

Coming to the hon. member for Brakpan, I want to say sincerely that I was very sorry to see to what lengths he went to attack the hon. member for Houghton personally. I want to say that I certainly do not agree with the politics of the hon. member for Houghton, but I believe that we are living in a democratic country and that any person is entitled to his or her political beliefs, whatever they are. Sir, the hon. member for Brakpan got very upset because somebody had said that there was poverty amongst the non-Whites in South Africa.

No, it was said that there was starvation.

I know exactly what was said. He also said that somebody had mentioned that nothing was being done about it. Well, this is not true. All that was said on this side was that there was poverty in South Africa. If the hon. member wants to be fair he will admit that there is poverty amongst the Whites and that there is poverty amongst the Blacks. Nobody on this side has said that the Government is doing nothing about it. Let us be perfectly fair about it. Sir, he did mention too that Mr. Carr, the General Manager of the Non-European Affairs Department in Johannesburg, had made a certain statement. I want to quote to him from an interim report, called “Forward Planning Report” to which Mr. Carr subscribed, which gives an entirely different impression. In the summary this is what Mr. Carr in fact said—

He goes on to say—

He then ends on this note—

Sir, we are not blaming the Government for this. I merely take exception to the fact that hon. members on the other side take exception to the statement that there is in fact a certain amount of poverty among the non-Whites, as there is also among the Whites.

Reference was made to starvation, not to poverty.

Sir, unlike hon. members on that side, I would like to get back to the motion before the House. The substance of the motion, of course, is that the hon. member for Houghton calls for the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate and report on laws specifically affecting Africans resident in the urban areas, with special reference to the disintegration of family life, the increase in the crime rate, the restrictions on economic opportunity and the inadequate provision for education. The motion specifically calls for an impartial judicial inquiry to establish if these laws are in fact curbing the development of the Bantu in the urban areas. Sir, I want to say that the only thing which the hon. member for Houghton did which possibly she should not have done, was to anticipate the findings of the commission for which she pleads in her motion. Sir, I am going to support this motion proposed by the hon. member for Houghton and I want to give my reasons for doing so. We on this side of the House are realists. We know that the urban Bantu will be with us whether this Government is in power or whether another Government is in power. We know, and I think they in their hearts know, that without a stable Bantu urban population the economy of this country will crash and for that reason we will support any motion which we feel may have the effect of creating a better life for the urban Bantu in South Africa. I believe quite sincerely that a judicial commission with terms of reference such as those suggested in the motion, a commission that will obviously approach its task with an open mind and completely free from any political bias, might come up with a report which could—and I say this advisedly—make the Government in power to-day have a new look at the mass of legislation which affects the urban Bantu in South Africa to-day. I say this in all sincerity because I do not believe that any member on that side really knows exactly what a Bantu in an urban area has to put up with in his daily life in order to keep within the mass of regulations which affect his life from day to day. I believe that any member who wants to go to the trouble, for instance, to get a copy of a publication called “Urban Bantu Laws”, by A. Gordon, will find that this particular publication runs to more than one million words. It has three supplements and I believe it is completely out of date to-day already.

I want to say in all sincerity that I accept without any reservation that the urban Bantu legislation which we have to-day in South Africa was conceived in the first place and placed on the Statute Book in good faith. I believe that quite sincerely. But I wonder whether the legislators who were responsible for drawing up this mass of legislation could have imagined how much insecurity, uncertainty and confusion it would create in the minds of the law-abiding urban Bantu in South Africa; and I wonder if we can really argue with Professor Lewin when he says in his paper entitled “Crime in Relation to the Bantu policy” that no African could be sure at any time that he was not committing an offence and that the legal position to-day is such that the police can arrest any African walking down the Main Street of Johannesburg at any time of the day or night and any competent prosecutor would have no difficulty whatsoever in finding some offence with which he can be charged. I am prepared to admit that on the face of it this would seem to be a completely far-fetched overstatement of the case by Professor Lewin, but when you read the paper published by Professor Venter you find figures which show that of the 1,055,697 prosecutions in the year ended 30th June, 1964, no fewer than 527,731 were for infringements of curfew, offences to do with registration and insufficient documents, infringements of the Bantu Urban Areas Act and infringements of tax regulations. When you read these figures, you feel that this assertion is not as far-fetched as it seems at first sight. There is very clear evidence that the urban non-European administrators, who after all are the people who are concerned from day to day with interpreting and administering the mass of legislation they have before them, are worried, because we find that Mr. Coller, the retiring president of the Institute of Administrators of Non-European Affairs, in his presidential address suggested to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration that he should consider setting up a small advisory committee which could be called together at short notice, consisting of members of the Council of the Institute appointed by him, to advise him before legislation is resorted to and to assist him in resolving urban problems within the framework of the implementation of basic Government policy. Mr. Coller goes on to say that if this were done he hopes the spate of legislation governing the Bantu in the urban areas might cease and the municipal administrators could be entrusted with the responsibility of handling difficult cases by exercising their own discretion, with better results than are obtained at present. I know this is only the opinion of an official, but I repeat that these are people who actually have to carry out the Government’s laws, and therefore we must take them seriously.

When we look at the items in the motion before the House, we find that the first item which calls for a special term of reference is the disruption of family life among the Bantu in the urban areas. Here, I submit that a judicial commission could probably find that the normal family life of the urban Bantu is hampered by regulations which have the effect of preventing thousands of Africans from being with their families in the towns, because various studies have shown quite clearly that only 25 per cent of married men in the urban areas have their wives with them at any particular time. The fact that the urban Bantu is reminded constantly that he is not accepted as a permanent member of the urban area in which he lives and works is certainly, I should think, not conducive to the building up of a happy family life.

Without any doubt the question that should exercise the minds of the commissioners most would be the second term of reference in the motion dealing with the increase in crime in the urban areas.

Are you in favour of every Bantu bringing his wife and family into the urban areas?

I said nothing of the sort. We are dealing now with a request for a judicial commission of inquiry. I do not think the Deputy Minister should try to trap me into answering his silly question.

I said that the commission would have to apply its mind particularly to the increase in crime in the Bantu urban areas. To gauge the enormity of the problem, one only has to take the example of the largest Bantu urban complex in South Africa, Soweto. I make bold to say that no one can examine the crime figures in Soweto without a sense of shock and dismay. I go further and say one shudders to think what the position would be if it were not for the efforts of a dedicated Police Force, white and black, who have to deal with this fantastic problem of crime every day in Soweto. While one expects a certain amount of crime in any given area, we must look for an underlying cause when you have crime of this magnitude. I want to recite just a few figures to show how really serious the crime position in this particular complex is.

We find that the townships of Johannesburg have a rate of more than 1,000 murders a year. We also find that murders average as many as three a day. I want to ask hon. members opposite what they would do if they opened their newspaper on a Monday morning in any city of South Africa and found that three people were murdered the day before and that there was likely to be another three murdered the next day. One can imagine the outcry there would be and the sense of shock which every decent citizen in that city would feel when he looked at these figures. I want to go further and ask them what they would feel if they opened their papers and found that in one week-end as many as 20 people were murdered. This is not far-fetched; it happens very often in that complex. Might I remind hon. members opposite, too, that Soweto has the highest paraplegic rate in the world, due entirely to the number of stabbings which take place there day in and day out. Can we shrug this off when we find that approximately 30,000 assault cases were treated at Baragwaneth and municipal clinics in one year, from January to December, 1966? What a shocking set of figures! It amazes me to see that not a single speaker opposite even mentioned the question of this fantastic amount of crime we have in Soweto. [Interjection.] I heard here that I was talking against myself. I said earlier that I appreciated that the police, and I am sure the Government also, are doing their very best to control this crime. I mentioned also that as far as I am concerned there must be some deep underlying cause for this crime. One does not want to quote too often, but I feel I must quote just a few people who are in touch with this crime position every day.

I start off by quoting very briefly Mr. Patrick Lewis, Chairman of the Non-European Affairs Committee of the Johannesburg City Council. He says this in a lecture—

Then we have Mr. Carr, the Manager of the Non-European Affairs Department, saying this—

Then I want to quote what the police themselves think of this position, because we have a report here saying that the Police Headquarters in Johannesburg and Pretoria have plans, but the men who work in Soweto are baffled. They say that looking at the problem from a policeman’s point of view, there are so many criminals that they do not know where to start. “An officer told me that the only way to stop violence is to search every man, woman and child entering the township, but of course that is impossible; it would take all night.” Finally, we have a responsible officer, Capt. W. J. Fouché, the officer in charge of the Meadowlands Police Station, saying this—

This is followed by Dr. V. Kemp, Chief District Surgeon, who says—

I have given here a fairly good cross-section of people who are in daily touch with this problem of crime in Soweto. I believe that this aspect alone calls for the appointment of a judicial commission, because it is not possible that this amount of crime can take place year after year if there were not some deep-rooted causes which have to be eradicated. So I want to say finally that we make absolutely no apology for supporting the motion of the hon. member for Houghton, because we feel that such a judicial commission would serve a very good purpose. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will not just shrug this off but will give it his serious attention.

The introduction of a motion of this type in this House year after year by the hon. member for Houghton has by this time degenerated into a scandalously and shamelessly negative performance by her. The tenor never differs, the presentation is always as pathetic as before and the approach is always negative. With reference to the speech she made to-day, I want to say that I would have been ashamed of myself had I been in her shoes, but we on this side have never been able to get her to be ashamed of herself. She asked for the appointment of a judicial commission to investigate the laws affecting Africans in the white urban areas, the very laws which seek to bring order to society, combat immorality, prevent crime, create educational facilities and economic opportunities for the Bantu himself. I wish she would come to realize that the attitude we adopt in regard to these matters is based on the principles of the National Party concerning the position of the Bantu in South Africa. As opposed to the policy of the Progressive Party this surely is a case of “east is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet”. I want to say in all fairness that I do not believe that all members of the Progressive Party share in the views expressed here by her to-day. There are also semi-good Progs in this country, people who are not intent on upsetting the race structure and our traditional way of life in South Africa. They are people who would take fright and become Nationalists if they had to learn, as we do from time to time, about the politics of integration advocated by the hon. member.

As I want to confine myself to-day more specifically to the reference to education in this motion, I want, in all fairness, to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the United Party cannot be absolved from the type of allegation we have been hearing to-day. I want to remind them that it was but a mere ten years ago that the hon. member for Houghton rejected their party. They have the same origin and basically they are birds of a feather. I now want to mention one example only.

From time to time, in season and out of season, we have to hear from people such as the hon. members for Berea, Mooi River and Pietermaritzburg (District) of the “inefficiency” of the university colleges. We have to hear that they are white elephants, that they are failures …

When did we say that?

Simply go and read your Hansard.

Where?

We have to hear that accommodation is poor. We have even heard from them that certain students at these colleges do not have a matriculation certificate. I leave them at that.

I want to make the statement that the policy of separate development of the National Party aims for nation-building for all the various population groups in this country. In contrast to that the Progressive Party champions complete integration. The hon. member for Houghton must not think that we have forgotten that she said as long ago as 1961 that a single black face in this House would improve its appearance a great deal. And what does the United Party say? They speak of white leadership “for the foreseeable future” and this indicates the same thing. These differences are vital and basic ones and lead to different interpretations of every requirement, of every conceivable situation we come across in this connection—socially, economically, educationally, as well as far as financial contributions and implications are concerned. We believe that education of the Bantu must be for the Bantu. We believe that the school must be the focal point of the community. I wonder whether the hon. member for Houghton realizes that there are more than 50,000 Bantu parents who are directly concerned in school boards and school committees and that education penetrates to them as well, that this is the indirect kind of adult education. I wonder whether she realizes that newer methods of agriculture penetrate through the schools to the parents in this way. These are the positive aspects of the policy. Our ideas simply are incompatible. The policy of the Progressive Party seeks a multi-racial society here in South Africa. We, on the other hand, believe that we must help the Bantu to help himself on the road of natural and gradual self-development. The Progressive Party and the hon. member for Houghton, to be specific, sees one thing only, and that is the summary preparation for a multi-racial South African economic society and community.

Last year the hon. member asked for more secondary schools for Bantu in white urban areas, but in so doing she specified that those schools were to be established at specific places.

Order! The hon. member for Rustenburg and the hon. member for Houghton must put an end to their private debate.

She did not ask for more secondary schools to be provided at just any place, but specifically asked for them to be provided in the white urban community, there where they would be closest to her multi-racial community. It was alleged that if secondary education was not provided there, the parents would be afraid to send their children to the high schools in the homeland, afraid that the children would remain there and would work there, which, according to the hon. member, would be promoting the policy of separate development. In addition it would promote the economic development of the homelands, and this is something she does not want. How many white boys and girls here in South Africa, no, all over the world, do not have to leave their parents too? What is the difference?

Let us look at the actual educational provision for the Bantu in the white urban areas. The Bantu residential areas are planned scientifically in respect of housing, public services and educational facilities, and there is a formula which was accepted long ago and according to which the number of classrooms and the number of schools are determined in proportion to the number of dwelling units in that residential area. This ratio has been in existence since 1958 and is as follows: Five lower primary schools to three higher primary schools to one post-primary school. The lower primary schools are established by local authorities from money obtained by them from housing loans, and those loans are redeemed, interest as well as capital, from site levies which may not amount to more than 20 per cent per site. Up to 1967 higher primary schools were established on a 50-50 basis and under this system the local community, the school boards, had to contribute 50 per cent and the Government the remaining 50 per cent by way of a subsidy provision. But because the local communities have been experiencing difficulty in finding their 50 per cent, the Government has now agreed that local authorities may establish also higher primary schools from housing loan funds and may employ those site levies for defraying such expenditure. This is an additional concession which exists alongside the rand for rand or 50-50 per cent scheme, but always within the framework of the ratio 5:3:1. Post-primary schools are still being established on the rand for rand basis. Now it must be stated clearly that secondary schools are not being freely established in white urban areas, but only on the basis of merit.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is an hon. member entitled to read a newspaper in this House?

