Sir, it is very difficult to get an annotated copy of the old Natal Statute, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could indicate to us which parts of the Registration of Firms Act were not repealed before and what the effect of the complete repeal of this whole Act is in fact going to be?

In the absence of the Minister concerned I just want to read out to the Committee the note which I received in this connection.

The need for the continued existence of this Act, which regulates the registration of business undertakings consisting of two or more persons, was investigated by a departmental committee of inquiry into work simplification. This committee found it unnecessary for this Act to continue in existence. In the other provinces there is no similar legislation. The Department of Commerce and the Provincial Administration of Natal were consulted in the matter and approve of the proposed repeal of the Act.

I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would explain to us why the Government feels that it is necessary that this Beef Export Bounties Act of 1923 should be repealed. That Act provided for a bounty of a farthing per lb. to be paid on cattle exported and a bounty of halfpenny per lb. to be paid on beef exported. Now, at present we have the position that the Meat Control Board is able to, and does in fact, pay bonuses on beef exports under the Marketing Act. We have some difficulty about this. At the moment the levy funds of the Meat Control Board are in a very healthy state and it certainly does not seem as though there will be a surplus of beef in the near future, but the position could arise where there is a continuing surplus of beef and that the stabilization levy funds of the Meat Control Board could be run down to a dangerous level. This has happened, for example, in the past with the pig levy fund. If that position were to arise with the beef levy fund I think the beef producers would like an assurance that they will have something to fall back on in case it is necessary to stimulate beef exports. At the moment this Beef Export Bounties Act is something on which they can fall back because it contains provisions for assisting them.

We would like the Minister to explain, firstly, why he feels it is necessary to repeal that Act and, secondly, if it is repealed, what provisions exist for the State, as distinct from the Meat Control Board, which uses the levy funds of the producers themselves, to assist beef exports if necessary.

I should like to say to the hon. member that he has partly replied to this question himself. He told the House that there was no over-production of meat at the moment and that he did not foresee any over-production in the near future. Therefore I do not know why he is such a pessimist. I want to say that the Act of 1923 fell into disuse a long time ago; we are no longer using it at all, and, as he said, should there ever be any exports, the necessary funds to back them can be made available under the Marketing Act from the Meat Board’s stabilization fund. The hon. member wants to look into the distant future, but if he only looked at this year’s Estimates, he would see that the State is appropriating as much as R81 million in the form of subsidies on maize and dairy and other products. If we should have an over-production of meat in future and the Meat Board’s stabilization fund should perhaps become exhausted, the State would likewise be able to make available funds to the Meat Board, with the result that this Act is no longer necessary.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

This clause introduces an improvement to the Liquor Act in that it eliminates the need for unnecessary transfer applications to be referred to the Minister for his personal attention. It also authorizes him to delegate his authority to deal with routine transfers of licences. It has been represented to me, however, that the term “employee”, which is contained in the existing Act, covers only a person who is employed in the specific sense of an employment contract and does not cover a partner or director of a company who is merely drawing dividends as a shareholder but who is not in fact employed by the company. Subsection (1) (a) refers to a transfer from an employee of a company to another employee of the same company.

In subsection (1) fb) there is a new provision introduced which deals with transfers to an agent or nominee where it is from one company to another company. This is a wider term. At this stage I wish to move the following amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

This will incorporate into the existing provision the same terminology “agent or nominee”. It will still be a transfer to an employee, agent or nominee of the same company. Therefore it does not change the spirit of the clause but it deals with what I understand is a technical problem which has occurred once or twice.

Mr. Chairman, on the face of it this appears to be a very useful amendment, but the difficulty is this. The original Act, which is not before the Committee at the moment, makes no provision for delegation or a transfer to agents and nominees. The original Act makes no provision for transfer to nominees and agents; it only makes provision for transfers to employees.

But the clause is being amended.

But all that is before the Committee is the principle that the Minister may delegate his power to a person acting on his authority. That is all that is before the Committee. It is not a question of a further amendment to the section now. and accordingly I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I seek some clarity? Is this amendment in order?

It does not seem to be in order after what the hon. the Minister has stated now. The hon. member can only amend the amendment; he cannot amend what is not amended unless it is relevant to the amendment in the clause.

May I seek your guidance, Sir? This clause is being amended to allow the Minister to delegate his powers. Is it not permissible to include in that delegation, an additional group who may be considered by the delegated authority?

Unfortunately not, according to the rules governing proceedings in Committee.

May I then speak to the clause and ask the Minister whether he would consider this amendment when the Act is amended next year?

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment standing in my name—

This is designed to limit the powers which the Minister is seeking in this clause to the power to close “on-consumption” premises where there is an undesirable position created. I am wholly in favour of the Minister taking action against any on-consumption premises for any race, non-White or White, where the existence of such premises leads to undesirable conditions. I do not think anybody could find fault with that power. If the Minister after investigation by die National Liquor Board has established that undesirable conditions are created by any licence, then he should have the right, and this clause gives it to him, to close those premises. No legitimate liquor dealer and no reasonable or responsible person could object to those powers being granted. This clause as it now reads goes further and gives the power to close down in any area all on-consumption premises, even if they are creating no undesirable conditions, provided only that the Minister and the National Liquor Board consider there are sufficient facilities in a Coloured area—which need not even be adjacent.

The reason why I move this amendment is twofold. The one is, as I said in the Second Reading debate last night, that I believe that this is more a sociological problem, and that we are not striking at the root of the trouble here. By closing down liquor premises which are controlled and decently run, which are creating no undesirable conditions at all nor causing trouble of any sort, we are in fact ensuring that these people will not drink in a Coloured area behind a screen where they will not be seen. This is not solving the problem. I feel that it is better to maintain control and have drinking on controlled premises under supervision, with the weapon of the right to close down if it creates unpleasant or undesirable conditions, than simply to have a blanket close-down and say that because we cannot see it this evil no longer exists. There may be arguments in theory advanced. People may say that we are now all living in watertight compartments and that each race should dunk in its own area. There are no watertight compartments, however.

The different races of South Africa are not living neatly packaged in different areas. There are employees, servants and people who are living, as the result of their work, outside their own areas. There are areas which have not yet been proclaimed for occupation by any one population group. There are areas which have been proclaimed for ownership, but not for occupation. There are areas which are still in a transition stage. There are numerous variations of circumstances. I think the hon. the Minister and the House are well aware that one is not going to prevent drinking. That was the reason why the 1962 Amendment Bill was introduced. It was recognized that one cannot prevent the use of liquor. Surely, where these people are in fact not living in proclaimed areas, they are still going to drink. By closing down legitimate controlled premises we are forcing them into the arms of the shebeen owners. We are in fact creating more undesirable conditions, namely that of shebeening and illegal liquor sales.

I do not for one moment argue with the principle that it is undesirable to have uncontrolled drinking or excessive drinking creating a nuisance in another race’s area. I am thinking of the practical effects of this provision and the effect it will have. I am not thinking of the theory that this is going to solve all our problems, but of the reality of the fact that thousands of people are now going to turn to illicit buying rather than drinking in properly controlled and licensed premises. I feel that this matter has not really been considered seriously enough. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to take the power now, during this Session, of closing down the cause of undesirable conditions.

He should then ask the National Liquor Board in terms of the powers which this Bill will grant to it and which I support, to investigate and to take evidence, not just from the Police, but as I said last night from sociologists and other people concerned with this problem, which is a human one. They should take evidence on the speed at which areas are in fact becoming cleared for occupation by one group only. They should take evidence on the number of people who are living quite legally outside their own proclaimed areas.

I am not talking about the illegal residents. I am talking about those living legally. All these problems must be taken into account and studied so that he can come back with considered, or perhaps even the same, provisions. He must, however, come back with a proven case. I refer for instance to the question of the Indian community, who are included here, but who to my knowledge, have never been accused of creating the same problem which affects the Coloured group. This is designed to deal with the Coloured group. I think that the Minister will admit that. It is designed for a problem created in the Cape by the Coloured population, but it includes the Indian population as well. In point of fact that problem has not arisen there. Quite a different problem arises in Natal.

There the problem is one of illicit liquor running, of illicit sales, but the problem of drunkenness on the streets and drunkenness on public transport does not occur in that case, because most, although not all, of the on-consumption premises are either in unproclaimed areas on in areas adjacent to or near to Indian residential areas, and we do not find that problem. But this clause, as it is now designed, is what I call a shotgun clause. You are simply shooting into the bush. “Jy skiet in die bos.” You do not care whether you hit the guilty or the innocent, but I do not believe that it is going to solve the problem. This is indiscriminate legislation, hoping to catch the guilty with the innocent. I submit that the guilty are covered by subparagraph (a).

If the Minister has that power, he can deal with the guilty. But by taking the additional power granted by subparagraph (b), he is going to create a greater evil than that which he is trying to stop. There are many decent Coloureds and Indians to-day who go in and drink in quite a civilized manner, just as white people do. They have two or three drinks and they go home. That person is now going to be forced to go and buy a bottle from off-consumption premises, and he will probably drink it on the pavement or on the way home. Surely it is better that he should have the facilities available where he can drink in a civilized manner, and where food can be available, as the Minister has laid down.

Now I am not even talking about the hardship to the trade. They have spent many hundreds of thousands of rands in having hotels classified. This little bit of extra trade can make the difference between their existence and their bankruptcy. The wine and malt licensees have had to put in kitchens. They have had to spend money, at the Government’s request. They have met those provisions and they have provided those facilities. I believe that it is unjust simply to say that they may have some future consortium. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider this amendment or at least to give us some assurance that he will take no action which is going to react unfairly where no undesirable conditions are created. Where those conditions exist, he can act as quickly as he likes.

I hope that he will give us the assurance that he will not use the powers he is seeking, to interfere with the legitimate, properly run and properly controlled trade, and that he will not act in such a way that people who have invested money in building up hotels are now going to find themselves suffering as a result of this provision.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) used the expression, “Shooting into the bush”. But as far as I am concerned, the hon. member has thrown an empty bottle into the bush! The basis of this entire clause issue that if the Minister is of the opinion, only after an investigation by the Liquor Board, that sufficient provision exists for the supply of liquor to Coloured or Asiatic persons in their own areas, he may take steps in terms of this provision. The hon. member for Durban (Point) wants the Minister to prove his case first, but this does in fact make provision for a proven case in that an investigation has to be instituted in terms of the proposed section 118ter which will afford all interested parties the opportunity of giving evidence so that everyone who may be affected adversely will have an opportunity of putting their case. A recommendation is thereupon made to the Minister. The Minister then takes steps when the case has been proved. The hon. member suggested that if the Minister exercises his powers in terms of this provision, the people against whom he wants to take steps, are going to acquire and consume liquor on uncontrolled premises. But if sufficient provision exists for the supply of liquor in their own areas, why will they resort to drinking behind the screen? Surely they can satisfy their desire to have a drink where sufficient provision exists for them to do so.