No, who is reading a newspaper? Order! Hon. members may not read newspapers here. The hon. member may proceed.

I regret that the hon. member for Jeppes is wasting my time in this way.

Order! The hon. member for East London (City) must put that newspaper down now.

The attitude of the Government is that secondary schools are not location-orientated and obviously the Government is therefore giving preference to the establishment of these schools in the homelands where they may serve as symbols of progress, where they have economic significance and where the products of these high schools may be employed in promoting that Bantu homeland. Generally speaking we may therefore say that school facilities are being provided by the Government in terms of the Bantu Education Act of 1953, in terms of which the Bantu too are expected to make a contribution to their educational facilities. This is a principle which is a sound one socially and educationally. Where there may be a delay in the provision of lower primary schools at the present moment, that is attributable purely to the economic conditions prevailing in our country, in fact, throughout the world at the present time. Where there is a shortage of higher primary schools in white urban areas, the Bantu communities of those residential areas themselves are to blame. Where they are cooperating with the Department in providing these facilities, there are no problems. There are 200 secondary schools in the homelands and I want to suggest that if secondary education is a matter about which they and the hon. member for Houghton are in earnest— as I believe they are—they will not mind going to the homelands to receive their high school education there. According to a survey made by the Department in 1967, full use is not being made of all the accommodation in high schools in the Bantu homelands. But let us put this point very clearly: Where it may be possible to argue about the merits of secondary schools, i.e. up to Std. VIII, in white urban areas, the hon. the Minister has told us that high schools would definitely not be established there. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I expected from the hon. member for Zululand some contribution to this debate on the subject of crime and the prevention of crime. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the recess when the farmers in his area were agitating madly about stock thefts and asking that measures should be taken to prevent them, this hon. member referred to their efforts as a wild west show, that they were a lot of cowboys, riding around, trying to shoot crooks on their own. I really expected an endeavour from this hon. member to try and redeem himself from the effects of that particular statement of his. Because the motion that we have before us to-day calls for a judicial commission of inquiry, I want to say that I support it 100 per cent. Surely, one reaches a time in the course of legislation where one can profitably stop and take a calm, cool look at the effects that laws passed in the immediate past have on the population at large. But our position here in South Africa is that the laws we have just recently passed, during the last 10 or 20 years, have a bearing on the majority of our population who are voiceless. They are completely voiceless, except in what contact they have with the hon. the Minister and his Department.

A very good contact.

I do not accept it. My hon. friend may be a very good contact, but if this is his opinion I do not accept it. I believe that there is to-day a very good case to be made out for an inquiry of this nature, an inquiry which is completely calm, judicial, above and away from politics, to allow us to get to the basic facts of what is going on in our country and how these laws affect the daily life of the majority of our people, who are voiceless. From that point of view alone I believe that the motion of the hon. member for Houghton, asking for a judicial commission of inquiry, is worth supporting. There have been commissions in the past. The hon. member mentioned the Fagan Commission. There was also the Broome Commission in Natal inquiring into Indian penetration into different areas of Durban. Such an inquiry can assist us in getting at the basic facts. This is what we need when we plan legislation. As the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has said, there is such a maze of legislation in which the average Bantu to-day is entangled. It takes the poor chap the whole of his life to find out when he will be breaking the law and when not. Therefore I believe that there is a very good case to be made out for a commission of this nature. It will in fact mean—I think the hon. member for Houghton will agree—a judicial inquiry into the whole nature of apartheid. I think it could come to that, but if the Government is confident of its cause, why should they be afraid of it? If they have confidence in their cause and they feel that they are on the right path, a judicial commission of inquiry could either reinforce their case or show them where they are wrong.

Since when are commissions appointed to investigate policies?

Mr. Speaker, they would investigate the effects of the laws passed by this Government in pursuance of its policy. That is what it would do. I am not asking to investigate their policy. The hon. the Minister knows better than that himself.

Any “pampoen” knows what this policy is like.

I want to ask the Deputy Minister when he replies to make some comment on the position of the Bantu in urban areas in South Africa, for instance on whether they are to be regarded as permanently there, whether they are not permanently there and how they are going to be returned to their homelands. I think this is the one question that we want to be answered today by this hon. the Deputy Minister.

And what is it going to cost?

No, Mr. Speaker. That is only part of it. But we have here a request for a commission into a matter such as the prevention of crime. I say without fear of any contradiction that no member in this House on either side knows the answer to that. And yet, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister, I am quite certain from the look on his face and the way he is writing notes, will get up and turn down this motion. He is not prepared to go to the extent of appointing a commission to try and find out the causes and to try and find out the remedy and to draw on the experience of other nations, countries and people who are facing precisely the same problems that we face. This is a universal problem.

How can you ask for a commission of inquiry into laws?

Certainly; the laws have an effect. The motion asked specifically for an inquiry into the effect of laws on the urban population, specifically in the relation to the prevention of crime. The hon. member for Zululand should have made that point when he was speaking. He must not do that when he is sitting down. He looks much better when he is standing up.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this motion deals with a phenomenon which is in fact universal. It happens all over the world. Those hon. members who have studied history will know how in the past century the same social phenomenon took place in Great Britain, where the mass of the population moved from the countryside into urban areas. We talk about poverty, crime and malnutrition in our country to-day. There were conditions far worse in those days in Great Britain. Let us be absolutely frank about this and admit that in those days, a 100 and more years ago in Great Britain, there were absolutely terrible conditions in the cities. But, Mr. Speaker, they have learned how to cope with those conditions. They are making continual progress in this matter. I believe this is something of which we have to take cognizance and try to learn from the experience of others overseas. We can do it in this way, namely by means of a commission that we can appoint.

One of the gravest factors that we are faced with, is the breakdown in Bantu family life. The Bantu are a tribal people with a very, very rigid set of customs. The hon. member for Brakpan mentioned the custom of lobola. This was one of the greatest means of ensuring chastity in the young female Bantu that one can find. It was something which was part and parcel of the Bantu’s way of life. But today it is broken down. It is impossible to be maintained in the urban areas.

You are talking nonsense!

What does the hon. member know about that? [Interjections.]

He never paid lobola.

He sits there at the back and shouts “you are talking nonsense”. Does he know about anything? Does he know about the Bantu population in the rural area where the lobola works? I bet he does not. [Interjections.] I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that when he was moving around in a gold mine he was not looking out to see how the lobola system works. [Interjections.] This hon. Deputy Minister says he is going to fix me up. Is that what he said? What I am saying, is that what the hon. the Deputy Minister needs to cope with a problem of this nature, is the wisdom of Solomon, but what we have, Mr. Speaker, is a Deputy Minister which, I think, is an intellectual Twiggy. [Interjections.] That is why we have such a problem that we have to cope with to-day. Here we have a problem which is universal and which has not been solved yet in other countries, but they are working towards a solution. This Deputy Minister is going to put up a big act to-day and he is going to tell us the answer. I believe that poverty throughout the Bantu population is one of the greatest problems with which we are faced. I make bold to say that the white race as such has done a great deal to help the Bantu rise from the poverty in which they have found themselves in the past. My own feeling is that we are making progress. I am afraid that I do not associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Houghton when she said that it is only by oppression that we keep the Bantu people under in this country. I honestly believe that they are making progress. I do not believe that oppression alone can keep down an entire population. Prince Schwartzenberg who was the Prime Minister of Austria in 1860, said that you can do anything with bayonets except sit on them. I think that he had a point there, but I do not believe that that applies to our country to-day. A book was written by Oscar Lewis, a sociologist, who made an intensive study of poverty in Mexico. It is something which hon. members should read because it shows how poverty has an effect on the entire social structure and home life of the local population in Mexico which is a very close parallel to the position in this country.

I want to return to the hon. member for Brakpan who said that migratory labour is now going to be the basis of our industrial labour force. I want to know how this policy is going to be reconciled with the Bantu who are now living in Soweto. I am prepared to accept that this Government has escaped the bulk of the problem because they have declared a great number of our largest industrial areas border areas. Therefore they do not have to worry about where the Bantu live and what they do. They are now living in the homelands. But what about Soweto where there are some 600,000 Bantu living to-day. What are they going to do? Are they going to take all those people away?

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member must have had a very bad dinner because something seems to have disagreed with him. He is not looking at all happy.

The hon. member for Brakpan suggested that once every three months, if I understood him correctly, the Bantu workers who to-day live in Soweto should be allowed to return home to the homelands. He suggested that they should work an extra 1½ hours a day to build up sufficient time to allow them to go. I made some calculations and found that within a week a man would have 7½ hours leave due to him. At the end of a month he would have 30 hours due to him to go home, for which he has worked. At the end of two months he would have 60 hours if he works a 40 hour week. I calculated that at the end of 2 months, this man would have 2 weeks leave due to him from his employer. The hon. member suggested that the State should subsidize his travelling and that the employer should pay him a levy to allow him to go for 2½½

weeks every three months.

I did not say 2½ weeks.

The hon. member said that a man should work an extra 1½ hours a day every day to build up time so that he would have sufficient time to his credit to go on leave. I worked it out that if this were done every 2½ months a man would have 2 weeks leave due to him. If this is done it will mean that you will need at least one-seventh more Bantu living in the white urban areas to do the work of those people who are going to be on leave at any one time. This is the kind of thing we get from this hon. member. I wondered whether he was making an election speech. I wondered what kind of job he was looking for. It seems that he has already got it. Perhaps this was his post-election acceptance speech. He asked the Minister in all seriousness to consider giving a subsidy and he is probably going to announce this in his speech now. What it in fact boils down to is that one-seventh more Bantu will be permanently resident in the white urban areas to do the work of those people who go on leave.

I will buy you a slide rule.

I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister does not know how to use a slide rule. I also want to know where all the Bantu are going to live in the homelands. We have been told that these people must go home. I shall come shortly to the question of what we will do when they do go home. As the Minister knows, we have discussed this matter before. What programme has the Minister got on the stocks now to provide housing in the homelands for these people when they return home from Soweto? I want to know whether the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Brakpan are serious about this.

They are always serious.

If they are always serious, they must approach their work in a very light-hearted manner because that hon. Minister has announced it as the intention of his Department to repatriate and do without 100,000 labourers, as there are in an area such as Soweto. They are not permanently resident there. They are going to go back to their homes. I want a statement from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to the future of the industrial complex on the Witwatersrand. Are all these people now simply to be regarded as temporary dwellers? Will they live their working lives in the white areas and then go away as soon as they are redundant? Will they have no permanence or security? If that is the hon. the Minister’s reply, then the case for a judicial commission of inquiry into the laws affecting them, is strengthened. Because the one thing that mitigates against an orderly and peace-loving society, and a society that dwells together in amity and controls its own affairs, is the fact that they have no security whatever in the areas in which they are living. I believe that what this Government is doing with the laws it is passing to-day, as the hon. member for Houghton so rightly said, is destroying the very basis on which the Bantu are living and working in the largest industrial area in the whole of South Africa from which we draw our lifeblood. The whole structure by which they live is being destroyed by this Government. If we cannot have a judicial commission of inquiry to look into those laws, then I think it is a disgrace on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I believe that we are entitled to know what the position is. The Government tells us that it has an overall plan dealing with the Bantu. This commission is asked to inquire into the laws dealing with the Bantu. I should like to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to appoint such a commission.

No.

Here we have the answer even before the Minister replies. I want to ask him whether he does not agree that the urban areas in which the Bantu are resident such as Soweto will grow larger and larger. If they are not to grow larger, the natural increase in that area must be housed, employed and fed somewhere else. I want to know whether the plan is now that all the Bantu who are born there in the next few years are going to have to work somewhere else and leave that area. I say again that the whole of South Africa lives off the Witwatersrand. The whole of our economic lifeblood flows from the effort which is put in jointly by White and Black on the Witwatersrand, which is the most important concentration of industry, wealth and capital that we have in South Africa. I believe that we deserve a statement from this Minister. Let him give us a cool, calm statement, if he is capable of doing so, telling us in detail, and without getting excited or waving his arms, what is going to happen to all those people.

Why can I not wave my arms?

Mr W. M. SUTTON: I shall make a concession to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He can wave his arms if he gives us a reply.

I now want to come to the question of crime in these areas. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) talked about the effect upon the youth of the Bantu in Soweto particularly, of the crime wave which is sweeping that area. This is something of prime importance to the white man.

What crime wave are you talking about?

The hon. member for Brakpan. must not ask me where the crime wave is, when an average of three people are murdered every day. Some 20 people are murdered-every week.

Where do you get that?

Was the hon. member not listening when that hon. member quoted the figures? Is this something which those hon. members accept as normal?

Have you read the Police reports?

No I have not. When the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) quoted these figures, not one hon. member on that side said a word. The truth is that there is a tremendous amount of crime, such as murdering and stabbing on the Witwatersrand. This is particularly true in regard to the younger people.

And in England !

If the hon. member had been listening he would have heard me saying at the beginning of my speech that this is a universal phenomenon. We are asking for a commission of inquiry so that we can establish the reasons for this situation and attempt to find a solution. I believe that the effect on the youth of the Bantu in the urban areas, is going to be very serious for us as white people because it has been proved in America that it is the youth who start the riots or other trouble in every case. I believe that it is a great mistake for us merely to accept this position without trying to get to the basic causes of the crime wave which has been going on in our country. There must be a reason for it. Poverty, the jamming together of people in small areas and the living together of men in great numbers are all parts of the reason. Surely we can attempt to find the solution. That is also why we support this motion asking for a judicial commission of inquiry.

A Bill is at present before this House dealing with the development of the Bantu homelands. We have other legislation which deals with the development of the border areas. We have all kinds of legislation which is designed to repatriate these Bantu and remove them from the urban areas. I want to know how the Government sees the future of white industry in these areas, if their measures are successful. If the measures which they are taking to-day to repatriate all these people are successful, what is the future of the white man and white industry in the white urban areas? If the Government lays down all sorts of conditions, for instance in regard to the whole of the secondary education structure, the entertainment structure such as the football fields and the swimming pools which the hon. the Deputy Minister will not allow them to build in Johannesburg, and if they send them all back to the homelands, what will the future of the Witwatersrand complex be? Where is the money going to come from for the development of. all these areas which the Government has declared homelands? It comes to-day from the white economy and in that economy White and Black are working together to-day. The most important source of this money is the Witwatersrand. I wonder whether this Government is planning some kind of rundown of industry in this area by bleeding away the sources of labour upon which the industrialists in that area rely. I should be very grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister will try to give us some kind of reply. I say “some kind of reply”, because that is the kind of reply I expect from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River started his speech by saying that the majority of the black people we were discussing here had no voice in South Africa. I want to tell him that that is absolutely untrue. Never before in the history of South Africa has there been better and more communication between the Bantu and the Government than there is to-day. Furthermore I want to tell him that the Bantu has never been more satisfied than he is to-day. This applies to the homelands as well as the urban areas. I know what I am speaking of because I come into daily contact with these people during the recess. For the benefit of the hon. member for Houghton I want to say that we employ a much smaller number of police in this country per 1,000 of our population than is being employed even in England, and most definitely a much smaller number than is employed in America. Does that give the impression that people are being suppressed—people who are on the point of staging a revolution, as the hon. member for Houghton and hon. members opposite wanted to make out here this morning and this afternoon—and that we are sitting on a time bomb? They were talking the biggest nonsense in the world. I just, want to tell the hon. member for Mooi River that there is no need whatsoever for a commission of inquiry. The Department deals with these matters daily; we have these matters investigated every day. From time to time; we have a departmental committee for the investigation of these laws so as to make their administration more streamlined and to facilitate their implementation, because this is no easy task. I cannot see what a judicial commission will be able to do about this. The position is improving all the time and there is absolutely no reason for the appointment of a commission. A condition of peace prevails amongst the people. This is better than it has ever been before, and if ever there was a time when it was unreasonable to ask for a judicial commission of inquiry, it is now.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said that they had opposed the removal of the Bantu from Sophiatown on one ground only, and that was because the Bantu in Sophiatown would lose his right of ownership. I want to tell him, as I have told the hon. member for Mooi River, that that is absolutely untrue. They opposed that in principle. Here in front of me I have the Hansard report. Here is the amendment moved by them. They opposed the removal in principle. They said the only thing to be done there was for a slum clearance scheme to be instituted; the Bantu had to remain there; they did not want to allow the removal of the Bantu from Sophiatown: the Bantu had to remain in Sophiatown and Martindale, intermingled with the white people. Shaking his head will not help the hon. member; here is the Hansard report. At that time he was a member of the Johannesburg City Council. They were not concerned about the question of freehold; they opposed the removal of the Bantu from those areas of Johannesburg in principle and they know that this is so.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Houghton. I just want to tell her that I might have done her an injustice this morning when I told her that she was an enemy of South Africa. No. I do not believe she is an enemy of South Africa, but I want to tell her this: She is an enemy of the white man in South Africa …

That too is nonsense.

… and she is a great friend of South Africa provided South Africa is under a black government, and this is what was said by her leader in this House. Sir, it is a very long time since I have listened to a more distorted picture being presented of the position in South Africa than that presented by her this morning. Our biggest enemy at U.N. can take lessons from her. I have not the slightest doubt that her speech is on U Thant’s table already. He will read it with great relish. She ought to be ashamed of herself for having presented this false picture here this morning and for having tried to paint a totally wrong picture here of the true position in the homelands and in our white urban residential areas. I reject her motion with the contempt it deserves. Her difficulty and that of her Party is that they are becoming the most frustrated people in South Africa, and they are becoming that because the Whites have stopped listening to them and because the Bantu are at present following suit. Her small audience is becoming smaller and smaller and smaller and that is why she has been more bitter this year than she has ever been before in this House. She came here with a book giving an exposition of all the laws and said these laws had been made against the Bantu and that that was wrong. I want to tell her that everyone of these laws was not made against the Bantu but for the protection of the Bantu. What is the alternative? What is her alternative? Her alternative is the total abolition of influx control. Does she deny that?

Free movement.

Yes, she wants free movement. But this is something we have already had in South Africa after the war when statutory provision for influx control was in fact on the Statute Book but when influx control had ceased to exist for all practical purposes. And what was the result? The result was unemployment on a fantastic scale, shanty towns and slum conditions without precedent in the history of this country. She wants free entry for the people and the abolition of influx control. Sir, if one were to allow this one would experience the biggest chaos imaginable on the Witwatersrand, in the Vaal Triangle and here in the Western Cape and everywhere in this country, slum conditions of the worst degree. And who would be the victims of that? Not the Whites. We can look after ourselves. We have proper housing. The Bantu would be the principal victims of that. Wages would decrease; there would be no housing for these people; one would find unfair competition; one would experience a simply inconceivably chaotic condition. This one now has to accept from an intelligent woman like the hon. member for Houghton! This is her alternative to the position we have to-day, which is a reasonably orderly one. Sir, I am the last person to say that we are all satisfied that these things are working as they should. Here we are dealing with a tremendously complicated problem, but when one is dealing with a complicated problem such as this, one must, after all, consider the alternatives; one has to look at the present position and see how one may improve that. Is there anybody in this country, except somebody who is, politically speaking, bereft of his senses, who will say that we must throw open the doors of the urban areas and must simply allow the Bantu to stream in? Surely the hon. member knows that that will create the biggest chaos and will give rise to the severest disasters.

I now come to the Opposition and I want to begin with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), who had such a great deal to say here about the disintegration of families. Is it the policy of his Party that every Bantu worker who comes to the urban areas has to bring his family along with him?

You have asked that question before and we have given you the reply.

I have already asked that question a hundred times and I shall do so a thousand times more. Let the hon. member for King William’s Town, who is so noisy at the moment, tell me this: Should every Bantu who comes from the Transkei to Cape Town bring his family along with him?

What is the position on your farm?

I am not speaking about my farm. I am asking whether the Bantu who comes to Johannesburg should have the right, according to the policy of the United Party, to bring his family along with him?

Not all of them.

The hon. member for Orange Grove says: “Not all of them.” In other words, the families may become disintegrated. Perhaps he will select his favourite Bantu and tell him that he may bring his wife along with him, but that the other may not bring their wives along with them. Does one have to listen to such nonsense? Sir, they want exactly the same thing as we do. They also refuse, but at the same time they adopt a holier-than-thou attitude. The hon. member for Mooi River adopted a holier-than-thou attitude here with regard to the disintegration of families while the same thing will happen under their policy. Let me ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) whether the Bantu should bring their families along with them to the cities? What is the policy of the United Party?

We have often explained our policy to you.

Sir, I can still have a little sympathy with the hon. member for Houghton because she wants the take-over of this country by the black people, but hon. members of the United Party are the ones who speak of “white leadership with justice”; they are the ones who speak of an undivided country that must always remain under white control. Therefore they are the ones who have to supply the answer. They refuse to give us an answer because they are not honest as far as their policy is concerned. I now accuse the United Party that their policy is— and I am going to say this in Pretoria (West) —that every Bantu who comes to Pretoria should be able to bring his family along with him, and then Pretoria will become a black city and Johannesburg will become a black city I shall tell this to the people in Pretoria, and then hon. members of the United Party must not open their mouths here about families who are going to be removed. We on this side say that the families may not come into the white urban areas.

On your farm.

My farm is not Johannesburg. If things were going as smoothly on the farm of that hon. member as they are going on my farm he too would have something of which he could be proud.

Then I want to say a few words about the system of migratory labour. The hon. member as well as the United Party had a great deal to say against the system of migratory labour. When did they realize that migratory labour was something so wrong? For 60 years, under the Botha regime, under the Smuts regime, under the Hertzog regime, and then again under the Smuts regime, our goldmining industry was being developed on the system of migratory labour. They became wealthy from and enriched themselves on the system of migratory labour and never did we hear a single word of objection to that system of migratory labour. Sir, these migratory labourers do not come from places 200 or 300 miles away. [Interjections.] A large number of these foreign Bantu may live away from their wives. This is the moral standard of that hon. member. As long as a Bantu is a foreign Bantu he may live in sin. Is this the moral standard of the hon. member for Orange Grove? That foreign Bantu does not remain here for six or nine months; he remains here for up to two year, but not a word is said about the disintegration of families. As long as Harry can make money, they are not in the least concerned about family life.

Sir, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

The hon. member for Brakpan. Apologize to him.

Not only do I apologize to the hon. member for Brakpan, but I want to say that I have never known a man who has had to suffer so many injustices in South Africa on account of his surname than the hon. member for Brakpan has to suffer in this House. I want to tell him that I share in his view that as far as our future pattern is concerned, we shall have to rely on migratory labour to an increasing extent.

Terrible!

Will you tell that to the farmers too?

Yes, I shall tell this to the farmers too. To a large extent the sting has been removed from the system of migratory labour. The hon. member for Brakpan made certain suggestions and I just want to say that we are investigating these matters. We have negotiated with the Railways; we have negotiated with Putco and these people. The Railways assure us that they can provide transport for a Bantu over a distance of 200 miles over a week-end and back again at a fare of R3.25 each, and Putco can do it for even less. We are therefore approaching a stage when all the migratory labourers in the urban areas will be able to pay regular return visits to their homes and their families, and consequently I say that the sting has been removed from the system of migratory labour to a large extent. I shall advocate this and I shall fight for our labour pattern in South Africa to be based on a system of migratory labour to an increasing extent. That is why we have influx control. What is England doing? It is keeping its own citizens from England— the Indians from Kenya who hold British passports. What is that but influx control? Why is this being done? In order to prevent a social problem in England. But the hon. member for Houghton does not object to that, but when we want to do the same thing in the Republic of South Africa, we are great sinners. This is the sacrosanct attitude of that hon. member, but let me tell her that I would not give sixpence for her political morality, and I do not believe most of the stories she tells here. I do not believe she is serious, and if she is serious she is not as intelligent as I thought she was.

There are complaints to-day about the disintegration of families. I want to furnish some figures as regards the ratio of Bantu males to Bantu females in Johannesburg over the years. In 1911 this cruel Government with its apartheid policy was not in power. At that time the progressive and moral and humane English were in power; that was shortly after their rule came to an end in South Africa. At that time one had 2,240 Bantu males for every Bantu female in Johannesburg and the Anglican Church was as quiet as a churchmouse. In 1921, when General Smuts came into power, one had 771 Bantu males for every Bantu female in Johannesburg. Did we then hear a fuss being made about the disintegration of families? [Interjections.] It makes no difference whether industrialization took place later. The morality of the matter remains exactly the same. In 1936 one had 273 and at present one has 100 Bantu females for 103 Bantu males, a situation which I do not welcome, but in the history of South Africa there has never been less family disintegration than there is at present.

Now I come to the question of crime. Where do the stories come from that crime has increased so tremendously? The Police reports do not indicate that. The hon. member spoke of a crime wave. The crime figures in South Africa do not compare badly with those in other countries, and those are homogeneous countries. Who told the hon. member for Mooi River that the crime figure was increasing to such a fantastic extent, and that we were experiencing such an uncontrollable crime wave in South Africa? Take statutory crimes. They simply have to consult the Police reports.

Are you satisfied with the figures?

Of course not. We are trying to improve the position every day. Of course we are not satisfied with it. During December, as compared to November, crime decreased in number by more than 750,000 as a result of registration and the provision of documents. Under the Bantu Urban Areas Consolidation Act crime has decreased by 4,500. The only figures which have shown an increase relate to the collection of Bantu taxes. This is so because we are taking stricter action against the Bantu as regards payment of taxes, and I wholeheartedly agree with this. The figures in connection with the illegal possession of Bantu beer decreased tremendously. Who told the hon. member that these figures had increased so tremendously? The position as regards crime amongst the Bantu in South Africa is serious, but in comparison with other countries it is not in the least out of proportion. Why say that we are experiencing a wave of violence. This is simply not true. But that is what we would have if the policy of those hon. members and that hon. lady were to be implemented in South Africa.

Then we have the question of economic opportunity; it is being alleged that the Bantu finds himself in an ever-deteriorating position economically. I am not even going to quote from our reports; I am going to quote from the widely praised report, the Forward Planning Report of Mr. Carr, and the following are the wages paid to Bantu in the factories. In 1946 it was R200 per annum, in 1960-’61 R370 per annum, and in the year 1964 R456 per annum, an increase exceeding 150 per cent. We know that the cost of living did not increase by 150 per cent, but rentals for housing for the Bantu, with the exception of Johannesburg and Brakpan, have remained constant, and their transport costs have remained constant for the past 15 years. Therefore the economic position of the Bantu has improved considerably.

Is it a living wage?

Yes, figures quoted by the hon. member for Houghton the other day which indicated that they were R11 below the poverty datum line, related to one bread-winner, and we all know that the Bantu’s economic employment is 1 to 3.4 in other words, every family has from 1.9 to 2.3 Bantu having an income. This puts them far above the poverty datum line, and those figures of hers are completely unrealistic. [Interjections.]

Order! The speech of the hon. member for Houghton does not run from the beginning to the end of this debate.

I want to conclude by referring to the question of education about which she also complained. Let us take the figures for 1957 and 1967, a period of ten years. In 1957 there were 630 primary schools. In 1967 there were 985. Post-primary schools or divisions totalled 69 in 1957 and the present figure is 132. In 1957 there were 5,254 teachers in primary schools and in 1967 there were 9,020. But they maintain that we have not done anything. In 1957 there were 280,000 pupils and in 1967 there were 640,000. There were 620 post-primary teachers in 1957 and 835 in 1967. Not one of us is saying that we are satisfied with the position, but we are practical people after all. This is not enough, but it is a thousand times better than it was when those hon. members were in power. It illustrates the progress that has been made. We have made fantastic progress over the past years. But they do not look at the progress we have made and they do not paint a fair picture for the outside world by saying, “We are faced with a difficult problem, but this is the progress we have made. These are the improvements we have brought about as regards housing, education and wages”. Surely this is the right picture to present and let the world then criticize us on the basis of that picture. But this is not the picture they present. They maintain that we are sitting on a volcano; we are involved in a revolution here and there is suppression; the people are starving, there is no housing for them and they are being taken away from their families and the position is worse than that which existed prior to the French Revolution. I say that anyone who is capable of presenting a picture like that is not only morally dishonest, but in the case of that hon. member it is intellectually as dishonest.