And what about the Coloureds who are still resident and employed in white areas?

The policy is that everyone should be resident in his own group area. But wherever he may be living, nothing prevents him from buying a bottle of liquor and taking that home with him. The hon. member also created the impression that there will be no on-consumption facilities in Coloured areas. But I want to advise him to read section lOOsex which lays down that a person has to make provision for on-consumption facilities, and not only off-consumption facilities, in order to obtain a liquor licence.

Towards the end of his speech the hon. member maintained that this provision would affect certain interests adversely. I accept of course that steps will not be taken summarily. On the contrary, the Liquor Board will first institute a proper investigation and all interested parties will have the opportunity of putting their case during such an investigation. Only after this has been done, when the Minister has all the details at his disposal, will he decide what to do.

Both paragraphs of the proposed section 101 (1) give effect to what public opinion wants. In addition they implement the basic principle of our policy, and that is that every group should be given its own facilities within its own group area. This therefore represents a further development in the gradual implementation of our policy of separate development, in this case in the liquor trade. I cannot see how the hon. member for Durban (Point) can have any objection to this provision, because no-one is being deprived of any privileges. Steps will not be taken summarily and there will be no liquor consumption on uncontrolled premises, because these people are going to consume their liquor in their own group areas, in other words on controlled premises. Consequently I cannot see on what grounds the argument of the hon. member for Durban (Point) against this provision rests.

I have no quarrel with the hon. member for Odendaalsrus When he says that what the (Minister is seeking here is the eradication of an evil arising from the abuse of liquor. On that we are at one with him. I am also at one with him when he says that if after proper investigation undesirable conditions are found to exist the right to sell liquor on those premises should be terminated. But it is paragraph (b) of subsection (1) which gives me difficulties. Let us apply it to conditions pertaining here in the Cape Peninsula. As the provision stands here, the Minister can, if the National Liquor Board after investigation finds that there are sufficient facilities for the supply of liquor in a declared group area, close down on-consumption privileges within the white areas of the Peninsula. Say, for instance, the National Liquor Board comes to the conclusion that in Athlone or Bonteheuwel there are sufficient on-consumption facilities for the Coloured population of Cape Town. Does that then meet the position also of the Coloured man who works in a non-declared area, e.g. within the City of Cape Town, in the docks or some other area? Must he then be told when he knocks off duty that he cannot go to properly controlled on-consumption liquor premises to have a drink before he goes home? Does he have to be told that before he has to travel all these miles to get to his own area? The hon. member for Odendaalsrus forgets that there are Coloureds living in non-declared areas. He says they should all be within their own group areas but this very Bill refers to both types of situations, i.e. to declared group areas and to areas predominantly occupied by Coloureds. Therefore this Bill itself recognizes that such areas do exist, i.e. areas predominantly occupied by Coloureds, areas outside group areas. Let us take the case of a Coloured man who works in the docks and knocks off in the afternoon. Must he walk all the way to the station, catch a train and go to Athlone in order to obtain a drink? He won’t—but if he wants to have a drink he is going to get one. So, the question is in what way can this problem best be tackled. He must be allowed to go to on-consumption premises where he can have his one or two drinks,, or he will go to an off-sales department, buy a bottle and finish the bottle before he goes home, because he is not going to take only one or two tots out of the bottle and take the rest home. I want to tell the Minister that in terms of paragraph (b) instead of alleviating the problem he is actually accentuating it, because as long as we can see into the future, Coloured people are going to work in these non-declared areas far away from their own declared group areas. I believe the Minister is stretching his belief in human nature if he believes that a man, whatever the colour of his skin, when he knocks off work and wants a drink is going to wait until he has travelled miles to get to his own group area in order to have that drink. On the contrary, he is going to find a way of getting that drink and he will probably get it through the bottle store and drink on an empty plot or behind a building instead of on properly controlled premises. I should like the hon. the Minister to think again about this matter and to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Point).

Anyone who is sincere about the policy of separate development, will agree that the principle contained in the proposed subsection 101 (1) is both sound and essential for the promotion of that policy. As regards paragraph 101 (1) (a), there seems to be general agreement, in other words, the Minister should be able to close on-consumption premises at which undesirable conditions prevail without too much fuss. As regards paragraph 101 (1) (b), I should like to learn from the Minister whether the normal procedure will be that on-consumption premises will be granted a few years’ grace before being closed down finally? There are cases under paragraph (b) where one has sympathy with the people. As has already been said, they have incurred considerable expenses for classification, etc., and if the Minister does not foresee that it will take a few years to close down the on-consumption premises in terms of paragraph (b), will he tell us whether he will be prepared to grant some extension of time in this connection?

I cannot see what major objection there can be to this particular clause. I am speaking only with reference to the Western Province, which I know. I trust that the plea made by the hon. member for Green Point will not be construed as a statement that we want on-consumption premises in the Sea Point area. At the moment we do not have on-consumption premises for non-Whites in Sea Point; the system is working well, and we do not want any on-consumption premises for non-Whites in Sea Point please. I see no objection to the granting of these powers to the Minister. Unless we get a Minister who is not completely sane. I do not believe that any Minister will exercise the powers granted in this clause in a way which will be detrimental to established interests. What power does this clause grant the Minister? He may in certain cases prohibit on-consumption facilities for Coloureds in a white area, only after a recommendation has been made to him. But has the time not arrived when something like this had to come? Mr. Chairman, have you ever driven through the main streets of Stellenbosch or Malmesbury or Piketberg or Wellington on a Saturday or a Friday afternoon? I have absolutely nothing against the brown people; I am pleased that they are decent liquor consumers; I am a wine farmer and they are my best clients, but I say that large numbers of intoxicated Coloureds in a white area, or vice versa, can only lead to trouble, and if this can be avoided it is a good thing. I want the Minister to go further. In view of the fact that he allows consortiums, I should like to see that bars be obliged to provide food to their clients free of charge. On-consumption is the biggest cause of drunkenness in the streets. What does the Coloured on the farm do? When he leaves the farm in the morning, his first destination is a bar, and what happens there? If one has a cup of tea with one’s friends, one drinks one cup of tea only, but if one has a drink in a bar with a friend for whom one has paid, he in turn has to buy one a drink. At eleven in the morning, on empty stomachs, the Coloureds are under the influence of liquor. I have seen what happens to those Coloureds when they are under the influence of liquor and when they go into a shop to buy something, sometimes from their own people. They do not always receive the correct change and they are made to buy all kinds of things. We can no longer tolerate this position in the Western Province. I cannot speak about the Bantu areas nor about the Indian areas, but I do know what is happening in the Western Province. I believe that the Minister will exercise his powers in an honest and just way. Why would he become vicious and vindictive and exercise these powers to hurt people deliberately? I do not believe that he will do so and if a Minister were to do so, he could be reported to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister could then deal with him. I do not believe that any Minister would deliberately abuse these powers. But what I do believe is that something should be done to remove drunks from the main streets of our towns in the Western Province. They do not get drunk on liquor which they buy at off-consumption premises; they get drunk at on-consumption premises because they drink on empty stomachs. I think the hon. the Minister will do well to discuss this matter with more authoritative persons than I am in order to ascertain what the effect of liquor on an empty stomach is and whether it should not be made compulsory for bars to provide starchy foodstuffs free of charge to their clients in bars. I have no objection to this clause.

The hon. member for Kroonstad as well as the hon. member for Odendaalsrus gave this clause a political colour. [Interjections.] They can tell me whether I am interpreting them incorrectly. They intimated that the policy of separate development carried more weight than practical considerations in this case. If the clause has a political colour, are we to accept that this is the thin edge of the wedge? Is this the beginning of a movement that a member of one population group eventually will not be allowed to buy any article in the residential area of another population group?

Have you read the Rand Daily Maili

Definitely; I read all newspapers. It seems to me the hon. the Minister also reads the Rand Daily Mail; if he does not, how does he know what the Rand Daily Mail says?

They instruct you how to act.

Sir, that kind of remark comes from the Leader of the House. I leave the hon. the Minister at that. It is time for the hon. the Minister to retire. Mr. Chairman, my question is whether this is not the thin edge of the wedge? There has already been talk of shop apartheid and resolutions have already been taken in this connection.

Order! We are now dealing with legislation amending the Liquor Act, and the hon. member must confine himself to that. The marketing of other articles has nothing to do with this matter.

Sir, a principle is involved in this matter.

Order! No, the principle was accepted at the second reading. We are now taking the Committee Stage.

It is inevitable during the Committee Stage of this kind of Bill that we have to discuss the principle.

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling. The principle has already been accepted, and he may only discuss the details.

Mr. Chairman, am I not allowed to make this comparison?

No, that is not relevant now.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of Order, we are now dealing with a Bill in which each clause contains a different principle and it was said at the time of the Second Reading that each clause would be debated on its merits. That has always been so under a General Law Amendment Bill; otherwise you would get an impossible position at the Second Reading. I have always understood that the committee stage of this particular type of Bill is similar to a second-reading debate. The House goes into committee to discuss the various clauses of the Bill and, with all respect, I think your ruling is going too far in excluding a discussion of this nature.

One does allow a little latitude in a case like this, but the hon. member cannot discuss the marketing of groceries and clothing under a clause amending the Liquor Act.

I shall submit to your ruling, Sir, but I have to point out that there is no one principle running through a General Law Amendment Bill.

Order! I have given my ruling, and the hon. member must abide by it.