Debate having continued for 2½ hours, motion lapsed in terms of Standing Order No. 32.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this regard I want to address a request to the Government. Based on what I am going to say, I am asking for a thorough-going scientific inquiry, on a national level, into the importance and the problems of the small entrepreneur in our national economy, with special reference to (1) such direct or indirect financial aid in connection with guidance as may be necessary; and (2) the role played by major financially strong corporations with their particular patterns of operation, high liquidity, substantial cash resources, particular investment policy and their particular tax evasion techniques, and how such corporations affect the subsistence possibilities of the small entrepreneurs as an essential active economic factor in the maintenance of a sound and balanced economy.

The time has arrived for the State to formulate a more definite policy in regard to the role and the importance of the small entrepreneurs in our national economy. At present there is already enough evidence of disquiet, uncertainty and fear that in all spheres the small entrepreneurs will eventually be eliminated by major capital corporations and power groups. On 21st February, 1964, this very same problem was discussed in this House with reference to a motion introduced by the hon. member for Vereeniging, at present the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. This was followed by a motion introduced by the hon. member for Orange Grove, a motion that was worded better than all his motions on television. In fact, when the hon. member for Vereeniging introduced his motion in 1964, he conceded that the hon. member for Orange Grove’s motion was worded better than his own. I should like to read out this motion to the House. It was as follows—

In October, 1962, the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council advised the Prime Minister and expressed misgivings to the effect that the small entrepreneurs in South Africa were in difficulties and were in fact experiencing a crisis. They pointed to the importance of the small entrepreneurs for the welfare of the country and asked that special attention be devoted to preventing the small entrepreneurs from going under. Subsequently concern was expressed at several conferences in South Africa in regard to the trade crisis which had arisen as a result of the entry of major capital interests in the field of distribution. Such a conference was held in Bloemfontein in 1964. However, no thorough-going inquiry was made into this crisis in the distributive trade by either the Government or the private sector. There was in fact a commission of inquiry into trade licensing and incidental matters in 1964, under the chairmanship of Mr. Prinsloo, but that commission was not specifically instructed to inquire into the threat to the small entrepreneurs as a result of the new trends which were developing. Admittedly, that commission did devote a few chapters to that topic, arising out of the evidence which had been submitted to it in regard to this problem. On reading through that report, one finds that between 1952 and 1960 as much as R97 million of the R360.1 million increase in the total retail turnover, i.e. 26.9 per cent, went to only ten major retailers. It cannot be disputed that those ten major retailers have international connections. In 1952 there were six of these major retailers, these capital corporations which had entered the field of the distributive trade. Each of them had a turnover of more than R5 million. In 1960 ten of them had a turnover of more than R5 million per annum each. In 1952 they had 307 branches and in 1960. 484. In 1952 the turnover of those ten major capital distribution entrepreneurs amounted to R96.2 million, whereas in 1965 it amounted to R193 million. In the report of the commission of inquiry into trade licensing and incidental matters, these particulars become clearly apparent.

The concern, the fear, the disquiet that exists in the minds of the commercial sector, the small entrepreneurs, as expressed at conferences and reflected in motions in this House, and as voiced before commissions of inquiry, is adequate proof that those problems really exist. Those phenomena lent backing and support to my request as I put it to the Government when I began to set out my argument.

It is not only in South Africa that this phenomenon occurs. In other countries steps have already been taken to assist and support the small entrepreneurs in the face of the squeeze and the pressure the major capital corporations are applying to them. In America, where this development has advanced much further and has assumed a monopolistic character and monopolistic tendencies, the Sherman and the Clayton Laws have been passed in an attempt to counter these monopolistic practices. These practices have resulted from the hold major capital corporations have obtained on commerce owing to their liquid funds and their large cash resources. But these measures appeared to be ineffective. Other countries, for instance Canada and Holland, took certain steps to lend financial support to the small entrepreneurs. They took direct steps by way of legislation and direct loans. They also took indirect steps by way of legislation in terms of which the State provided the small entrepreneurs with guarantees for losses which financial institutions might suffer if they financed small entrepreneurs. Other attempts have also been made by way Of legislation to assist the small man. Certain bodies were established for the purpose of backing and assisting the small entrepreneur by way of guidance—combined with direct and indirect aid—to hold their own in the face of the onslaught of the major capital corporations.

On the grounds of what has been experienced abroad and what has been attempted there by way of legislation, on the grounds of what has been said and done and is being accepted here, sufficient evidence does therefore exist to confirm the problem and the crisis with which the small entrepreneurs are faced in South Africa. In addition there is information which indisputably and clearly points to an extension of the field of investment of major capital corporations to those fields where the small entrepreneurs have always been active economically and capable of holding their own. In the past major capital interests have applied in South Africa various forms of investment practices and techniques. All of us probably know that a certain major capital corporation in South Africa exercises control over 918 companies. They obviously, as is apparent to us to-day, began with our raw materials. They concentrated on gold, iron, coal, diamonds, and many other raw materials, too many to mention, and after they had consolidated and ensconced themselves in that field, they entered the field of propaganda, and to-day a great many of our newspapers are controlled by major capital corporations. Over the past few years these trends have become clearly visible, namely that they are now entering those fields which are the most labour-intensive. I am referring to the manufacturing industry, the construction industry and the service industry. I want to quote a few figures in this respect. From September, 1963, to December, 1963—after one major capital corporation in the Republic had established a company which was to concern itself with investments in the manufacturing industry, the construction industry and the service industry—that company obtained shares and interests in or control of 350 companies in South Africa. Hon. members will probably agree with me that these industries—the manufacturing industry, the construction industry and our service industries—are the most labour-absorptive ones. The greatest inflow of labour is towards these industries. If one studies the data furnished by the Bureau of Statistics and if one looks at a survey made by the Department of Planning, a survey of the anticipated demand for labour from 1965 to 1971, one realizes that these things confirm what I am saying here to-day. I shall now furnish the relevant figures.

Between 1960 and 1965 the increase in the white labour force employed in the manufacturing industry, the service industries and construction industries, amounted to exactly 100 per cent. In agriculture it was nil—in fact, it showed a decrease. As regards the non-Whites, the corresponding increase was 65 per cent. According to an estimate made by the Department of Planning, the increase in the non-white labour force in the manufacturing industry, the construction sphere and in the service industries will, over the period 1965 to 1971, be in the vicinity of 220,000.

This new trend, i.e. the fact that major capital corporations in South Africa are entering a new field of investment, disturbs us tremendously. In the past the small entrepreneurs were active in these fields; here they were active economically and had a niche of their own. Now the major capital corporations are entering this field as well. Those of us who believe that private enterprise should be practised by the largest number of independent individuals in a country, are most decidedly alarmed at this development. I want to furnish a few figures. The control one major capital corporation in South Africa has, is as follows: In the field of mining it controls 223 companies. I am only referring to labour-intensive industries. In the field of prospecting and development it controls 28 companies; in the iron, steel and engineering industries: 160 companies; cement: 11 companies; alloys: 5 companies; building construction and allied industries: 26 companies; paint: 4 companies; fertilizer: 2 companies; food and sugar: 62 companies; liquor: 62 companies; textiles: 13 companies; plastics: 8 companies; chemicals: 8 companies; agriculture and forestry: 19 companies; and miscellaneous: 85 companies. We find therefore that one major capital corporation in South Africa has direct or indirect control of or influences 716 labour-intensive industries in our country. The other industries, i.e. the difference between 900 and 716, are not labour-intensive.

The amount of room for the small entrepreneurs is becoming smaller. They are steadily being confined to a smaller sphere in our economy. These capital corporations are increasing their funds and their liquidity year by year, and their strangle-hold on the small entrepreneurs is becoming tighter and tighter. With their high liquidity and availability of ready capital funds, they are entering the fields in which the small entrepreneurs have had a niche in the past and could still hold their own. But a definite picture reveals itself if we inquire into the pattern of operation, the investment policy and the tax evasion techniques which are being applied in South Africa by these major capital corporations—and I am referring to one only. I want to start mentioning them. In the main they obtain their funds as a result of disproportionate capital mobilization. And I want to mention an example. You will recall how low the shares dropped on the day the Sharpeville incident took place. Do you know what the profit was, Sir? Anybody may look this up, if he wants to spend a little time, in the annual reports of the Registrar of Companies. The profit they made in one year …

Who are they?

Wait a moment, I am coming to that. The profit they made in one year on share appreciation, i.e. owing to the fact that such shares had been bought in at a low figure and subsequently increased in value until they reached the normal level, was R30 million. That was in one year. It was tax-free. Not a tickey’s or a penny’s worth of tax was paid on that amount, since the Income Tax Act provides that dividends accruing to a company are tax-free. The small entrepreneurs, the private person, has to pay a tax of 72.1 per cent on his earnings in excess of the amount of R18,000 calculated on a progressive scale. I say that this is unfair. This is not just. They are enriching themselves. Worst of all is that that R30 million that was earned in one year through share manipulation and through the fact that they had at their disposal liquid cash funds they had accumulated, amounts to nothing but stealing from the public. If one earns money without working and if a company experiences appreciation without productivity being involved, then one impoverishes those people from whom one obtains it. That is not real appreciation in terms of productive labour. I want to mention another example. From 1956 to 1960 four companies in South Africa made a profit of R390 million, solely as a result of capital share appreciation. No tax was paid on that. As a result high liquidity and high security value developed which enabled them to evade the measures the Government had taken against inflation—all the monetary measures—and virtually to act as a bank and a money-lender within our state. That is something which worries me. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Government to effect a change in this regard. This system of taxation is discriminating, because in a skilful manner—owing to their particular pattern of operation in terms of which there is manoeuvring by a number of companies—they evade and avoid the principle on which the Income Tax Act is founded, namely the assumption that all dividends that are being paid out will eventually land in the hands of the shareholders, and that because of the tax paid by the shareholders the State will receive its rightful share. There were six companies in South Africa which carried on business under the umbrella of one major parent capital corporation and in which direct and indirect interests were involved. In ten years’ time those six companies held back dividends, which were not paid out to the public, to the value of almost R90 million. No tax was paid on that. That served to strengthen their liquid funds and when they had these funds at their disposal, their absorptive capacity was increased so as to absorb and gradually take over the small entrepreneurs in the distributive trade and in the manufacturing sector, on which they are now concentrating their investment policy. These things alarm us. They can only lead to one thing, and that is that the small entrepreneurs in South Africa will eventually be eliminated. They must disappear. They cannot hold their own against millions with the power to apply price discrimination from region to region; with the power to force a manufacturing industry to sell its total production at a discriminating price; with the power to force the manufacturing industries to discriminate between the price they charge the person who buys in bulk and the retailer who has to buy a few dozen at a time. This increase in funds, this increase of capital liquidity, this tightening of the hold of the major capital corporations in South Africa, has become a factor to which we must pay serious attention. I say this here to-day in all sincerity. In the Financial Gazette dated 3rd February, 1967, there is an article by Professor Lombard in which he says a few things about this tax evasion technique by means of which funds are accumulated, the absorption capacity is increased and the retail entrepreneurs are forced to capitulate. He says—

There are, therefore, the suspicion, data and evidence—which can be ascertained by means of such a scientific inquiry on a national level, as I requested—that, as a result of their particular pattern of operation, their tax evasion techniques, their investment policy and the unobtrusive concealment of their profits, major capital corporations in South Africa are increasing their influence in South Africa which will eventually eliminate the small private entrepreneurs from our economy. It will be a bad day when the small entrepreneurs in South Africa must disappear. They are essential in the development in the Republic of South Africa. These small entrepreneurs have played a major role through their social services, free services, participation in the points of growth as they arose one after the other in a developing country such as the Republic, through the cultural functions they performed and through their granting of credit. There was not one single women’s organization, agricultural organization or school which did not receive positive support from these small entrepreneurs which initially struggled to make a living but gradually developed along with the community. But walk around in any town to-day and try to collect funds for a school or for educational purposes. Then one is told: I am very sorry, sir, but my head-office is in Durban, Cape Town or Johannesburg. Please write a letter to them and ask them for a contribution. This social and cultural function that was performed by the small entrepreneurs in South Africa cannot be measured in terms of money. They formed a pillar, a local pillar on which society was founded. But these small entrepreneurs also formed the shock absorber between the two major conflicting forces which must eventually develop in a capitalistic State in the process of eliminating small entrepreneurs. These forces are the State as a capitalist on the one hand— as a major supplier of capital—and the major capital corporations on the other hand. And if you were to ask me why the Labour Party in South Africa could never make any progress and disappeared from the scene, I would attribute it to these small entrepreneurs who treated their employees in their own way, who were able to bargain more easily and who did not build up major concentrations of manpower that they could use for political purposes. After all, we have gained experience. Take the history of our gold mines. Since 1922 up to the present stage there has never been calm between employees and employers in our gold-mining industry. That is so because the capital corporations and the capital power are continually interfering in politics, making use of their capital power. The history of our fatherland cannot be recorded without mentioning the role played by major capital interests in our political history. These small entrepreneurs, the individuals, the partnerships, the less moneyed entrepreneurs—be they traders, small farmers or factory men—have served as a buffer throughout our history. They were in a position to bargain. They had personal ties with their employees. They are the people who did not concentrate labour. They did not have at their disposal funds to be utilized for the purposes of some political party or other. I remember very well how in years gone by one moneyed person provided the “Trust Fund”—for the purpose of interfering in our policy. But we have examples of the Russian Revolution. Bring me an example taken from world history where major capital interests played a more important role than was the case in the Russian Revolution of 1917. The tragedy is that it is indisputable —according to evidence I have here before me—that major capital corporations in South Africa have connections with international shareholders and international capitalism. They live on riots and they make their money, not through labour productivity, but according to a disproportionate mobilization technique of our capital, at the expense of the public. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to insist on a disclosure of who the share-holders in these major capital organizations and corporations in South Africa are, who their nominees are, what companies are under their control, and to insist on their whole capital and their whole contractual structure being exposed. The nation is entitled to know that, because here a process is taking place which is undermining one of the essential factors for the maintenance of a sound national economy, namely the major concentration of capital in any capitalistic country. Where a concentration and control of major capital interests are to be found, there is a concentration of labour as well. Once the small entrepreneurs have been eliminated, the labourers become a factor of political bargaining. We have seen that throughout the world. Who is the labourer going to choose? They choose the State to protect them. We have examples of that in our history. The history of the Afrikaner nation is a fine example of the protection against foreign domination they sought from the State. That is why our entire system of education is controlled by the State and why not one single private school developed amongst the Afrikaners. That was why Mr. Wilson in Britain—just imagine, that super-democratic capitalistic state in the free Western world—had to yield under the pressure brought to bear by the labourers with their votes, and he had to apply nationalization of some of his key industries. That is a desperate attempt on the part of the State to resist the further capital growth of the major capital corporation. Once one has undermined the influence, the financial strength and the niche of the small entrepreneurs in the economy to that extent, there is only one alternative for a country: The labourers will force it to take such steps, because the workers will always prefer the State to the moneyed employers. Our history is full of examples of that nature. Then one has the major insistence on nationalization. “Through my State I want a share in what you as a major moneyed individual possess.” Then one would hear that side and the people crying out against socialism. Then they would say that it is a socialising process that is taking place. What are the true facts in our country to-day? At present public capital is being mobilized in South Africa by either the State with its State institutions Such as Foskor, Sasol, Iscor, and so forth, or, on the other hand, the major, powerful capital corporations which at this particular stage—at which the Republic of South Africa is engaged in a major economic emancipation process, a process which is developing incredibly—are developing into major forces in South Africa. Who are they? They are the capital powers and the State which, in its attempts at imposing restrictions on them, is mobilizing its institutions in the form of utility companies. And the small entrepreneurs find themselves between these two forces, and they will be ground to dust.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. The small entrepreneurs will not survive this struggle, this onslaught. The time has arrived for us to formulate a definite policy in which attention should also be paid to the social and political importance of these entrepreneurs, but especially, in the interests of maintaining a sound national economy, to assisting these small entrepreneurs to hold their own. I did not discuss the small farmers. My hon. friend who will speak after me, will do so. Nor did I discuss the small mineral prospector and miner. Another colleague of mine will do so.

But I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker. I have made a thorough study of this whole pattern which is developing in our country. I have also made a study of how countries abroad are combating it. I have come to one conclusion, namely that we in South Africa, with our heterogeneous population, with our particular problems, are tied down to the inexorable prerequisite that we must have our own system, just as we have worked out our colour policy —peculiar to ourselves and different from the rest of the world. We shall also have to do so in South Africa, in the interests of South Africa. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very limited time available, and therefore I cannot deal with all the points raised by the introducer of this motion. May I say, first of all, that we on this side are in general agreement with the motion. I agree with a lot of what the hon. member for Carletonville has said, but I do not agree with it all.

Among the points that he dealt with, was the question of profits on the Stock Exchange. The hon. member did not use the words, but he seems to me to be coming very near to advocating something like a capital gains tax. I hope that was not in his mind, because there could be few things more damaging to a growing country in need of capital than a capital gains tax. I have said that we are in general agreement with this motion, but to us it appears to be rather anaemic; it is merely an expression of opinion. I think that there is a danger that the Minister may pigeonhole it, or perhaps even worse: He might consign the hon. member for Carletonville’s motion down a sinkhole.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked for a comprehensive inquiry into this problem, and I think we on this side of the House agree with him that it will be very interesting indeed if, as a result of such an inquiry, it became known who controls so many of these big corporations that he was talking about. There have been inquiries in the past, as the hon. member has mentioned, and we feel that there is a lot that this Government can do to control this situation which he has dealt with this afternoon. Therefore, because we feel that there is need for action, and we want to put some flesh on the bare bones of this motion I wish, Mr. Speaker, to move an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, there are two distinct problems arising from two contrasting causes. Both of these problems are the by-products of the very rapid industrialization which is taking place in this country.

There is firstly the problem of the small businessman in our cities and large towns, who is being squeezed out by bigger competitors amidst conditions of general urban prosperity. Then there is secondly the problem which the hon. gentleman did not deal with; he said that it was going to be dealt with by one of his colleagues. I refer to the small farmers who have been, and are, leaving the farms in steady numbers, because of the conditions in the agricultural industry, which are depressed relative to conditions in other sectors of the economy. Because of this drift from the farms (that is of Whites from the farms), the small businessman and the small entrepreneur on the platteland is battling. He is losing his customers, who are going off to the big cities.

As regards the first problem, namely the disappearance of the small entrepreneur in our cities, there is, as the hon. member mentioned, a general tendency in modern Western industrialized countries for commercial and industrial concerns to grow bigger and bigger. They are able to operate efficiently and at low cost, because they can take advantage of “economies of scale”, economies consequent upon the large scale of their operations. Control of a whole industry, particularly in the capital intensive industries, becomes concentrated in the hands of a few individuals who, through a system of interlocking companies, build up commercial and industrial empires. The earlier and more rapid the industrial development of the country concerned, the sooner do the dangers and the abuses flowing from this concentration of power, become apparent. In the United States of America, for example, which is the industrial leader in the Western world, it is not surprising that they have been among the first to try and limit by legislation, through their anti-trust Acts that the hon. member mentioned, these abuses of monopoly power.

We are seeing the same process at work here in South Africa as we industrialize. We are seeing the growth of large enterprises, the elimination of the small operator by takeover bids and other means. We are seeing vertical and horizontal integration in industries and the growth of monopolies. This House, of course, legislated against monopolies by passing the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act in 1955, under which the Board of Trade and Industries can investigate industries in which it is suspected that restrictive trade practices are operating. But that Act was designed to control restrictive agreements as to retail price maintenance for example between one manufacturer and another, between the manufacturer, the wholesaler and the retailer. and between retailers themselves, and so on. But it was not designed primarily with a view to interfering with the sales or pricing policy of the individual manufacturer himself. We are a free enterprise country and, provided a firm does not enter into agreements with others to practise restrictive measures, it can do much as it likes. There is indeed little danger in this, as long as there are a large number of independent firms providing competition in the industry.

The danger comes when we reach a position where a few very large firms dominate the industry. This is something for the Government to watch very carefully indeed, particularly in essential sectors of the economy, such as the food industry. I say that we have reached a potentially dangerous position when there is what obtains in, for example, the milling industry to-day. That is an efficient industry whose efficiency has helped indeed to keep down the cost of bread, but it is an industry dominated by four large firms, the largest of which is virtually controlled by a foreigner. The Government must guard against the danger that temporary cuts in prices may, in the long run, lead to higher prices for the consumer. We have seen very recently one or two spectacular price wars, for example in the field of electrical appliances. It would be a tragedy for the consumer if those price wars were to lead to the elimination of the small trader who, because of his limited financial resources, is more vulnerable when anti-inflationary measures such as the credit squeeze are applied. It would also be a tragedy if they were to lead to reduced competition and ultimately to consumer prices higher than those before the price war. The chain store and the supermarket most certainly have their place in our economy but just as certainly the small trader and small dealer has his place.

In the rural areas we see a very different position indeed. There the disappearance of the small farmer has set off a chain reaction. Faced with indifferent prices for his produce and rising production costs, the small farmer has been unable to withstand the threats to his enterprise from nature, such as drought. He has also not been able to withstand the economic pressure arising from Government action, particularly the credit squeeze. He therefore sells his farm which is bought by his neighbour who buys it either as a hedge against inflation in an attempt to counter the erosive effects of a continuous depreciation in the value of money, or in an attempt to increase his own scale of operations, thereby lowering his unit costs of production, in an attempt to make a profit. That small farmer then retires to a big city, to some coastal resort or, perhaps, even to the local small town. But even if he himself settles in that small town, his children are lost to the platteland forever. They go to the city because the family farm has been sold and because there are no employment opportunities for them in the small town. The Government expects this trend to continue. The economic development programme for 1966 to 1971, for example, released by the hon. the Minister’s department, forecasts that the number of Whites in agriculture which stood at 109,600 in 1965 will fall to 96,200 by 1971. The overall figures for agriculture as a whole conceal an even more serious state of affairs in certain specific areas of the country which industrial development and the boom have passed by. One such area is the midlands of the Eastern Cape. In 1946 the Port Elizabeth metropolitan area had a white population of approximately 69,000 people. The 21 districts of the hinterland of that city, namely the districts of the Cape midlands, had an almost equal white population. By 1960 the white population of Port Elizabeth had grown by 30,000 but the white population of those 21 country districts had decreased by 3,000. Even within those 21 districts the picture is not uniform. The larger of the smaller towns have more or less held their own during that time but the really small towns have suffered even more. In the particular district in which I farm, the white population of the town and the district as a whole has dropped by some 45 per cent in the past 25 years prior to 1967.

No town can afford to lose almost half its population over a comparatively short period. The effects of this on the small businessmen in such towns have been disastrous. It is true that the drop in numbers of Whites has been more than offset, numberwise, by a rise in the number of non-Whites. For the country as a whole the economic development programme forecasts a rise in the number of non-Whites engaged in agriculture from 1,739,400 in 1965 to 1,915,400 in 1971. In nine of the 21 districts I have mentioned the ratio of White to non-White was one to six in 1946. By 1960 it was one to eight. Since then the position has got even worse. It is quite true that non-Whites are consumers and buyers just as the Whites are, but their earnings generally speaking, and therefore their purchasing power, are much lower. What then has happened to the shopkeeper, the garage owner and the bioscope proprietor in those small towns? Their takings drop and they become a poor business risk in times of financial stringency, such as the present credit squeeze. The bank manager cuts their overdrafts and so they cut their stocks. The farmer, unable to buy the selection of goods he wants from their reduced stocks, begins to buy in the nearest large town. This cuts their turnover further and eventually they go out of business. They themselves then drift off to work for a big firm in a big town. The result of all this is that the small town has lost another family. The baker, the butcher and every other small businessman in that small town has lost another customer, and so the process of decay goes on.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this process by which the platteland is being denuded of its Whites, is highly undesirable. I believe that this is leading to a social imbalance in our society which is going to strike at the fundamental virtues and values on which we and our forefathers built this country. We know what the remedies are and it is up to the Government to apply them. It is time that the Government showed a consciousness particularly of what is happening to the small farmers in this country after the 20 years in which they have been in power, and the disastrous effects it is having on large areas of the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Albany said a number of things in regard to which I share his opinion, but as so often happens he referred to the small farmer who leaves his farm and contributes to the depopulation of the rural areas. But nobody can differ from me when I say that the United Party does not have a solution to this problem either. It is an economic law which applies throughout the world. I shall furnish you with additional information later on which will enable you to see that you cannot link the Government with this depopulation. It is simply impossible to do so. If you do so you are not being practical or realistic. The House could see by the way in which the hon. member for Carletonville introduced his motion that he regarded it was a very serious matter to him. I want to confine myself to the small farmer of whom mention was made in the motion. I feel that the voice of the small farmer should also be heard in the councils of our country, and that we should have appreciation for him and for his contributions.

Very few of the hon. members would be able to define the term small farmer for me, but as a basis for my argument this afternoon I want to say that to my mind the small farmers are that 57 per cent of the farmers in our country whose gross income is less than R3,000 per annum. We must confine ourselves to those people who are humbly holding their own and standing on their own feet. When we talk about a small farmer our immediate reaction is to think that it is the man who is always in financial difficulties. In reality that is an injustice to these people, for how many of them do we not both know who are entirely independent of the State with their low turnover. So much is being done for the farmers, for example in respect of drought assistance, agricultural credit and other contributions being made by the State. But not everyone avails himself of this assistance, and those who do, have nothing to be ashamed of, because after all the idea is that some of them will ultimately recover from their financial difficulties. We find to-day that we want, and are making propaganda for, increasingly larger units. We find it nothing unusual to talk of farmers who are producing 200,000 bags of grain. We regard them as the super-farmers and forget about the man who is earning his living in the sweat of his brow. I have already told this House about an agricultural corporation with 588 members who are producing only mealies. Of those 588 members there is one man who is producing 21 per cent of that corporation’s mealies.

I find it disquieting that the situation is developing to such an extent that it is ultimately going to result in our depriving a man of the right and privilege to think for himself and placing it in the hands of a few men who think for the rest. This is one of the points we shall have to pay attention to in future. It is an indisputable fact that in 32 years’ time, and many of us will still be here then, we will have to produce food in this country for 40 million people. We are going to succeed in doing this. In America they are at present breeding a hybrid mealie the leaf structure of which is arranged in such a way that it can make full use of all available sunlight in order to respirate properly. This type of mealie will produce 600 bushels per acre. This is going to happen in our country as well, because we are going to provide everyone with food. If you look at the increase in production over the past 20 years you will see that there is no need to take fright. Even the United Party members in the Cape will still have porridge to eat. It all boils down to mass-production in every field.

I also differ from the hon. member for Albany when he states that the price of agricultural products throughout the world has not increased to the same extent as production costs have. This is simply not the case here. What is the solution to that and what advantages does it hold? It is that we are attempting to produce a greater yield per unit, and in that way one will be able to make up that difference. But that brings us back to the motion of the hon. member for Carletonville. The major producer is the man who is going to manage all right. The bargaining power of the big man in our country to-day once again gives him a few yards’ lead over the small producer. If he is the owner of a fleet, then he pays quite another price for spare parts than the man who has two or three tractors. He receives discount because he can pay cash, and he has other privileges as well. I admit that it is unfair competition. We are then inclined to say that that man is a small farmer, even if he is just as efficient, if not more so. Let us now consider the over-stocking of the market. Ten years ago we could talk of a poultry farmer with 1,000 hens. To-day he can simply go and whistle if he only has 1,000 hens. Take the barbecue chicken industry. There a cent profit is made on a barbecue chicken. There are some undertakings in our country that deal in millions of chickens. Then they make money. If one has 1,000 barbecue chickens at one cent profit each, then you will become bankrupt, as some people at whom I am looking are.