I am satisfied. I have made my point and I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister whether this is the thin edge of the wedge and whether this is the beginning of shop apartheid and of a prohibition on one population group to make purchases in the area of another population group? The practical difficulty which may arise here is this. What this clause amounts to, according to my interpretation, is that if sufficient facilities exist in, say, Athlone or in Bellville South, which are Coloured residential areas, the Minister may refuse Coloureds in Hout Bay which is many miles away, proper on-consumption facilities. And many Coloured fishermen live in Hout Bay. Am I right or not? This also applies to Sea Point. Sir, we may say that something like a White residential area does exist in terms of the law, but it is in fact a white ownership area. Approximately 10,000 non-Whites live in the whole of the Sea Point-Camps Bay complex. I cannot say how many Coloureds live there and how many members of other race groups. Those non-Whites live on premises belonging to Whites. The expression “white residential area” consequently is a piece of fiction; it is a white ownership area, but people who work for Whites and who are there for the convenience of the Whites, live there. I think we all agree that the law has to step in where undesirable conditions prevail—irrespective whether they are created by Whites who misbehave themselves or by Coloureds who misbehave themselves, and if the Minister were not to step in, we would be the first to criticize him: in this regard we are in complete agreement. The only thing we want to prevent, is that steps will be taken which will lead to injustice. As far as a small town is concerned where people live close together, this is an easy matter, as the hon. member for Odendaalsrus said, but in large urban areas where numerous Coloureds live in white areas, the implementation of this provision in its present form may lead to injustice. I should like a reply from the hon. the Minister to this point.

This is a discussion on liquor, but the hon. member made the cattish remark that it was time for the hon. the Leader of the House to retire from politics.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “cattish”.

I withdraw it. He made the remark that it was time for the hon. the Leader of the House to retire from politics. Now I just want to tell the hon. member, that we shall not allow him to determine the time when the hon. the Leader of the House is to retire, but we shall determine the time for the hon. member to do so, and that is in 1971. Then we of the National Party will see to it that he will have to retire from this House for at least some time.

As far as this matter is concerned, whether or not hon. members opposite want to give this a political colour, this kind of situation creates the problem that Coloureds, as well as other non-Whites, congregate at these on-consumption premises. This is so particularly over the week-ends, and the ones who complain are the Whites in those white residential areas where these places are situated, and it makes no difference to what party those white people belong. In this regard I want to agree with the hon. member for Sea Point that there is no need to encourage more such on-consumption premises, but I am convinced that the Minister and his Department will not act unjustly in implementing this clause and will not simply say on a certain day that they now want to terminate all facilities and that all on-consumption premises will have to close on that date. I foresee that this provision will be implemented as justly as the Liquor Act has been implemented, and that any movement in this direction will take place gradually. This will not happen either before sufficient facilities exist for these non-Whites in their own areas. Say 40 such on-consumption premises were required for these people and there were only five, there would be no sense in closing down all on-consumption premises in white areas which would force these people to congregate at those five on-consumption premises, because then they would go to the shebeens. What I foresee is that the Minister will introduce this position gradually, as fast as facilities for the Coloureds and the Indians are created in their own areas. As soon as sufficient facilities exist in those areas the number of such on-consumption premises in the white areas will be decreased. I am of the opinion that it is essential that each colour group should have its own on-consumption premises in its own areas and not in the area of another colour group.

Mr. Chairman, before I … [Interjections] Honestly, I do not know what it is with hon. members opposite that they are so sensitive that immediately I get to my feet they start shouting. What is the matter with them? [Interjections.]

Order!

Before coming to the hon. member for Potchefstroom I just want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Kroonstad, who made the statement that anybody who is honest in his belief in separate development will see the merits in this clause. I believe that we are now discussing a social problem. [Interjection.] If the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot understand, I think he should rather leave the Chamber. [Interjections.] We are dealing here with a social problem and not a political problem, but we have had the political angle introduced by the hon. member for Kroonstad, and again by the hon. member for Potchefstroom. One of the interesting facets is that both of those gentlemen come from provinces and from parts where this is no problem; this problem does not present itself in the areas which they represent, which I assume are the areas which they know. I have seen these areas. We know what happens there. I have risen here because I want to ask those hon. members who represent areas where this is a problem, to rise and talk about it and let us hear from them what the true facts are. The Free State does not have this problem, nor the Transvaal. The hon. member for Potchefstroom made the point that it is the Whites that are complaining, and I think it was the hon. member for Kroonstad who made the point that this was only controlled in proclaimed group areas. But I do not think he has read the clause at all. Paragraph (b) provides that the Minister, after having obtained a. report and if he is of the opinion that sufficient provision exists for the sale or supply of liquor to Coloured or Asiatic persons in their own group area, can prohibit all holders of on-consumption licences in respect of premises situated in a group area, as well as within the district within which the area referred to falls, from selling or supplying liquor to Coloured or Asiatic persons for consumption on those premises. The first point is that this is not only licensees within proclaimed white group areas. As I read this term, the district is a magisterial district and even though the area might be a mixed area, the Minister has the power to curtail the activities of that licensee and to prohibit him from selling liquor to Coloureds and to Indians. This is the first point I want to raise with the Minister. Why does he apply this provision to areas outside proclaimed white group areas if the complaints, as the hon. member for Potchefstroom has said, come from white people? Why is it restricted to those areas? The other point I want to raise is this. As I said, this is a social problem we are dealing with, and not a political problem. Does this social problem not also exist amongst the white people of South Africa? Are there not also areas where, in these on-consumption premises, white people are consuming too much liquor and also creating a problem similar to the problem which is being created in Cape Town, I believe, by the Coloured people, as I know it is in Durban by some Indian people?

Are you accusing your own constituents of doing it?

I am not accusing anybody of doing anything, and as I said to the hon. the Deputy Minister before, if he cannot understand, it is better for him to leave the matter alone. I am asking a question. Has the Minister, with the facilities at his disposal, not found that this is also a problem amongst the white people, and if so, why are they not also included in this provision?

As a member of this House who was born and grew up in the Western Province and who knows Cape Town, the Swartland and the Boland as such, I find it rather amusing to a certain extent, when one has read this clause and has tried to understand it. knowing what it is all about and what it is trying to combat, to hear these authorities from other Provinces. It was particularly amusing to listen to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) had to say a moment ago. He was completely off the rails; he does not know what this is all about. This is not a political matter, and I regret that politics have been dragged into this and that separate development has been mentioned, because this has nothing to do with the matter. This is not even concerned with the social problem; what it is concerned with is the fact that one finds Coloured people congregating, particularly on a Saturday, in white areas in the smaller towns, particularly in the Western Province, the Swartland and the Boland, such as Wellington, Malmesbury and Piketberg, where one does not have those facilities in a Coloured area as yet. I am not speaking of an area such as Paarl, where the Coloureds do have an hotel in the Coloured area. That is what this is all about. These conditions create a nuisance for the Whites, are inconvenient for the Coloureds, and they give rise to friction and other feelings which need not exist. I think this is what the Minister wants to eliminate by means of this clause. For Heaven’s sake, let hon. members such as the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Malmesbury, who know what we are speaking about, tell us about this. We do not want advice from places where they do not know what is going on here and what this clause is about.

Now you are waxing dramatic.

No, I am not waxing dramatic. Show me where such a problem exists at Potchefstroom. What do you know about this, except from hear-say? I associate myself with the clause and I associate myself with everything which the Minister envisages in this regard. We heard what the hon. member for Malmesbury said here about his constituency during the debate on the Coloured affairs Vote. He knows what he is talking about. We listened ito the hon. member for Sea Point who snoke about that area, one he knows well. In the Coloured areas of certain towns the facilities which ought to exist there do not exist as yet. In those towns the Coloured areas are undeveloped and small and the people there still do not have the necessary financial means to create their own facilities even though they do have the assistance of the Coloured Development Corporation. I am now afraid that the following situation will arise. One finds different bars. One of them is situated close to the Coloured area. In that area there is no other such place. The others will be closed down progressively and that one will benefit from that. I now want to make the following appeal to the Minister. Steps should be taken in consultation with the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Coloured Development Corporation to bring about the establishment of facilities in the Coloured areas in good time. Certain bodies and persons should not be benefited.

I also ask the Minister to have regard to the recommendations of the Liquor Licensing Board. We are now speaking of on-consumption premises. I want to mention one example. In Oudtshoorn, for example, licensed liquor premises were moved from the town to the border of the Coloured area. This is a white business undertaking. The licensee applied for this to be done and the National Liquor Licensing Board granted his application. There were in fact no objections from the Coloureds, but those people are still unacquainted with these matters, they do not look far ahead, nor do they have the business sense of the Whites. The Board should have realized that that bottle store was moved in order to derive the benefit of the Coloured liquor trade. If one takes the town Oudtshoorn, one sees that all Coloureds who work in Oudtshoorn have to pass that bottle store on their way home from work. That place is detrimental to the interests of the hotel which is at present being erected in the Coloured area. These matters have to be viewed from all angles so as to ensure that a certain person or business will not be profited. With my knowledge of the region where I was born I am convinced and I insist that the conditions which arise on a Saturday in particular, conditions I have known since I was a child, can only give rise to friction and a feeling of race antagonism. These things ought not to happen and the conditions to which I am referring must be combated in some way. Consequently I give my full support to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I believe every hon. member who has spoken so far on this clause agrees that a problem does exist and that ways and means must be found to tackle this problem. No member has, however, been able to put forward any suggestion which could improve the provisions of this clause now under discussion. Therefore I believe that to combat the social problems mentioned this clause should be supported. If we study the problem as it exists to-day we know that in any legislation relating to liquor there are always various problems. Of course, total prohibition is not the answer. As the hon. member for Green Point said, even if this clause is passed, there is nothing to prevent a non-White purchasing a bottle of liquor at a bottle store, drinking it somewhere and then making himself a nuisance in the street or in a bus or train. Therefore it would have to be suggested that off-sales premises must also be restricted in the way envisaged in this clause if one wants to tackle that problem as well. This clause does not go as far as that. It only deals with the question of on-consumption and I believe that particularly as far as paragraph (a) is concerned it should receive the full support of this Committee so that this problem can be tackled by responsible people after due investigation and report. As far as paragraph (b) is concerned, I believe some difficulty does arise here. However I am also aware of the fact that in a constituency such as the one I represent there are also problems relating to on-consumption premises, particularly at non-European bars. Many people are hesitant to walk past these places on a Friday or a Saturday because they fear for their safety. I believe if facilities could be provided in their own non-White areas there is no reason why these people should continue to operate non-white bars in white areas. There is a small section of the Indian community who unfortunately do on occasion make a nuisance of themselves because they abuse liquor. So I do not entirely agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) who seemed to suggest it is not a problem. I think that as non-white areas develop, and in Durban the Chatsworth area is developing rapidly, sufficient on-consumption facilities should be provided at Indian hotels in the Chatsworth area.