Another matter which I find ironic is this. In agriculture it is the case that the man who takes the risk is not always rewarded. For six months a man will plant and look after cotton under the most unpredictable weather conditions in the world, because there is not another country in the world with such an astonishing climate.

Except for politics.

The only thing that is consistent here, is politics. In any case, after six months, who makes the money? Who manufactures that cotton shirt? Not the farmer. The other man makes the money, the man to whom the hon. member for Carletonville referred, and who is always becoming more powerful. I am not levelling reproaches at anybody because you can tell me that we can also manufacture cotton shirts if we had the initiative, but I want that we should view this matter in its correct perspective. Who is the man who presses oil out of oil-seeds? When money is to be made, the farmer is not in the running at all; it is the other man who makes the money. Hon. members may now ask: Why do they not do it on a co-operative basis; surely you can build up a powerful organization such as this by means of a corporative society? No, do you know what the position to-day is in regard to a corporative? The small producer is the loyal member of the corporative, but the magnates, the major manufacturers, find the major producers more attractive because there is only one transaction. The major manufacturer takes that man’s crop; there is only one negotiation; the goods are only graded once. The small men are the loyal members of the co-operative, and for that reason we must pay special tribute to them to-day under this motion. According to available figures 23 per cent of our population consisted of farmers in 1948; in 1966 14 per cent were farmers. Let me now point out the dangers, and here I want to quote from an article written by Prof. Tomlinson.

Do you deplore this?

If the hon. member would only give me a chance, he would see that I am heartbroken about this. I should like to quote from an article by Prof. Tomlinson entitled “Agriculture in the South African National Economy” (translation)—

The commission of inquiry into white occupation of the rural areas stated the position as follows: “Seen from a sociological point of view as well it is essential therefore that there should be a relatively large white population in the rural areas. In any case the number should be large enough to allow the beneficial influence of the rural areas to be felt on the population as a whole.”

In South Africa however there is a second cause for concern in regard to the decrease in the white rural population. What is happening here is that, together with the decrease, the number of non-Whites, and particularly Bantu, on farms belonging to Whites is steadily increasing, and that in addition the numerical relationship in the rural areas outside the Bantu areas is changing in favour of the Bantu. The fear which arises from this numerical tendency was expressed as long ago as 1935 by Prof. Gross-kopf in the following phrase …

It is very important; it illustrates the Government’s policy of separate development, and it shows that we are correct in saying that the Bantu homelands must be developed.

“But inevitably—and the history of mankind has proved this over the ages—those who actually till the soil, ultimately become its owners.”

I wish hon. members would listen more attentively because this matter is very important—

Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude. The faithful members of his farmers’ association is the small producer in the rural areas; the faithful member of the women’s charitable association is the small producer in the rural areas. The faithful member of his church, because he realizes his dependence, is the small producer in the rural areas. We are a nation which is bound to the soil; our slogan is: Soil is life. If we think of the thirties, the plague epidemics, the droughts, and all the disasters we had to go through, then we call to mind the time when the man from the rural areas had to go and work in the dark tunnels of the mine. Of those uprooted people a poet said (translation)—

The hon. member for Standerton has spoken and put very well the case for the. small farmer in South Africa. He mentions that 57 per cent of the farmers in this country have an income of under R3,000 per annum, and he maintains that he is speaking on their behalf. He says that when there is money to be made, particularly in the platteland, it is not made by the small farmer. I wonder if he means that perhaps it is being made by the small businessman or the small industrialist. I think I must bring to his notice the fact that, when it comes to the businessman, the position is, according to the last Census and Statistics figures available, that 48 per cent of the retail traders in this country had an annual income in 1961 of only R840 per annum, so the money which the hon. member maintains the farmer is not getting is not going to the small trade either. Sir, I want to deal more specifically with the small businessman and the small industrialist but before doing so I want to say this with regard to what the hon. member had to say: I am very glad to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture is present. I hope that he has taken cognizance of what the hon. member has said and that he will also take cognizance of the terms of the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Albany and that in time something will be done by this Government to stimulate the economic progress of the small farmer.

He knows more about it than you and your party.

If he does, I hope he will do something about it.

He has been doing it for ages.

Sir, my time is limited and I must get on. This motion deals with the small entrepreneur in this country. Who exactly are the people we are speaking about? We have heard from the hon. member for Carletonville the section that he envisages; we have heard from the hon. member who has just sat down about the small farmer. Sir, the 1961-’62 Census shows that 5,212 of the manufacturing establishments in South Africa are owned by individuals and partnerships. These represent something over 42 per cent of the total number of industries in this country but they represent only approximately 4 per cent of the gross output of industry. In the business sphere we find that the picture is a little different. If we consider a small businessman as one whose annual turnover is under R100,000, we find that there are 33,500 such small businessmen. They represent 92.5 per cent of the total number of businesses in South Africa, once again quoting the 1961-’62 statistics. But, Sir, we find that these small businessmen represent between them a total annual turnover of R1,390 million, so that in total these so-called small businesses represent very big business. They have a very important task in South Africa. They play a most important part in the economy. Large industries depend on small industries to provide component parts for whatever they are manufacturing, or to provide services for their manufacturing plants, so much so that we find that the Vauxhall Car Company deals with no fewer than 3,100 suppliers to help them to assemble their motor cars. Small retailers also play a most important part, particularly in the distributive trade. The small towns in the rural areas depend upon small traders, not upon the big giants to which the hon. member for Carletonville referred. Let me say that these small traders have served their communities faithfully for many years, and I am sure they will continue to do so, not only in the commercial sphere but also on the civic plane. However, as has been said by previous speakers, we find to-day that the tendency is more and more towards larger groupings. We are always reading of take-overs and mergers, and we find that the small man is meeting an ever-growing competition from large enterprises.

Sir, contrary to the views expressed by the hon. member for Carletonville, I feel that the small man will never disappear. Although it is becoming more and more difficult for him to compete and to keep his head above water, he can never disappear. He provides a service, a facility, which the big concerns can never take over. But I also want to say to the Government that they must not lose sight of the importance of the small entrepreneur to South Africa, whether he is in the industrial sphere or whether he is in the business sphere. The large firm is only the small man who has grown up. Unfortunately, notwithstanding what I have said and the confidence I have expressed, the small man has some very real problems. The first problem he has in this country is a chronic shortage of capital. He has very few sources that he can turn to for this capital and when he is able to raise capital, he finds that he has to use it on fixed assets, buildings, fixtures and fittings, equipment and so on, so that he finds that for his working capital he has to depend largely upon wholesale firms who are prepared to give him extended credit, and he must work on the basis of “I must buy an article, sell it and collect my money before I can pay the wholesaler”. He also finds that this lack of finance gives him very little to plough back into his enterprise in an attempt to develop it into a larger one, especially after he has had to repay a certain amount of the capital which he has borrowed for fixed assets, after he has met his living costs and after he has paid tax. We also find that this lack of capital is curtailing his buying power and that he is not able to take advantage of cheaper buying facilities which we have in the South African economy today.

Sir, the second problem which the small businessman faces in South Africa is the lack of management training. Most of these enterprises are one-man shows run by one person who has to be a “Jack-of-all-Trades”, and very often he is master of none, and we find that his efficiency suffers.

The third problem is the lack of up-to-date and reliable statistics on which to base his whole enterprise. We find that the last authoritative figures are in respect of the year 1960-’61. During 1967 the Department did issue a circular with certain figures based upon the year 1964 but they added a footnote to the effect that these were not authoritative and were not to be taken as definite.

Sir, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Albany asks the Government to stimulate the economic progress of these entrepreneurs. I want to ask the Government to consider doing what is done in many other countries. We find that in France and in Scandinavia official support is freely forthcoming for many small firms. We find that in 1962 in France President De Gaulle issued a directive to the effect that manufacturers had to supply their product to all re-sellers at an equal rate, and that there were to be no special terms in regard to bonuses or discounts, etc. Before I give the wrong impression, let me say that I am not advocating that this should be introduced in this country and that we should stop the system which prevails. But I ask that the Government should investigate, and let them decide, through their experts, whether it will not be to the benefit of the small businessman if some such step was to be taken. In America they have the Federal Trade Commission Act to guard the interests of free trade. They also have a special Department of State brought about through the Small Businessman’s Administration Act, and I believe this is specifically to aid the Council to assist and to protect the interests of small business concerns. In Germany I believe a very similar system obtains, and when we look at the phenomenal economic progress that Germany has made since the last war, and realize that this has been based almost wholly on the assistance given to the small men, who have to-day developed into big men, I think that the Government could well investigate the statutes that have been passed in other countries.

Then I want to urge on the Government one way in which they can directly assist the small man, and that is to make a percentage of Government spending available to the small man; in other words, to channel its purchasing and contracting for supplies and services directly to the small undertaking. It might cost a little more, but, in the long run it will go a long way towards stabilizing these small people who, I think we all agree, are an asset to the country, and people who do need some form of assistance.

You are not implying that they are getting nothing?

I am not implying anything; I am just asking that a certain amount should be channelled to the small men. The Minister can ascertain whether the amount which is being channelled, and I accept his word that a certain amount is being channelled, is an equitable amount.

Further, I would like the Government to reconsider the proposal made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration some years ago in this House that they should establish some form of corporation along the lines of the Industrial Development Corporation or the Bantu Development Corporation or the Coloured Development Corporation for these small enterprises, specifically with the object of assisting them by means of services in the field of research and of course in the important field of finance.

Did you not fight these corporations just a few days ago? Now you plead for such corporations.

How can the hon. the Deputy Minister twist my remarks to this extent? We are trying to keep this debate on a high plane, but here the Deputy Minister introduces politics and immediately lowers the tone of the debate.

In regard to income tax, which was also mentioned by the hon. member for Carletonville, I want to appeal to the Government to do something to iron out this tax bulge under which the small entrepreneur suffers, the small man with an income of between R4,000 and R8,000.

I should like to associate myself with the motion of the hon. member for Carletonville, and also to endorse his doubts as to the future of South Africa in the hands of power capital. But I actually want to confine myself to the second part of the motion, in which he pleads for the small entrepreneur in the mineral mining industry, and I want to pay tribute right away to these people who have meant so much to South Africa, and on whom, in fact, the whole economic life of South Africa has been and still is dependent. I think back to the days when Leydsdorp in the Northern Transvaal had thousands of inhabitants. To-day there is only a police station, an hotel, a few houses and a large cemetery that bear testimony of the extent of the activities of the small entrepreneur in the mineral industry in the past. To-day one still hears of the small man now and then. I am thinking, for example, of Mr. Fincham, after whom the Fincham Diamond Mine was named. Especially with the feverish hunt for minerals throughout the world, we find that countries such as Russia have done a tremendous amount in the past five years to exploit its mineral deposits and to carry out exploration work. I am also aware that a great deal of research has been carried out in the U.S.A. lately in connection with gold deposits which were regarded as uneconomic in the past. Nearer home, in a country such as Rhodesia, we find, if we look at page 2 of the report for the year 1966, an interesting comment by the Secretary for Mines—

He goes on to say—

Then, in the report of the Government Engineer, on pages 15 to 17, the various methods by which assistance is offered are mentioned, for example “Government assistance to industry, mining loans and plant hire”, etc. Then it lists the applications and the amounts paid out, and in addition it mentions everything that has been done by the State for the people. Mention is made of the Government Roasting Plant. Valuable work was performed in that this plant was erected for the small producers at mining sites. The concentrate are conveyed to this plant, and then this Government installation treats the ores which would otherwise have gone untreated. There is also the Geological Exploration Section, which does valuable work in connection with exploration. This means that the State is doing this exploration and is providing guidance which is often to the benefit of the small entrepreneur. It is a fact that our own legislation in South Africa also takes the small entrepreneur into account, and that funds can be made available to them, but as far as I know not much use is made thereof. I think this is largely attributable to the fact that the corporative system has increased so tremendously in mining in South Africa to-day that it has in actual fact excluded the small entrepreneur.

It is important to note that these results in Rhodesia destroy the concept that the small entrepreneur no longer has a place in the sun. It is so frequently said that for reasons of efficiency and productivity the small entrepreneur should be eliminated, but the question occurred to me: If all these mineral workings had been owned by the large power capital machine with its international associations, would Rhodesia have been able to maintain itself in the crisis in which it finds itself today?

But let us come nearer home. If it had not been for the mineral wealth of South Africa, would we not still have been carrying on a subsistence economy similar to that of the Lords Seventeen in all the years they were at the Cape? This mineral wealth undoubtedly imparted momentum to the development of South Africa. The rate of this development has been and is determined by the socioeconomic conditions and natural resources which are actually the true essence of South Africa’s domestic problems. For this reason one cannot accept a theoretical criterion from abroad in this regard and make it applicable to South Africa. In this connection I want to refer to our mining legislation, which does not take into account the general strategic importance of our minerals, and this is not conducive to easy exploitation thereof, by both the small entrepreneur and even by power capital. Here one is faced with the problem that mineral rights belong to the farm-owner and that options have to be taken out for which large sums are charged, which the small entrepreneur usually cannot pay. We are so ready to say that the mines are a disappearing asset and that the resources are becoming depleted, a statement which reflects a misconception, because no absolute depletion or disappearance can be brought about. Quantitively seen, it is in fact only a diminishing asset because it is a consumer element, a factor which is in evidence everywhere in our economy and not only in our mining industry. The fact of the matter is that we make a statement and accept it as important without analysing it correctly or doing anything about the matter. But I will have more to say about this later. The importance of a mineral or metal is dependent upon the period in which we are living. So we find in the case of many of the minerals found in South Africa, that at one stage a mineral is important and in the next it is no longer important. This is the situation we encountered in connection with our uranium deposits in South Africa. When a certain Cooper discovered uranium in the ores of the Witwatersrand in 1924, it was considered of academic interest, but to-day it plays a very large role in our economy and is considered to be something of great importance throughout the world. What is worthless now, may to-morrow have unparalleled strategic value in this atomic age. Therefore the attitude adopted by the State in its legislation should be that all minerals are of strategic importance. I emphasize that all minerals are of strategic importance. Steps can be taken to ensure that the State has the first option in respect of the processing of mineral deposits. I would say that this should be done in cooperation with the person having the mineral rights. This principle is already being considered in connection with legislation which was also referred to by the hon. member who spoke before me and which relates to the development of the Bantu homelands. It may be categorically stated here that the system which obtains in the Republic to-day, for example the payment of the option fees which I have already mentioned to the owner, usually the farmer who has surface rights, favours the large power capital concerns. In much of our mineral prospecting the door is shut to the small entrepreneur and therefore we find this anomaly to-day. I want to mention one example to illustrate my statement. In 1965 one South African mining corporation with large capital resources acquired, by means of its 223 daughter companies—to which the hon. member for Carletonville also referred— interests in gold, coal, diamonds, copper, manganese, asbestos, vanadium, chrome, zinc, platinum and other mineral products. Where does the small entrepreneur ever stand a chance? Is it in the interests of a sound South African economy that an organization with large capital resources should have such control of strategic or non-strategic raw materials? Is it in the interests of a sound labour pattern in South Africa, or even in the interests of the mobilization of capital?

The establishment of a sound social pattern in South Africa, with all its White and non-White ethnic groups, may be handicapped if so much power is concentrated in one large entity. Such a situation means that this entity must of necessity assert its influence on our social structure and our labour pattern.

This then is the problem in respect of our mineral development. I see that section 10 (1) (k) (i) of the Income Tax Act creates similar problems. The hon. member has already referred to the fact that tax is only paid to the extent of 4½ per cent of the profits made by a mining company prior to taxation. By contrast a small entrepreneur with an income of R18,000 per annum has to pay a progressive tax of 72 per cent. There is also another problem. A large percentage of the R268 million paid out to shareholders, on which no tax was paid, went to daughter companies over the power-capital mother company. The appreciation in value of the shares of four companies was as much as R400 million over a period of nine years. This represents the difference between the original purchase price and the present sale value. No tax is paid on this unrealized capital profit and in this way they are enabled to build a large liquid fund. I now ask: What small mining entrepreneur stands a chance against such a large liquid fund? To hold one’s own in these circumstances is an almost super-human task, because our tax system simply does not favour the survival of the small man. In the materialistic world of to-day a gigantic apparatus is engaged in subtly concealing the corporative egotism based on capital strength. By means of the advertising industry the supposedly free choice of the consumer and the worker is directed towards yielding the highest possible profit to the producer. The lower the social level of the consumer, the stronger this influence becomes.

I want to conclude by saying that the wealth of a nation depends on its manufacturing industries, agriculture, mineral wealth and trade. For decades power and raw materials have been obtained from mineral deposits such as coal, oil and iron. Minerals are therefore the foundation of the modern manufacturing industries, and they are essential to agriculture, because phosphate is necessary to increase productivity. Mineral deposits have always been the factor which has given international status to the nations of the world, and this is still the position to-day. They imparted impetus to the South African economy in the last century, and have done so in the present epoch as well, and if we want to afford the South African nation its rightful place on the world scene, and if we want to take our country into the international field, we must handle the development of our mineral riches, which the creator of all things has given to us for a special purpose, in such a way that the small entrepreneur with his national spirit and drive will not be cast aside. It is a fact that all great things have small beginnings, and therefore I say that the source of our nation’s drive lies specifically in the small entrepreneur.

Mr. Speaker. I hope that at this late hour the hon. member for Etosha will forgive me if I do not follow him and discuss the question of the small miner. He made mention of Fincham who, commenced as a small miner, and now has apparently become a disruptive force because he has progressed to a mine magnate since the days when he, too, was a small miner.

Although the hon. the Minister of Planning is, I know, not directly charged with this matter, I nevertheless hope he will make some comment upon it. I refer to the position of the small hotelier who is at present facing a crisis as regards his immediate future. It is generally agreed that an improvement in the country’s hotels is necessary and it is accepted that the attempts which were made were directed at obtaining a general improvement and to assist in the development of the country’s tourist industry. But one is alarmed at the recent announcement of the chairman of the Hotel Board to the effect that only 550 hotels had applied for classification whilst some 1,000 must, as the law now stands, apply for classification before 31.5.1968. All 1,500 of them are expected to have completed the necessary improvements by 31st December, 1968, or run the risk of becoming mere wine and malt houses or losing their licences entirely, I do not want to enlarge on this save to say that this situation can have disastrous results for a large number of small hoteliers throughout the length and breadth of our country. They purchased their hotels at a time when the price bore a relation to the fact that the establishments had full liquor licences. Now they must either on an average invest something like R30,000 for the required improvements, or …

No.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism shakes his head and says “no”. Recently I conducted a survey in the Cape in regard to a number of small hotels, places which are really only seasonal hotels, and I found that on an average a sum of R30,000 had to be spent on improvements in order to comply with the minimum requirements as laid down in Schedule 3. The alternative these people have, is to face the loss of their licences, or else they must try and run their businesses on a wine and malt licence. The capital loss they will have to carry themselves. There can be no illusions about this position. The figures are quite clear and the situation is quite clear. Seventy-five per cent of the hotels in the Western Cape, the small seaside and town hotels, to-day face ruin unless something is done so that they can enjoy a measure of relief. The Minister probably knows about the False Bay area hotel which was recently put up for auction. It has a present municipal rateable value of R160,000, but the highest bid was only R90,000. Nobody is interested in the hotel trade. The Minister must surely be aware too that the persons who own these small hotels cannot obtain a R100 bond on their hotels for improvement purposes. They cannot obtain loans because the money is not available.

Now, I believe too high a target has been set for the off-the-high-way-type of hotel. Some seaside hotels are only occupied for say four, six or eight weeks in a year, but their walls have had to be taken down and moved six inches so as to comply with the requirement of 100 square feet for a single bedroom. Very often such a room is occupied by a youngster who merely wants somewhere to sleep during a holiday at the seaside. This is the expense hoteliers have been put to in order to comply with the minimum requirements for a one-star grading which allows them to retain a full liquor licence.

These hotels are not permanent homes. The position is serious, and if the hon. the Minister of Planning cannot deal with this matter then perhaps the hon. the Minister of Tourism who is sitting here might find it convenient to make some statement to relieve the anxiety felt by these small hoteliers. Many of these hoteliers will have to charge R5, R6 and more per day for their short seasons if they have to expend this additional capital, and that class of trade is very limited. I do believe this problem must be faced, and I feel there must be some alternative for these people. No doubt the hon. the Minister has received many suggestions, but it does seem a distinction can or must be made between the hotel situated on the main tourist route and the hotel in the little seaside resort, or the small town, catering for the casual visitor, or, in the case of the seaside hotel, for a holidaymaker spending a month or six weeks away from home over the Christmas season.

I want to say to the Minister that I do not believe that merely saying to the hoteliers concerned they can have an extension for another year or two is the answer to this problem. That is not going to solve the problem. The money is not going to be there. The estimate of the chairman of the Hotel Board in regard to the cost of the work which the country’s hotels have to undertake is some R30 million. That is his estimate. Where is it coming from?

Whose estimate is it?

A member of the Hotel Board. I read the report in which this figure is mentioned. It is based roughly on 1,000 hotels each spending R30,000 on improvements. That is the figure. I can give the Minister figures which show that some local hotels, not large ones, spent far more than R30,000 in order to comply with minimum requirements. A lot of these hotels were built many years ago, they have thick walls, and when it comes to installing additional bathrooms, well, these are not cheap alterations. They are most expensive alterations. I hope the Minister will realize that 1,000 hoteliers throughout the length and breadth of the Republic are aware that the 31st day of May, 1968, is the last day on which they can make their applications as the law now stands. By 31st December, 1968, they must complete the required improvements.

No.

The Minister may give an extension, I know, but 31st May, I think, is final.

The Minister concerned has given over 100 extensions.

I know. I know the Minister has given over 100 extensions but those are of the 500 people who applied. There are 1,000 others who do not know how to set about it because they cannot be financed. The finance is not there to enable them to make the improvements. One thousand hotels have not even applied yet. They are facing uncertain days. I know the Minister is faced with a difficult problem. I appreciate that. But at the same time I do believe some steps must be taken to relieve the position. I do not believe it is healthy suddenly to demand that R30 million be injected into the hotel trade in South Africa just to improve these hotels. It is a large sum of money but it may be that I have overstated the figure.

I think the R30 million is an overstatement.

That is open to discussion. It will run into many millions to meet with those needs. I mention this because these people are facing ruin. They are perturbed and their associations are very perturbed. It seems that some formula must be found whereby some relief from these requirements can be granted to the small town or drop hotel which is used merely for the convenience of the people living in those small towns. The national road goes past these towns and the travelling public do not make use of those hotels at all. But the people in these towns and surrounding districts need an hotel in their town. These hotels cannot comply with the financial burden of having to fulfil all the improvements. I now want to come to one final point. The National Licensing Board has now adopted the attitude that the minimum under Schedule III is really the minimum for a liquor licence. I believe this could lead to a tremendous amount of hardship and can even result in a man losing his spirits’ licence and not being able to obtain a wine and malt licence because he does not conform to these very minimums under Schedule III. I hope the hon. the Minister will look at them again. There are a lot of very small items which are costly. They are necessary for a high class hotel but I do not think they are all necessary to enforce in all details. All I can suggest in the spirit of the motion that is before us is that the Government take some steps to look into this particular class of small businessman and find some means whereby he can be assisted.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, said quite rightly that this matter of hotel-keeping is a very special one that is dealt with by a specific ministry and has recently received special attention. Therefore I am sure that he does not expect of me to reply to that now. I just want to tell the hon. member that it was quite within the limits of the motion to mention it. The motion is stated in very broad terms and those persons in the hotel industry to whom he referred, may also be the smaller businessmen. The matters that have been broached to-day.

concern several ministries. As a matter of fact I am not standing here in my capacity as representative of the two ministries under my charge, but rather in my capacity as a representative of the Government. In this regard I think hon. members will agree with me that it cannot be expected that a conclusive answer be given to-day to many of the matters raised. But I want to say immediately that I find it a great pleasure to welcome this motion moved by the hon. member for Carletonville. I think that the discussions we have had here this afternoon have been of great value. I think we have rendered a service and the hon. member who moved the motion has rendered a service to South Africa and to the small man in particular—the small man who may at times be quite a big man. I take note of the motion with appreciation and I want to say that there is nothing in the motion which one cannot support unreservedly. In other words, to-day has been a good day for the people in South Africa and those tens of thousands who, in different spheres of life, are commonly called the “small man”.

We small ones are having a very hard time.

I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) has now mentioned the wrong example, especially if I look in his direction. The things said here to-day in respect of the small man have also made me very much aware of the fact that the independence and individuality of our people in South Africa should always remain of the greatest importance to all of us and to the Government. I think that the independence associated with the small farmer—and I should prefer to give him a different name later on—the small businessman and the small digger, is so much part of the national character of South Africa that we should not lightly allow it to disappear or abandon it. They are of great value to us and I think this was very evident from the speeches from both sides of the House. It was also evident from what was said by both sides of the House and by the member for Carletonville, namely that the basis of this Republic and the Government’s view had always been and should always remain free competition, in contrast with those countries not allowing free competition.

We must never place unnecessary restrictions on private initiative, which is inseparably linked with free competition in South Africa. We must not lightly take action to impose restrictions on private initiative. I am very much aware of the fact that, and I listened very attentively to the references made by the hon. member for Carletonville and others in this regard, that large and powerful financial organizations have come into being and have been built up in South Africa that are extending their arms in all directions. To impose restrictions on them by means of drastic measures would in fact be a negative course of action in respect of the small man, and therefore it has always been the Government’s policy to do something positive for the small man in South Africa. I think that this motion also contains a positive request—as in fact was quite evident from the discussions— that the small man in the Republic be looked after.

Although I have stressed the freely competitive character of private initiative in South Africa—which must be retained—it is on the other hand not the policy of the Government or of this country to amalgamate the smaller men into larger units because they are having a difficult time in certain respects, and so to destroy their individuality and independence. This is being done in countries that do not accept democracy as we do. It is being done by gathering them together in State organizations. This is not, and will not be, the policy of this Government. We must, however, retain the balance. Whilst it is not the basic policy of the Government to gather the small men together in State organizations and thereby to destroy their independence, we must, however, retain the balance by not closing our eyes to the fact that what the Government as democrats to the core are not prepared to do, will in fact be the result of the activities of the larger organizations. We must not allow the larger capital forces to succeed in practice in causing the small man to disappear from the scene, because then the final result will be the same. That is why we have the anti-monopolistic legislation in South Africa, which is difficult legislation to administer. It cannot be effective in all respects, but if underlines the fact that it is the policy not to allow monopolies. But secondly, in reply to the request made by the hon. member for Carletonville to the effect that a thorough investigation be instituted on a national level into the problems of the small entrepreneur, I want to say that the Government already appointed a commission last year to investigate the monetary and fiscal policy of the Republic.

If one looks at the terms of reference of this commission, it is very clear that in its investigation and recommendations careful attention will have to be paid to the position of the small man as regards monetary and fiscal matters. I do not want to suggest for one moment that this commission is the complete answer to the request made by the hon. member for Carletonville. However, I think it will be unwise at this stage, while we are awaiting the report of the commission, to appoint a second commission, which is possibly a commission that can follow upon the other. Accordingly I do not want to reply to the hon. member with a final “no”. Secondly, I do not want to say a final no as an answer because this matter affects several of my colleagues, as well, for example the Minister of Economic Affairs, the Minister of Finance, definitely the Minister of Agriculture, and myself as Minister of Mines. I think it would be unwise, not to have moved this motion, but to accept it at this stage while we are awaiting the recommendations of the commission which I have just mentioned.