It is obvious that a position could arise whereby the Minister could abuse these powers in a certain sense. I am thinking of him using the powers conferred on him by paragraph (b) of the new subsection (1). I believe this paragraph must be given further careful consideration. My mind goes back to important amendments to the Liquor Act made in 1962. for instance the granting of grocers’ wine licences, when a very lively debate with a free vote took place in this House and the amendment was passed with a very small majority. After that the then Minister of Justice indicated he would not apply those provisions for a period of two years. I feel the Minister could do the same as far as this paragraph is concerned. I believe the Minister should pay more attention to the provision of more adequate on-consumption facilities in the non-white areas and perhaps he could then meet the objections which some hon. members might have to the clause as it now reads. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider postponing the coming into operation of the provisions of paragraph (b) for a period of two years, although I believe it should be placed on the Statute Book in the meanwhile as an attempt to tackle this social problem which is indeed a growing problem in South Africa. We all realize that something must be done to tackle this problem. Unless a better means of tackling the problem is put forward, I believe the clause as it stands should be passed by this Committee, and therefore I intend supporting it.

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening very attentively to hon. members who adapted the attitude that undesirable congregations of Coloureds, parti cularly on Saturdays, occurred in certain pants of the Cape Province. The hon. members alleged that the Coloureds became undesirable elements because of the fact that they could obtain liquor. If one is acquainted with the circumstances in the Cape Province, and hon. members all said they were, what is the real position? The position is that Coloureds can only go to the towns on a Saturday morning. The fact that they go there, whether ot not they obtain liquor, will still cause Coloureds to congregate at those places. If one goes to the smaller rural towns in our immediate vicinity, Durbanyille, for example, one realizes that those people will be there on a Saturday morning in any event whether they would be able to buy liquor or not. Go to most of the towns in the South Western Districts or to most Karoo towns or most towns in the Eastern Province, and you will find those people there on a Saturday morning, because that is the only chance they have of going to those towns. Now it is alleged that because those people can buy liquor in a white area they are a nuisance to the community. But are they not also a nuisance to the community when they go there to buy something else? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is still going to allow them to buy liquor at a local hotel which has off-sales facilities. Of course he is going to allow them to do so. There is nothing in this clause preventing them from finishing that bottle there and then as soon as they have bought it. I shall tell you what the object of this clause is, and what its effect will be. If the hon. the Minister has to apply this clause, the result will be that the smaller hotels in the rural areas, and particularly in the Cape Province, would suffer even more than they do as a result of the difficulties they have to contend with at present. The hon. the Minister has a problem, but it is not his problem. This is the problem of someone else. It is the problem of the local authorities to see to it that no one makes a nuisance of himself in those towns. Such a disturbance does not arise from the fact that people are able to obtain liquor there, because the hon. the Minister is not going to place a prohibition on their obtaining liquor.

Should the mayor himself remove drunk Coloureds from the streets?

That hon. member does not have a great deal of insight into any matter, and consequently he can make such a stupid deduction. [Interjections.] The position is that if sufficient facilities can be created for those people in their own areas, nobody will be opposed to that, but we are not only dealing with the large urban areas of South Africa. Here we are dealing with a problem which principally affects the smaller rural towns, the towns from where most of the criticism comes. Criticism does in fact come from the urban areas as well, but there we have the position that the Coloureds have their own residential areas. In due course we shall be able to create facilities for them where they will be able to drink and also buy their liquor. That hon. member comes from Kirkwood. I want to ask him whether it is possible to establish in Kirkwood in the Eastern Cape a separate hotel with on and off-consumption facilities for the Coloureds in their own area.

Yes.

Then why has he not done so up to now? At present it is not possible with the present numbers of Coloureds and the development in our smaller rural towns to give the Coloureds exactly the same facilities which the Whites have. That is the present position, but with this clause the hon. the Minister is now seeking to put a further damper on the development of those small towns. He is not in the position to give the same facilities to the Coloureds or to the other non-Whites. He simply cannot do so. Therefore they have to make use of the facilities which exist in the white areas. It is true that that does give rise to some disturbance, but to avoid that we have to go to the other extreme. The other extreme is to establish their own facilities for them. I challenge the hon. the Minister or any other hon. member opposite to give the non-Whites at this stage exactly the same facilities which the Whites have in the rural areas. It is simply impossible to do so. I can understand this as far as the urban areas are concerned, and there we find criticism. The hon. member for Tygervallei possibly also has a problem in this connection.

Do you not have a problem in Port Elizabeth?

In Newton Park I have absolutely no problem. The hon. member for Algoa has a problem. But in my constituency there is no problem. I still say that that problem can be solved in some other way. I am prepared to challenge any hon. member opposite to say that the same facilities have to be established in the smaller rural towns. Consequently it will not be possible to implement this clause in practice unless we are prepared to do the undertakings concerned a great deal of harm. These people will be done a great deal of harm as separate facilities for the Coloureds cannot be established. These are the reasons why I am opposed to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear to me that the hon. member for Newton Park does not know what is going on in his constituency. He spends one night every three or four vears in his constituency and he pays his constituency a visit to canyass votes when an election is to be held. I just want to say that I do not live in Kirkwood. I may spend my nights in Kirkwood, but I work in my constituency. That is the difference. That hon. member does not work in his constituency. He merely sleeps there occasionally. Now the hon. member says that we should not establish those facilities for the Coloureds in their own areas. The Minister is not going to enforce this measure and deprive the Coloureds of all facilities which are available to them in our white areas at the present time. These facilities will gradually be provided in their own areas. Why is the hon. member not in favour to-day of the principle of facilities being created for the Coloureds in their own areas? [Interjections.] No, wait a moment; you will also have an opportunity to speak.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell that hon. member what is happening in Port Elizabeth.

Then the hon. member should not create the impression that I had said that.

I want to tell the hon. member that this is not the beginning of business apartheid as he maintained. We are quite satisfied with the fact that the Coloureds may do shopping in white areas. We have no objection to any non-White being able to do his business in a white area. But why should we allow the Coloured community to become intoxicated first? Instead of first buying their groceries, they first visit the bars and the drinking places which are open to them there. The present position is that the white areas are overrun by non-Whites who are under the influence of liquor. Those are the conditions which the hon. member wants to have continued so that he may be able to go to the voters of Port Elizabeth (North) and ask them, “Where is your apartheid? Did you ever see so many non-Whites under the influence of liquor in the white residential areas when we were in power?” The hon. member is looking for opportunities to go to the election platforms and to say there that the National Party cannot implement its policy. The hon. member says that it is the duty of the local authorities to eliminate such disturbances. I want to tell the hon. member that the world would have come to an end and still that liberalistic city council of that hon. member would not have raised a finger to do anything. I want that hon. member to go to the liberalistic city council of Port Elizabeth and tell tham that the time has arrived for them to wake up and take action against the mixing of the races which is taking place. Here we are not dealing with a policy of suppression, but we want to see to it that the same facilities will be given to the Coloureds in their own residential areas as those we have in our white areas.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it is necessary to be come so excited about this clause, and there is no political capital to be made out of this either. There is only one political consideration and that is the convenience of the public at large. I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that it would be as much in his favour as in mine and that it would redound to the honour of all of us if we were to vote for this clause. Whether they are his supporters or my supporters, the wishes of the Whites are embodied in this clause, and no words should be deleted from this clause. That is the fact of the matter and we cannot get away from that. I also want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that this is not the thin edge of the wedge, but merely an attempt to deal with a condition which has assumed such proportions at the present time that something simply has to be done about it. The public insists that something should be done and that is all we are trying to achieve with this clause. In the first instance we say, and this will be an interim measure, that if undesirable conditions prevail on certain premises, such premises may be closed down immediately after an investigation by and on the recommendation of the National Liquor Board, and we may say: “These premises must go now.” This is the one way.

We also agree with that.

That is correct. The second part of the clause provides that this may be done when sufficient provision has been made for on-consumption facilities and, although this is not mentioned specifically, you must read this into that because the existing facilities which are in the Coloured areas all have on-consumption premises. The clause reads that when sufficient facilities exist, the Minister may—please note “may” and not “shall”—on the recommendation and after investigation by the National Liquor Board, close down and transfer on-consumption facilities in a certain area to a Coloured area. Hon. members should read this clause together with the statement I made during the discussion of my Vote when I said that this was a matter of policy and that it had been decided to transfer on-consumption facilities to the Coloured areas. I also said that we would not act precipitately and that we would first ascertain What the requirements were in such areas.

These requirements will be ascertained by the National Liquor Board. When those requirements have been ascertained and when provision has been made for them, these steps will be taken. There ought to be no on-consumption facilities for one race group in the residential area of another race group. We do not go to Coloured areas to drink and we do not expect the present practice to continue in our areas. However, these steps will only be taken when sufficient facilities exist.

The hon. member for Umbilo said I could postpone the coming into operation of this provision for two years. I want to thank the hon. member for his support of this clause, but what will in fact happen? Instructions will now have to be given to the National Liquor Board. My first instruction to them will be that they have to ascertain exactly what the position is throughout the country in every city, town and residential area of the Coloureds and other race groups, what facilities exist there for them, how many additional facilities have to be established. They will then have to report to me. This will inevitably take a considerable time, because it will not be possible, after all, to do this overnight.

Possibly one year?

I am unable to say exactly how long it will take, but it will take a considerable time. I do not know with what dispatch such an investigation can be instituted. After that has been done, provision will still have to be made for such facilities and I have said I foresee possible consortiums. A site will have to be found. A building will have to be erected, because hon. members should remember that these are on-consumption facilities. It will take time to finalize all these matters. In the meantime the present holders of on-consumption licences in our white residential areas will still have the benefit of sales, unless their premises have caused a nuisance. If that happens, we shall be able to take steps in terms of the new section 101 (1) (a). Only when that has been done will steps be taken to establish consortiums in the larger places for the Coloured areas, for example. This will happen if they themselves are not in a position to do so. I said that this would be on a temporary basis. I warned that they should not be of the opinion that they would obtain permanent rights there.

Now we shall also prescribe the conditions on which they will be able to do so. One of the hon. members opposite said that this should be coupled with the provision of food. That will be one of our conditions. Liquor should not be consumed on an empty stomach. What is the position in the smaller places? I am now thinking of Swellendam where I once spent some time. We were delayed in Swellendam for some time, and I then saw that there was more than one bar. I also saw the Coloureds congregating there.

Was that on a Saturday morning?

Yes, I think it was. Yes it was a Saturday morning, because as it happened I could not find a mechanic as they do not work on Saturdays. That is why I remember this. That is quite correct. It was a Saturday morning. But nevertheless. I can imagine that if on-consumption facilities are to be established in the Coloured residential area of a town like Swellendam—Swellendam does have a Coloured residential area—and they themselves are in a position to do so, they will do so in terms of section lOOsex. If they are not in a position to do so, the holders of existing on-consumption licences may transfer their non-white bars for a certain number of years if they comply with certain conditions. To what race group will any injustice be done under the circumstances? To what holders of on-consumption licences in white areas is any injustice being done under these circumstances at the present time? What we are in fact achieving is the removal of an offensive evil from white areas. I honestly cannot see why hon. members opposite do not support this clause to the same extent as hon. members on this side do.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear to the hon. the Minister that none of us disagree with his desire which is the unanimous desire of this House, to eliminate undesirable conditions Where there is “samedromming”, and where the presence of these people on on-consumption premises is creating a nuisance. We all agree on that. The sole purpose of my amendment is to give the Minister the power to deal with that problem. He himself has said that there will have to be an investigation, but that it will take time. In the meantime he is holding a sword of Damocles over people who have in many cases spent thousands of rands, or are in the process of spending it, to classify their hotels. The Minister shakes his head, but I have had two telephone calls from Durban from persons who are now in the process of raising money in order to classify. A small percentage, but nevertheless a percentage of their business comes from their Indian bar. They have said: “What do I do? If I am going to lose this right next year, I am not going to classify. If I am going to keep it for a year or two years or three years, then I shall probably classify and try to make up for that business in the meantime, to justify borrowing the money.” This is a practical issue. This is not theory. I do not want to become involved in this debate on the question of the policy of separate development. I am dealing with practical issues. I can quote a specific case where the owner of a hotel is in a quandary. He says: “I have just classified. I have just spent R22.000 on an Indian lounge and an Indian bar in order to sell liquor to Indians. Am I now going to lose that? Must I therefore not continue with the classification programme for my second hotel?”

What do I advise them? If the Minister has to advise that person, what will he advise him to do? Must he spend another R22.000 on his other hotel in the knowledge that it may be lost to him in six months’ time or within a year’s time? Or can he be given some indication of what his future is? This is a practical problem.

Another point is that in terms of the paragraph as it is worded the Minister will be obliged to close premises even if these premises are situated in a purely business area, away from a residential area and may not be causing any trouble at all.

The Minister “may”.

Once the Minister has exercised his option he must withdraw all licences. This is quite clear. Subparagraph (ii) of subsection (1) says that the Minister may prohibit as from a date specified in a notice in the Gazette “all holders of on-consumption …” from selling or supplying liquor to Coloureds or Indians. In other words, he is giving them no leeway here at all. If, for instance, he finds that Chatsworth has sufficient liquor facilities then he must close all other licences in the district, including Springfield, Umgeni—throughout the district. As it is worded here, it means that once he has exercised his option he has to close everything within a whole district. That is why I say this is not a provision which the Minister could possibly invoke within the next six months. Paragraph (a), which I support, gives the Minister the power to deal with the immediate problem, but I think not sufficient thought has been given to the provisions providing for total prohibition. That is why I ask that he should consider this total prohibition after he has had the inquiry. If, on the other hand, he indicates that he is not going to clamp down on people within the next year or two, then at least he is giving those people a guide.

Then there are a few specific matters I should like to raise. One of these concerns the consortium. This relates to the position of a lessee of premises. As the Minister knows many hotels are leased, meaning that the owner who has a licence leases the premises to somebody who then operates the business. It is therefore the lessee who is operating the business. If a consortium is now formed, where does this lessee come in? Does he have rights or does the owner from whom he leases the business have rights, leaving the lessee out in the wind? Also in connection with this question of a consortium is the question of buildings. Is it going to be operated like border areas where the LD.C. provides the building and leases it? In this case will the C.D.C. put up the building and lease it to the consortium or will the people themselves have to invest their money in a building in the hope that they will be able to sell it later when they have to get out?

I mention these things to show that there are practical problems involved, matters of practical detail which I submit justifies further consideration. I will not press my amendment if the Minister only could tie the vague term he used “ ’n geruime tyd” down to something more specific. The hon. member for Umbilo and another hon. member on the opposite side have asked for a period of two years. That is reasonable. Under (a) he has the power to close down in cases of “samedromming” and “ergernis”. I am sure that if the Minister could give us an assurance, in those cases where there are no immediate problems, that he will not clamp down on people say within two years, he will ger much more support for this measure from those who are directly concerned.

As regards the question of consortiums, I just want to point out that this is something of which I merely held out the prospect. I said that I could foresee the establishment of consortiums. I also said that I was going to refer the entire matter to the National Liquor Board for investigation and report. Consequently that board will have to go into the matter first and will have to submit details to me. Therefore I can give the hon. member no idea of what the position is going to be. At the moment I cannot say at all. I first have to await the report of the National Liquor Board. In this matter the board will naturally have to cooperate with the Departments most concerned in this matter, for example Coloured Affairs, Indian Affairs and Community Development. They will have to devise a plan and submit it to me. They will have to recommend on what basis provision is going to be made for buildings. If they are wise, they will naturally recommend leasing, because we do not want to create the position of people obtaining an established right in another area for which they have to be compensated at very great expense when they have to withdraw. Therefore I say that if the board is wise, it will make this recommendation to me. But I still have to await those recommendations. As I have said, I am of the opinion that it will still take a considerable time before these matters have been finalized. The hon. member for Durban (Point) wants me to be more specific. For one single reason I should not like to do so, and that is that there may already be a case where sufficient facilities exist for the non-white group concerned and that I may, as a result, want to close down facilities for that group in the white area. As I say, such cases may already exist.

There are such places already—Mossel Bay, for example.

There you have it—the hon. member for Outeniqua says this is already the case at Mossel Bay. In such a case I may want to take immediate steps. Why should I therefore bind myself to a specific period of, say, two years?

Then the hon. member for Durban (Point) related the question of the classification of hotels to this matter. Let me point out that the requirements laid down for hotel classification purposes with regard to the non-white bars of hotels, are negligible. As a matter of fact, the only things on which the National Liquor Board insisted were that such a bar should be kept clean if it was not, and that toilets should be available. Surely these things cannot cost thousands of rand. The hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke of an hotel which derives a small portion of its income from its non-white bar, but which classified at a cost of thousands of rand. My attitude is that if we as Whites want to develop our hotels and raise them to the required standards on the basis of the drinking habits of other race groups, we may as well remain unclassified. I am not going to boast about a white hotel which has been built up on the drinking habits of other race groups.

They do not exist on that; that is merely additional.

If it is additional the hon. member should not have used that argument. I really have nothing to add to what I have already said in connection with this clause, except to make an appeal to all hon. members to support this clause. It will be applied with circumspection and far from harming anybody it will benefit all of us.

Before moving the amendment standing in my name, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. I assume it is clear now that he intends to drop subsections (3), (4) and (5) of clause 8.

Yes.

That being so, I believe that this clause becomes necessary, and although I feel that the ideal would be that before the Minister uses the powers which he is granting himself in this clause, there should be a full investigation by the National Liquor Board, I realize that there are difficulties in the way of that. I would therefore ask the Minister simply to indicate at this stage what sort of investigation he envisages before he would use the powers which he is granting himself. As the clause stands at the moment, he has the right, without any inquiry at all, simply by notice in the Gazette to forbid the delivery by any person of any quantity exceeding two gallons. Obviously the Minister is not simply going to sit down in his office one day and say, “I do not like the colour of somebody’s eyes”; he must have some procedure, and the reason why I ask what the procedure will be is that there are such things as personality clashes. There are licensees who may clash with a particular official or a particular police officer over something perhaps quite trivial. I want to avoid the situation where the Minister could get a report from an individual who perhaps has some personal grievance and that the Minister, acting on that report, could break a business by applying this provision. I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy me in regard to the type of investigation which he intends to carry out before the provisions of this clause are applied. If it is the sort of investigation that will eliminate the possibility of individual victimization by one or two people, then I will not move that part of my amendment asking for a National Liquor Board inquiry. The second part of my amendment is simply technical. In terms of the Act a licensee may have a place of storage, which is not the premises in which he is operating. The clause makes provision for transport from licensed premises to licensed premises, but omits places of storage, and I am merely adding those words. Mr. Chairman, if it is permissible I then move the second part of my amendment—

I am not moving the first part of my amendment at this stage.

I want to say immediately that I gladly accept the second part of the hon. member’s amendment. As far as the first part of the amendment is concerned, we should keep in mind that it is the smuggling of liquor that we want to combat here. If this provision were applied, one might cripple a person’s business. What happens normally as far as the smuggling of liquor is concerned? It is brought to one’s notice by the police. The police do not come directly to the Minister; they usually approach the National Liquor Board, which knows what is happening in the various areas. This is what normally happens. But when it is brought to your notice that liquor is being smuggled, you must act suddenly. I am under no obligation to close such a place permanently. I can of course withdraw the notice again. For that reason I do not think it is desirable that I should be obliged to have a protracted investigation carried out in terms of section 118 ter. I think it is far better to leave the ordinary administration in the hands of the police, who then report to the Minister through the National Liquor Board, and that I should be placed in a position to act quickly when the evil is brought to my notice and to withdraw the notice when the evil has been eliminated or when the person concerned has mended his ways.

Will the hon. the Minister give me the assurance that there will be double control and that he will not, therefore, act solely on the recommendations made by one police station; that reports will have to be submitted by at least two police stations?

I can assure the hon. member that we shall act with very great circumspection. I shall apply this in the same way as I am applying section lOOquin. We shall make quite sure that we do not cause anybody any harm unnecessarily. You have to be sure that the person concerned is really a smuggler and you must also have sufficient evidence to prove it, but after sufficient evidence has been submitted, I do not want to be tied to a provision to the effect that the National Liquor Board must first carry out a protracted investigation. I think the hon. member may rest assured.