The hon. member also mentioned the question of the pressure of taxation. In this regard I just want to mention a few figures to you to indicate what the position is at present. These matters are also being examined by the commission. Firstly, hon. members know that a company pays a normal tax of 36⅔ per cent on its full income. This applies from the first rand. The individual is taxed on a progressive scale. If we use the figures mentioned by the hon. member for Carletonville, then a single person living in, for example, the Transvaal— as the question of provincial taxation is also involved here, even though it does not amount to much—pays 35.9 per cent on R16,000, 38.8 per cent on R18,000, and 49.6 per cent on R30,000. I am mentioning these figures mainly for the sake of the record.

With reference to the motion I should like to say a few words about the three types of small men mentioned in it. In the first place I want to say something about the small mineral prospector and miner. For statistical purposes the various mines in South Africa are classified according to different criteria. The first criterion is to classify mines into those purchasing supplies to the value of not less than R200,000 annually and those purchasing supplies to the value of more than R200,000 annually. I repeat that this classification is made according to supplies and not according to profits. It is interesting to note that in the category of mines purchasing supplies to the value of less than R200,000, there are no fewer than 878 mines in the Republic, while there are only 200 mines that purchase supplies to the value of more than R200,000 per annum. We see, therefore, that out of a total of 1,078 mines, there are 878 mines in the category of mines purchasing supplies to the value of less than R200,000 per annum. A second criterion according to which mines are classified, is their taxable profits. This relates to gold mines. The number of mines is known only to the Secretary of Inland Revenue, but I may nevertheless inform you that in the case of those mines with a taxable income of less than R140,000 per annum, special tax concessions are made which I will not discuss in more detail now. We know that although we do not have their number, ten of them received financial assistance under the Government loan scheme last year. This is the second way in which our mines are classified. Thirdly our mines are classified into those with an average of fewer than 200 employees and those with an average of more than 200 employees. This is done for the purpose of making certain concessions to those mines with fewer than 200 employees. This is written into the regulations and is being done in practice. I am mentioning these things to show that, as far as the Government and the departments are concerned, as well as in the regulations issued in terms of legislation, a distinction is in fact drawn and the smaller mines are being looked after. The figures I have mentioned do not include the diamond diggers and the miners of base metals working on the basis of claims. One finds these miners of base metals mostly in Namaqualand. It is a fact that the number of diamond miners is decreasing. They are a vanishing generation. I find this rather sad, because they are a class of people who have made our country more colourful. They have my sympathy. They are adventurers. They have told me in discussions that even if they could have an assured income, they would prefer the adventure and the possibility of finding what gives the adventurer his own particular character.

As gamblers.

No, they are not gamblers at all. They are adventurers, hardy men. Gambling is quite a different matter. It is this adventure and the possibility of discovering something that puts a spark into their lives. These people have no other livelihood. Their numbers are decreasing and I think it is our duty to see to it in future, as far as we are able that as land becomes available, if it does become available, these people to whom this is the only means of gaining a livelihood will be taken care of. Allow me to give you the figures in this respect. In 1941 there were 4,332 persons who had diggers’ certificates. At the end of 1967 there were only 1,335 of them. We also know that many of the people who have certificates are not bona fide diggers. According to the figures at my disposal there were only 329 bona fide diggers in the Transvaal and 260 in the Cape, in other words, a small number, at the end of last year.

As regards mining I also just want to say that we must not close our eyes to the fact that some of our most valuable discoveries, particularly as far as diamonds are concerned, have been made by the so-called professional prospectors. Although we are entering a new dispensation in the sense that we will have to replace our vanishing gold assets by the mining of base metals on a larger scale, I do think that with regard to mining we must not forget that these individuals have made a very great contribution in South Africa. Neither must we forget that in individual cases they may still do so. I want to mention briefly that they also create problems for the Republic, for example, with regard to wasteful exploitation, erosion, etc. We must not lose sight of the deterioration of our top-soil. We also have the problem that there is no standardization of their products. Their products are marketed sporadically. In other words, marketing does not in reality benefit from it, as the large factories want a constant supply. Then they also export the unprocessed products. This, of course, is less advantageous to the State. I can mention further problems, but I only want to point out, also for their ears, that this leads to insecurity amongst their employees. For this reason, incidentally, I am coming forward with legislation this session to provide security to employees on smaller mines in that they will have at least the minimum benefits at their disposal. I want to make one further observation with regard to mining, and that is that this debate will at least have the effect of making the small man in the mining industry realize that his future salvation lies in the amalgamation of activities.

The second point mentioned in this motion is the question of the small farmer. I wonder whether we should not rather speak of the individual farmer or the one-man farm. As far as the small farmer or the one-man farmer is concerned, it is of the greatest importance to me—as in the case of the miner, but to a much greater extent—that his independence must be retained. I am glad that this point has been raised in the discussion. The independence that is cultivated on the small one-man farm, even among the children, is something which South Africa must take pains to preserve. I differ with many people in regard to the agricultural holdings near our towns. If those agricultural holdings are only used as a place of abode and not as a means of providing a livelihood to the farmer, it is in my opinion something which has provided one of the main solutions since 1933, when our people began to flock to the towns. That person who has an agricultural holding near the town, and I qualify this by saying that it should not be his only source of income, has a better place of abode than a common street number and a house. We must be very realistic, and where we are putting forward all these arguments, the small farmer and the one-man farmer should at least, and this must be stressed, be an economic unit. An economic unit is very difficult to define, as the smallest piece of land may be an economic unit. I have been told that sugar may be cultivated successfully on 30 morgen; sultanas on 6 morgen; tomatoes on 1½ morgen; but I think the classic example was mentioned here long ago by the hon. Mr. Sauer, i.e. that a bee farmer makes a good living on half a morgen. I mention these examples in contrast to the impression prevalent in South Africa that the Government wants to get rid of the small farmer. I say that it is in the interests of South Africa, especially when one looks at the increase in population, that the man who is able to farm economically and profitably on a small scale, should be encouraged. I would rather see a man on 1½ morgen with a good crop of tomatoes, in a position to pay for the school and university education of his children, than to see a man farming on 6,000 morgen somewhere in our dry regions and not being able to make a living. It is quite untrue— as a matter of fact, it is ridiculous even to think of it—that the Government, or any right-thinking person, wants the small farmer as such to disappear. But it is equally true that, in the interests of South Africa and of those people themselves, the uneconomic unit should disappear. When one speaks of an economic unit, we and the people outside must realize quite clearly that such a unit should be determined on the basis of the capital investment on the one hand and the production potential on the other hand. A great deal can be said about production potential, but I do not intend doing that now.

In the second place there is a definite policy in respect of these people which is being carried out day by day with the hand and with the head and with finances. It is the main function of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to keep as many individual farmers on the land as possible and to establish others there; to give long-term loans at a fixed rate of interest of 5 per cent; to consolidate uneconomic units so that either the farmers are kept there or others are placed there; and to make land available for settlement on an economic basis or in economic units. There is also the financing of the farmers of category 3. They are farmers who do not have sufficient capital resources to obtain credit in the usual way. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services distributes its knowledge free of charge. Sixteen million rand is made available to our farmers, and is at the disposal of the small farmer and of the big farmer. The Agricultural Advisory Board has also been reorganized so as to furnish specific advice for the purpose of formulating agricultural policy in which special provision is made for ensuring a decent living to the individual farmer, including the people whom we have discussed to-day. It would be wrong to stress only the importance of the smallholder and what is being done for him. I think it is our duty to point out to our people that not every man living on a piece of land is a farmer, and that not every man is able to make a contribution to the economy and agriculture. I made this mistake myself. Fortunately I do not have to make my living from the land. The craving and the love for the land are so great that when a man buys land, he does not think with his head, but with his heart, because he wants a piece of land. Then he pays too much. We cannot over-emphasize the fact that the capital invested in land must not be out of proportion to its productive capacity when the farmer is dependent upon the land for his livelihood.

As regards the shall farmer, there is still another matter, i.e. injudicious mechanization. One wonders whether a great deal does not remain to be done in having these people mechanize on a co-operative basis. I think this is one of the biggest opportunities for our smaller man who must make his living from farming. I do not wish to stress the lack of managérial ability, but this lack is probably much greater—and I am saying this because my own family are farmers—in farming than in any other sector of our economy. I say this to encourage our people and to impress upon them the fact that a farm and farming must to-day be managed like any other business undertaking, and even better. The bookkeeping in farming can be improved. When I was in London, I had the greatest difficulty in finding out what was happening on our farm, as my brothers do not keep the books properly. This is not an accusation, but a practical example of what is happening in our rural areas. The bookkeeping of our farm is much better to-day as a result of the fact that my brothers had to write letters to me, otherwise I would have come and had a look myself and then they would have had too much trouble with me.

I want to mention a further point in regard to the small farmer. The failure to make use of the knowledge, research, information and the specific assistance and advice which he can get is still too great. The fact of the matter is that officers of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are prepared to come to his farm and do the planning there for him, and give him the necessary advice. In this respect there is room for improvement.

The last point concerning this matter is a very important one. We, as parents, can make a major contribution in preventing the formation of uneconomic units. We can do so by not bequeathing land to our children in such a way that it is cut up into uneconomical units. Here is an opportunity for every man and every woman who possesses a piece of land to leave to posterity something that may really be to the benefit of agriculture in particular.

Let me just furnish these further figures. As regards financial aid to agriculture I am astounded to see that R8 million was spent last year in respect of the consolidation of debts. If I analyse this, it seems to me that it is really the smaller man that is involved. There were 611 cases involved here, which means that the average assistance only amounted to R12,500. I therefore think it is the smaller man that is involved here. As regards the purchase of land, R10½ million was spent. If I divide this figure by the 530 persons who were assisted, then it amounts to an average of R20.000 per person. I say average, because I do not have the exact particulars. It seems once more that it is again the small man who was really looked after as regards financial assistance by the Government. Here is another figure. Last year 11,925 persons were assisted by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, and the amount involved was almost R32 million. This means that approximately 9, 10, 11 per cent of the total number of people who have to make a living from agriculture were assisted by that Department in one year. I think this redounds to the credit of the Government.

This is the first year in which that Department existed.

I do not know whether it was the first or the last year of that Department’s existence, but let me tell the hon. member that the same will apply to this Department as applies to the National Party: The National Party will remain in power and the Department will remain in existence.

I shall now deal with the last point. I want to say something about the retail dealer, the man in business. It is a fact that the entire pattern in South Africa is changing. In South Africa there has been a radical change in the distribution structure and pattern. To-day we have the self-service stores, the chain stores, the departmental stores, and the discount stores. These institutions have brought about a change in the entire distribution pattern. But the fact of the matter remains that in view of the opportunities for employment that exist, the high standard of income of our people, and the prospects that exist, the long-term prospects in commerce are definitely promising. This is the first point we must make. The second point is that with this new development two things have happened. Competition has been intensified, but efficiency has also improved. Competition has been intensified particularly in regard to the retail store. It is characteristic of this recent development—the creation of the large complexes—that their primary aim is a quick turnover. I mention these points because they may be to the advantage of the small man if he takes notice of them. The small man must do what the big man does not do and then his future, in my opinion, will be more assured. As I have said, the large institutions aim at a quick turnover. They also concentrate on cash sales and uncomplicated accounting systems. Delivery is confined to a minimum. Self-service is of course a very important aspect of the entire matter.

It is so that there is a very large number of people in our country who for various reasons prefer to make purchases at the small business enterprise, and many of our people are even prepared to pay a little more for the personal service they enjoy at smaller shops. If we look at the rest of the world, we see that these large complexes had originated in other countries before they made their appearance here. In the U.S.A., in Britain, in Belgium and in the Netherlands this development of chain stores and the other enterprises which I have mentioned, began at an earlier stage than here. But experience has shown that, in spite of the swift growth of these large units, the turnover of smaller dealers and their number has also increased. I do not have the figures for the Republic, but this is what happened in the other aforementioned countries. As I have said, even with the swift development of the larger units, the turnover—and the number—of small men has increased. In Germany, and in two or three other countries as well, these larger units had originally been subject to limitations, but these limitations were abolished some time ago—when exactly, I do not know. I am furnishing hon. members with this background to indicate that there is another side to this matter as well.

Now our one-man business, usually the man and his wife and their daughter, or whoever they be, has an advantage over the large unit, since the relation between buyer and seller is an intimate relationship. If I can give our one-man businesses one piece of advice, it is that they should retain this intimate relationship and make every effort to improve it. Since we have been considering one-man businesses and have paid attention especially to the dealer, the farmer and the miner, I should like to mention here that if we speak of one-man businesses we should not lose all sight of the professional people.

But you do not speak of a one-woman party.

The hon. member would be in a wonderful position if women were distributed according to size. I discussed the relationship of buyer to seller. I do not want to discredit the greater importance of the farmer and the dealer now, but this relation also exists in regard to the professional man. I have in mind the individual medical practitioner who finds himself up against a panel of four, five, six doctors. There is also the attorney, the man out in the country rendering a special service, who has to compete against the large firm, where a number of attorneys are in association. There are other cases as well. I mention this in passing as I do not want these people to be forgotten.

The one-man business has another advantage too, and that is that the establishment of chain, self-service and departmental stores require large concentrations of people. Therefore, in the less densely populated areas of our country, there will always be room for the small man and his business, whether it is a business concern or whatever it may be. Of course it is only high rents that force the small man from the centre of the city. The fact of the matter is that he still has a place to go to in South Africa.

Another point I should like to mention, is that there are several sectors of commerce which these larger business concerns have not yet entered. I have in mind the chemists and particularly the butcher shops, to mention only two. I also want to mention the following point in regard to our one-man business. It is true that we are living in a world of specialization, and the dealer who has a one-man business, must specialize. This gives him an advantage over any large business concern.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.