I move—

I just want to add that I believe that the powers I have in terms of the previous clause, together with the powers I have in terms of section lOOgwm, to prohibit sales to certain race groups, are sufficient for the time being. If I find later that I have to take additional powers, I may consider doing so, but at this stage I think that I am doing justice to the decent trader who has members of other race groups as clients and who is doing business in an honest and decent way. At the same time, I shall also have powers to act against persons who do not play the game and who are acting to the detriment of the decent liquor trader.

I just want to express my gratitude to the Minister for this concession. I know this will surprise the hon. member for Klip River, but it takes very little to surprise him. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with the various requests which were put to him. I think he is quite correct in saying that he does require these powers, and I also thank him for the opportunity he has given the trade to state their attitude in this regard, and also for the way in which he received the deputation as well as the representations made by the various parties.

In regard to the remaining portion of clause 8, I would like to seek the assistance and advice of the hon. the Minister. I want to cite him something which I find happens almost six days of the week. The position is that a number of Bantu will form themselves into a group or syndicate; they then go to one of the wholesale liquor dealers, particularly the cut-price liquor dealers; they purchase in terms of the minimum quantities laid down for wholesale purchase; they then repair to the pavement outside the premises and proceed to subdivide their wholesale purchases to meet the individual requirements. They then set off, with their bags loaded, to the townships. I have seen the extent of this traffic because it happens to pass the area where I conduct my business. They set off to the township with quantities which I believe are in excess of their normal consumption, and I am led to believe that many of them then sell the liquor either at the normal retail price or at a higher price if they can get it. I want to ask the Minister whether he believes that this abuse will be limited or controlled by limiting the quantity to two gallons—I take it that that can be two gallons of spirits, which is quite a considerable quantity—and by means of the wording in line 51 which says, “… shall by himself, his servant, or agent at any one time introduce liquor in quantities exceeding two gallons”. It seems to me that a purchaser could still conduct a traffic by leaving part of his purchases outside of the township and going in with the limited quantity of two gallons at one time, then come out again and still carry on this type of shebeen business which I believe is thriving to quite a large extent in the townships. I would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s views on this and whether he feds that this clause will to any extent limit this abuse.

Sir, we have here a clause from which the hon. the Minister has removed certain subsections which deal particularly with the Coloured people. But we have left in the clause certain provisions dealing with the Bantu people and the Bantu areas. In his introductory speech, the hon. the Minister told us that his intention here was to try to do away with the illicit trade which is taking place particularly in the Bantu townships. From my own practical experience and from the advice received from a man who has spent many years in the police force, particularly in the liquor section, I am afraid that this is not the answer to the Minister’s problem; that the answer is not to place a prohibition on the transporting of liquor, because in order to make this effective, he is virtually going to have to set up road blocks at the entrances to these townships and search the vehicles as they go in. Because of this I have had further thoughts on this clause and I have wondered what the intention is and why this clause was inserted in the Bill; why these two subsections were not withdrawn when the other were withdrawn. The hon. the Minister admits that he has powers under section 100quin to limit or to prohibit the sale of liquor to any particular class of person from any particular bottle store. He has taken in the other sections we have dealt with further powers which I hope will help him to eradicate this evil. Let us get it quite clear on the record now that I am all in favour of assisting the hon. the Minister to eliminate this menace. I have not been able to find the answer, but as I say, I do not think this is the solution.

Then what are you moaning about?

Sir, I do not know what this noise is which goes on here to my left. It makes it extremely difficult to present a logical argument to the Minister, who is obviously prepared to listen to me, as long as we have a lot of noise going on from the rabble on my left.

Order! Will the hon. member withdraw that?

I withdraw it. Section 100bis is a provision whereby licences are granted primarily to Bantu people, and I take it that it is the only section under which a Bantu can obtain a licence to trade in liquor. It is also granted to local authorities, Bantu authorities and to employers of large numbers of Bantu, but the licensee under that seotion is limited in that he can only sell to Bantu persons. Am I correct in my interpretation? These two provisions do not apply to the holders of licences under section 100bis so immediately the doubt is raised in my mind in regard to discrimination against traders of other groups. Here we have a provision which could be construed as reading this way: that persons wanting to have liquor delivered into Bantu areas can only buy from Bantu traders. That is in fact what is written here, that if a resident of a Bantu township wants a supply of liquor delivered, he must buy from a Bantu trader or a trader under section 100bis.

It is only the local authorities.

I beg your pardon. There are individual Bantu licences in existence. [Interjections.] This is the whole point. There are individuals who have this right. If the Deputy Minister looks at that section, he will see that it says any person or white nominee of the local authority. That is in section 100bis.

Where does that happen? In Natal?

At Montclair, Clermont, Georgedale. There are three I know of. In fact, I do not think we need waste any more time upon this, because the Minister is consulting his advisers and they will confirm to him that there are individual Bantu who have such licences. [Interjections.] I think at this stage I. will resume my seat and let us get this point cleared up, because the whole of my argument depends on this point whether or not an individual Bantu can get a licence under section 100bis.

In his own homeland he can get such a licence, but not in an ordinary Native township. There local authorities are the sole licensees.

Is Umlazi a Bantu homeland?

Of course. In his own homeland a Native can hold a licence, but not in an ordinary Native township. There the municipality is the holder of the licence.

But Umlazi is also a township.

Now we have established the fact that an individual Bantu can have a licence under section 100bis in his homeland. Now, then, we have a Bantu residential area defined under section 2 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act and in terms of the latest amendment to that Act, it can now be in or outside of a Bantu homeland. Therefore this applies in the homeland as well as outside the homeland. [Interjections.] But it goes further. Subsection (1) (ii) refers to a township established by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development under the provisions of any law relating to the settlement of Bantu. So, therefore, we have the township of Umlazi; we have the township of Hammarsdale and the township of Imbali outside Pietermaritzburg, and this will apply in those townships as well.

Yes. because they are in the homelands.

So it is applied to the homelands as well. It is not only Bantu townships within urban areas, but it also applies to Bantu townships in the homelands. I then started thinking whether this is discrimination against traders. Is this now, to use the phrase which was unfortunately coined by certain newspapers, apartheid in trade? Are we now introducing a principle whereby the Bantu people must only trade with their own people? We had the Minister in his reply to the debate on clause 5 saying that it had been established as the policy of the Government that on-consumption be transferred to the group areas. What I ask the Minister is whether this is once again something which has been accepted as the policy of the Government that Bantu in the Bantu areas shall only trade with Bantu people in regard to the supply of liquor?

Why do you think we are buying out all the traders in all those areas?

This section is simply intended to combat the smuggling trade, and nothing else. We are dealing here with two areas. Mention is made here of “supply to any person within a Bantu residential area defined, set apart and laid out or deemed to have been defined, set apart and laid out under section 2 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945: or a township established by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development under the provisions of any law relating to the settlement of Bantu”. The hon. member should not see anything peculiar in this. The idea is this: In the Bantu townships there is a large group of Bantu living together, among whom one may possibly find smuggling and which one does, in fact, find. The smuggling takes place as a result of outside suppliers, and we are thinking mainly of Whites, because they are usually the Suppliers, entering these townships illegally and supplying much more liquor than is really required by those people. This is the only intention. There is no other intention.

I do not remember what precisely it was that the hon. member for Berea asked.

Whether it was intended to prevent the excessive use of liquor.

Yes, the intention is to prevent the excessive use of liquor. I admit quite frankly that we will not succeed 100 per cent in doing so. You know, liquor is a devilish thing. This is a fact and one simply cannot get away from it. People will always find some way or another to circumyent the law, but we nevertheless believe that if we limit the quantity which may be taken into the townships to two gallons at a time, it will act as a tremendous brake. After all, in doing so, you at least take the edge off the evil; you curb the evil as far as possible. If the hon. member can give me a better plan, I shall consider it, but the best we can do about it at the moment is to prohibit the licensee, the supplier, from delivering in these Bantu residential areas. There is nothing sinister about this; this is the only intention. It may be—I have not worked it out in this way—that a licence has perhaps been granted to a private individual under section 100 bis and that he may now be the only person who may deliver. This may possibly be the case, but we should bear in mind that this does not prevent the residents of these two areas we have mentioned here from going to buy their liquor supplies outside. They may buy their supplies and bring it into these areas. There is nothing which prohibits them from doing so, and if they want to buy liquor in large quantities for genuine reasons —perhaps for a wedding—they can always go to the police and ask for a permit, which will be granted. This is the only intention.

The only difficulty I have is this. I understand the Minister’s motives behind this clause, but my difficulty is “at any one time”. As I understand it, the man could take in two gallons of liquor 100 times a day. He could go in at any one time with not more than two gallons. I feel that the Minister could possibly consider saying “at any one time in any one day”. Then you might have some sort of limitation, so that it will not be possible for this position to arise.

I will consider it, and if necessary I will move an amendment in the Other Place.

I thank the Minister for his reply, and I appreciate what he is attempting to achieve here, but unfortunately I have a rather suspicious nature and II did put a pertinent question to the Minister to which he did not reply, i.e. when I asked him whether this is a decision of policy. Has there been a policy decision taken by the Government that in the Bantu townships, if the Bantu want liquor delivered to them, they must only trade with their own people, with those who have licences under section 100bis.

The Minister has just explained it

It goes a little further than that, especially when we get interjections such as that by the hon. member for Heilbron, that naturally we want the Bantu to trade only with their own people in their own areas. This brings me to the whole crux of what I have been driving at and trying to get the hon. the Minister to allay my suspicions. I know that we have had a statement from the Prime Minister that it is not the intention of the Government to introduce apartheid in trade, but when we get something such as was said by the hon. member for Heilbron, and when we have statements such as those made by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development before—and he made an interjection just now which I did not quite catch. When he addressed a group of Bantu businessmen in the Transvaal in October last year, he advocated that they should go to these townships, that they should go and trade there with their own people; and he went further and said: “I will see to it that you do not get competition from the white people.” It is when we get this sort of statement and we tie it to this … [Interjection.] Sir, I must say that I resent entirely the interjection by the Deputy Minister when he suggests that I am doing this for my own personal benefit. Is he allowed to allude such a thing? [Interjections.] He suggests that I am worrying about my own shop at Hammarsdale. Is that not a reflection on my motives in this matter? Anyway, we will hear if the hon. the Deputy Minister will repeat that statement outside this House. [Interjections.] Let me say that when we have these statements and we tie them all together, and when we realize that by the special nature of the Liquor Act we have the position where this is the easiest point at which the Government can introduce this, through the Liquor Act. because of the special provisions of section 100bis—I know the Minister is a reasonable man and I am prepared to accept his word. I should like him to give me the assurance that this is not the thin end of the wedge, and that this is not a policy decided upon by the Government that Bantu shall only trade with Bantu, and that he is not using this provision to establish the principle in a law that Bantu shall trade only with Bantu people.

Mr. Chairman, this is a policy decision in so far as it is an attempt to combat trafficking in liquor. That is all. It is nothing more.

So there is no question of a policy of …

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I move—

These are consequential amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

These amendments are also of a consequential nature.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

I may just explain that the purpose of this amendment is to bring the penalty provision into line with the case of the person who brings in liquor or who delivers liquor. It will now be possible to impose the same penalty; the same amount is being laid down.

Mr. Chairman, this clause repeals a section of the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Amendment Act of 1965 which section repealed a provision of the original Act, as amended in 1941, namely section 32bis. This provided that certain things could not be done by anyone for reward or gain except an attorney. This clause in effect is reviving section 32bis of the original Act. It is strange to repeal a clause which repeals a section which repeals another one, and then to revive it. As one understands the position, that section has never been put into operation, in other words, section 32bis has never in fact been repealed. This I only discovered a short while ago. If the hon. the Minister says that is so, and if that provision still exists, why is it necessary to repeal it with effect from the date of promulgation of that Act, if in fact it is still in existence? It is still the law but its repeal is being repealed, although it is still the law. Why is it necessary to repeal it with effect from the date of promulgation of that Act? I hope the Minister can enlighten me on this because one looks at this clause of course together with clause 18 which purports to amend something which according to the Statute does not exist, but in fact does exist because it has never in fact been promulgated. I wonder whether the Minister would indicate what he has in mind?

Mr. Chairman, the position is a rather awkward one. To a large extent the hon. member for Durban (North) outlined the position correctly, but I must honestly admit that I find the question as to why it has to be from that date, an awkward one. This is the point. Since 1941 section 32bis provided that certain persons, who were not attorneys, were not allowed to perform certain actions for reward. In 1965 that provision was repealed, for the idea was to regulate this matter by means of regulations. Since the regulations had not yet been promulgated, provision was made for this section to be put into operation by proclamation. The present position is that the original section remains in existence as long as these are not being promulgated. After all, attorneys and advocates are suspicious people and they always want to be on the right side. Their fear is that the proclamation may one day be promulgated accidentally, and that is why I have been requested to repeal the original repeal, and thus settle the matter. That is all we tried to do here. I cannot tell the hon. member what the position is in regard to the date.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s difficulty. It is being repealed and I agree one should not have to look through all the Government Gazettes to see whether it has been promulgated. But why repeal with effect from that date? It could be repealed with effect from now.

It is being repealed as from that date, since it has never been in force. I have just received a note which contains the following information. The repeal is being repealed with effect from 1965 so that we may bring about the position that there has, as it were, never been a repeal. This is the reply to the hon. member’s question.

Mr. Chairman, this is a most remarkable state of affairs, because here we have an amendment to the Bantu Trust and Land Act and there is not a Minister to be seen.

I am handling this.

Well, let me amend my original statement and say that an even more remarkable event is taking place, that there is not a Minister or Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs to handle this matter but there is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture.

You are a stranger in Jerusalem. All registrations are done by my department.

If the Deputy Minister is handling this then perhaps he could answer this question. The provisions of the Expropriation Act are applied in respect of certain land and there is a proviso that in the case of land held in trust for a Bantu tribe or community and the individual members are not described in the title deeds, notice to the tribe and community is deemed to be given in accordance with the Act if the members of the tribe are present at a public meeting convened by the Bantu Affairs Commissioner for the purpose and if they are informed by the Bantu Affairs Commissioner of the proposed expropriation. That is fair.

I am referring to the existing law. Then it says that a certificate from the Bantu Affairs Commissioner to the effect that the proviso has been complied with shall be conclusive proof of such notice to the tribe. That is the provision of the existing law. But now a further proviso is added to the effect that if the whereabouts of any person, and not the tribe in this case, to whom notice is to be given, cannot be ascertained “notice shall be deemed to have been given if the Bantu Affairs Commissioner causes a notice … to be posted up at his office and at the Post Office” and at the building on the land, if there is one, or on any prominent place on the land. Here we have a different situation altogether, because as a result of this provision a certificate from the Bantu Affairs Commissioner to the effect that the provisions have been complied with, is now conclusive proof of that fact. In the first case it is satisfactory because he had to address the tribe in any event and he could then have given such a certificate. Now he has to cause it to be done. Surely if he tells someone to serve this notice in accordance with the provisions of the Act and a messenger or someone else is to leave the notice on a prominent place on the land of someone else somewhere else, the Bantu Affairs Commissioner will not have any personal knowledge of this himself when he issues the certificate because he has caused someone else to do it.

The Bantu Affairs Commissioner leaves the notice there.

No, the Bantu Affairs Commissioner will not do it himself. That is exactly my point. In the existing state of affairs the Bantu Affairs Commissioner has to address the tribe. It can therefore be conclusive proof, because he has said that it has been complied with since he himself did in fact address the meeting. Now it says that the Bantu Affairs Commissioner “causes a notice … to be posted up”. He must not serve this notice himself.

Yes.

He then receives a report from someone else to say that he has complied with the Act. In such cases there will be a certificate in the shape of a roneoed form and he will then put his rubber stamp on it to say that he now certifies it. That is conclusive proof that this was done. Surely this should be prima facie proof only because if it was not done by the person through whose agency he caused it to be done, and in fact it was not done, the position would be different. Anyone who is connected with any kind of legal proceeding will appreciate that service in accordance with the terms of an Act, is very often not done properly. As this clause is worded at the moment he has no redress whatever. I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister does not want this to occur. If someone did not in fact serve it in accordance with this clause, namely by putting it up at the Post Office, the Bantu Affairs Office and on a prominent place on the land, I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister would not want the person concerned to be deprived of any action he may have simply because he did not have notice. This should only be in respect of that prima facie proof. At this stage I only want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will look into this matter. I have nox framed any amendment and there is no amendment on the Order Paper. I do, however, want the hon. the Deputy Minister to look into this matter. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister could have drafted some amendment by the time that the Bill is introduced in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out first that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure acts as the agent for the Department of Bantu Administration in regard,to all expropriations. I trust that it will eventually act as the agent for all other Government Departments in regard to expropriations. The clause we now seek to re-insert in the Act, is almost the same as a provision which did in fact form part of the Act earlier on. By means of the Expropriation Act we removed that provision in 1965. However, subsequent to that we experienced certain problems in that regard. In view of the fact that we sometimes have to expropriate black spot areas, black spot areas which are sometimes quite uneconomic, it is often impossible to get hold of that tribe or the owners. This causes a tremendous delay. Sometimes it means that one cannot proceed with the work. I want to say, in the first place, that section 13 of the Act provides, inter alia, that the Minister of Agriculture may expropriate land which is not situated in a scheduled Bantu area and a released area, and of which a Bantu person is the registered owner—the so-called black spots I mentioned a moment ago. The provisions of the Expropriation Act of 1965 apply mutatis mutandis in respect of such expropriation. That means that the procedure followed in giving the owner notice of the intention to expropriate, is the same as it is in the case of a white person. You see, therefore, that the procedure followed in the case of a non-white person, is the same as the one followed in respect of a white person, except that in the case of land held in trust for a Bantu tribe or community, the individual members of which are not described in the title deed, notice given by the Bantu Affairs Commissioner at a public meeting is regarded as adequate. This is, as the hon. member said, the present position. In view of the fact that black spots are usually owned by numerous owners in undivided shares, we are dealing with a very difficult situation here. In one case there were more than 700 owners, and I cannot trace 700 owners. Many of them have moved away, but they are still the owners. In most cases they cannot be reached personally or by post either. The alternative procedure of advertising in the Government Gazette and in an Afrikaans and an English newspaper, must therefore be followed. This entails considerable cost and is not considered to be as effective as posting up notices at the office of the local Bantu Commissioner, at the local post office or on the buildings on the land in auestion. However, I want to give the hon. member for Durban (North) the assurance that my Department will in the first instance do its level best to contact each owner and to give him notice of this personally. My Department will do that. But in view of the fact that in some oases I have to deal with hundreds of owners and find it impossible to trace some of them, it is not enough for me to give notice to those I can in fact trace, and then to leave the matter at that. There may be people whom I could not inform of this matter. Conseauently, notices must also be posted up on public buildings, such as the office of the Bantu Commissioner, and the post office, etc., for the benefit of those persons.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s difficulties. I appreciate that there may be 700 people he has to look for and that there may be difficulties in finding them. I also appreciate that the officials of his department will do everything they can in such cases. That is, however, not my point. My point is that because of the fact that you cannot trace them, an alternative procedure has been arrived at in order to provide a means whereby the owner, if he is interested or in the vicinity, would in fact know of this. Otherwise his relatives could find out about it and tell him. The notice is put up in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s office and the post office. It is also displayed on a building on the ground, if there is one, or on a prominent place on the ground. This is the procedure which has now been decided upon. I want to say that I do not quibble with that, but I do say that in carrying out this kind of service in terms of all the other existing Acts, very often the service is not properly effected. Even services under the Magistrates Courts Act and through the Sheriff of the Supreme Court are often not properly effected. If a certificate is issued by someone who did not do it himself to the effect that that service was properly effected, I feel that that certificate should not be conclusive proof of the service. It should only be prima facie proof. In other words, if the person concerned can prove that the official concerned in fact did not comply with the provisions of the Act, he has the right to set aside the expropriation and start again. That is my point. That is what I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider. I want him to indicate whether before the Bill goes to the Other Place he will consider, with his officials, an amendment in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the hon. member for Durban (North) did not view the problem in its entirety. Both of these provisions deal with a sort of notice served on the owner. Paragraph (a) deals with the meeting and the notice that Is posted up. Under paragraph (b) we find the provision in respect of conclusive proof to the effect that it did take place. Now the hon. member objects to the words “conclusive proof”. I want to point out to the hon. member that the existing Act does already contain the words “conclusive proof” in respect of the first type of notice. If we amended this now and deleted the word “conclusive”, we would be changing the Act to such an extent that it would no longer be “conclusive” in respect of the first type of notice, which it was in fact in the past. It was essential in the past. This provision exists so that when the Bantu Commissioner has addressed a meeting of the tribe or the community concerned and has issued his certificate, the certificate would then be “conclusive proof’. Then it would no longer be. possible to dispute it, and it would no longer be prima facie. The certificate is conclusive and the matter is settled. In paragraph (b) it is said that a certificate to the effect that the notice has been posted up, is also “conclusive”. If we want to make only the word “conclusive” applicable to the last part of the section, I think we would simply be throwing the whole matter open and we would simply not be able to expropriate, for the matter would always be prima facie and it would always be possible to re-open it.

Mr. Chairman, I did not want to speak again, because I do believe that I saw a look in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s eye which said that he will look at the matter before the Bill goes to the Other Place. After the hon member for Heilbron spoke, however, I felt that I just had to reply. I know that the words “conclusive proof” were there in respect of paragraph (a), as I said when I spoke first. I also said that they were entitled to be there, because the Bantu Affairs Commission who gave the certificate, had himself addressed a gathering of the tribe. He was therefore entitled to give that certificate and it is conclusive. I am prepared to accept this. My point is that in the second case where he has to cause someone else to effect this service, he does not do it himself. If that official has not effected service then his certificate should only be prima facie evidence if in fact service was not effected by the official. I am happy about the word “conclusive” in respect of the first case but I am not haopy about it in respect of the second type of notice and one could quite easily say that it is conclusive proof in respect of the first type of notice and prima facie proof in respect of the second type.

Mr. Chairman, in this respect there is only one difference which I want to discuss. The hon. member knows that in the rural areas the Bantu Affairs Commissioner is also the magistrate, and that any such person has delegated powers which he may grant to other members of staff, and I think the hon. member will acknowledge that I am right in saying that if the Bantu Affairs Commissioner instructs a delegated authorized person to post up these notices, it probably goes without saying that he must ascertain for himself and have the assurance that these notices have well and truly been posted up before he issues a certificate to that effect. In administrative matters this is the practice throughout, i.e. that the Minister, or whoever, certifies that this or that has been done. In many cases he did not do so personally, but his delegate did. Therefore I do not believe that the hon. member has a case here about which he need be concerned. However, I am prepared to discuss this matter with the legal advisers once again and to examine it.

Mr. Chairman, we support this clause and did not query it during the second-reading debate, because we thought it was a provision in the national interest. We deplore the undue publicity given to this matter, which we think is not in the interest of the country.

By the S.A.B.C.

Mr. Chairman, this clause amends the definition of “urban area” in section 1 of the Soil Conservation Act, 1946. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us what gave rise to this amendment and why it is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, the main purpose of the definition of “urban area” as defined in section 1 of the Soil Conservation Amendment Act, 1967, Act No. 15 of 1967, is to exclude land situated in township or urban areas from the statutory provisions. It was the obvious thing to do to limit such land to that which is shown on the general plan of a township. As you can see, this has a bearing on the general plan of a township, which we regard as town or urban area land. However, after the Act had come into operation, considerable problems were experienced in practice, because it came to light that in Natal and in the Cape Province there were towns which owned properties which were obviously not agricultural land, tout were not shown on any general plan of a township, such as a commonage, either. In respect of some towns there is no general plan whatsoever. Owing to the insuperable problems experienced by the Registrar of Deeds in this regard, the amendment to the definition of “urban area” as proposed now, is essential. At the Deeds Office it was simply impossible for us to apply and handle our previous legislation in regard to these townships properly.

Mr. Chairman, in order to test the position in regard to this clause I would like to move the amendments standing in my name—

The effect of this amendment is to exclude the delegation of certain functions to a member of the board or an employee. Clause 33 of this Bill gives the board the power to delegate any of its functions to a member of the board, at the same time not divesting the board of its rights in regard to that function. If one looks at the functions which are set out in the Act, one finds that they deal with matters affecting in the main expenditure, which is a normal function of any board. These functions are exercised in the normal process of the business of the South African Tourist Corporation. Subject to certain provisions of this Act, it may for example engage such employees as it may deem fit. This is a function which I feel should not be delegated. It may also “advertise the tourist attractions of the Union, in any manner it may deem fit”. It may also produce films. There are various powers of this nature, powers which I think should not be delegated to one individual of the board absolutely, because it means that a member of the board is vested with the full powers of the board and he can conclude such business without any reference back to the board whatsoever. This is how I read this clause as it stands. He may come back and say: “You asked me to appoint a director and I have done so and I have settled his salary.” It is true that there are certain restrictions and that this has to be done with the consent of the Minister. Hon. members will appreciate that the employment of an official of that type is usually the function of the entire board. The board has to consider applications, interview the best persons and then decide on the appointment. This is the normal procedure in all business organizations. Another important function is the buying of property—a most important function. Should this be given to one official to carry out? I think it is quite wrong, and therefore we should like an explanation from the hon. the Minister. Apparently difficulties have been experienced by the board in connection with their powers. But this I fail to understand because, normally, a board can take a resolution empowering a member of the board to go into certain things and report back. Very rarely is he given the power to finalize the matter without reference to the board itself. It would appear to be so even in this case because there is a general provision in regard to the board’s powers at the end where it says that the board “can do such other things as may be necessary or incidental to the attainment of the objects of the corporation”. This would seem to cover most things, other than those specified here. The powers that are specified are very general and wide. I do not think the board is divested of any of its normal functions. So, I should like an explanation from the Minister and also an indication whether or not he is prepared to accept this amendment, because it seems to me this clause goes much further than it was intended to go.

First of all I should like to thank the hon. member for letting me have a preview of his amendment last night. For the information of the hon. member I think I should state the basis on which this amendment has been framed. Apparently the Auditor-General in his latest report indicated that because of the absence of the right in the Act to delegate powers certain irregularities had resulted because decisions made by members of the staff had in fact to be made by the chairman and at least two members of the hoard constituting a quorum. This quorum of members had to sanction every transaction, including minor purchases, minor staff appointments, etc. Because the staff took these decisions while not empowered legally to do so the Auditor-General had to report the irregularities. This strict legal interpretation of the Act is proving to be quite impracticable. The object with this amendment is to legalize what has been practised since the inception of the board in 1947. There is no other motive for this amendment than this. The extent to which it is intended to delegate powers is not being stipulated at this stage because it will depend upon representations made by the board of Satour. As the hon. member knows, the Satour board itself is an autonomous and responsible body. As such it is not going to recommend a general delegation of powers. They have to come to me and recommend the delegation of certain stipulated powers, and I have to approve of that. As an autonomous body I accept the board will act in a responsible manner and that it will wish to retain control in important matters and only ask for my approval of the delegation of certain powers concerning matters of minor importance and in matters where it is impracticable for a quorum to be called together. For this reason it is not proposed that the board should get the right of an unqualified delegation. The board must submit its recommendations to me and I must in each case decide whether a delegation of powers will be justified. First of all, the board therefore itself has to decide what powers it wishes to delegate. The hon. member mentioned the possibility that the board may delegate the power to appoint the director to one member of the board. However, I do not think any responsible board would act in that way. And this board I accept is a responsible board. It may delegate the right to appoint minor staff members to a director or delegate the power to somebody in its office in New York to appoint somebody there, someone falling outside the Public Service regulations for instance. But it will not go beyond certain obvious limits. In any event, the board has to submit its proposals to me and I have to decide upon those recommendations.

When I saw the hon. member’s amendment I was impressed because I realized there were certain things worrying him, as I have been worried by certain things during my political career. I immediately had a telex sent to the head office in Pretoria asking for the qualifications attached to the request for the power to delegate. The reply was that this was not an unqualified delegation. I have a whole list of points here with which they came back giving their justification for this amendment. I even went so far as to ask whether the conditions of delegation should not be tabled. But it was pointed out to me that these delegations may be so numerous and in such detail that it might not be of any interest to this House as a whole. However, I cannot avoid my responsibility, nor can the board its. So, I can assure the hon. member that I am satisfied with the restrictions imposed, e.g. that the board itself must make proposals to me for the delegation of any of its powers. I then have to approve thereof and being responsible to this House I naturally will not approve of anything that I cannot justify. This amendment is only an administrative step which is being taken for the proper working of the board. Moreover, this has been going on all along and it is only now that it has been pointed out to the board that it has acted irregularly.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism has proved the wisdom of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis. The Minister made the point that the board did not want the power to delegate all its powers; it was only certain minor powers which it wanted to delegate to one person. But what this clause does is to give the board the power to delegate any of its powers.

The board must decide.

Yes, but they can decide to delegate, with the approval of the Minister, any of their functions or powers under the Act. The hon. the Minister’s argument is that they do not want the power to delegate all their powers, but they take the power to delegate all their powers, “any” or “or” for this purpose being the same thing. Let us look at their power. Take the powers under (a): “Subject to the provisions of sections 14 and 15, engage such employee as it may be necessary and enter into contracts for the rendering of personal services by persons other than employees of the corporation.” You might find that one of the members of the board is over in America. They would have the power to say to him: “While you are over there, you can enter into a contract for making television films or for taking space with one of the television companies,” and he may enter into a contract involving the corporation in thousands and thousands and thousands of rands. There is nothing, as the clause is worded now, which allows the board to do anything about it because he would be acting as the delegate of the board, exercising all their powers. He enters into a contract and the board would be bound by it. The board could not do anything about it, despite the fact that there is this saying that the board is not divested of any of its functions by virtue of the delegation. Sir, this is the whole point: If this is done, what remedy does the board have; what safeguard is there for the board? There is none, in those particular circumstances.

The board would not delegate their power in the way you suggest. It would be completely irresponsible, and I as the responsible Minister would never approve of it.

Sir, these things can happen without anyone being irresponsible. It can happen that someone is already in America; that he is already seeing, say, N.B.C. about time on their programme for Satour films. The board may say to him: “C.B.C. operates in another area with a different time; we would like time there. While you are there see if you can get a similar contract we give you the power to do so,” and he may well enter into a contract involving thousands of rands. Surely in a matter like that the board should meet and take the decision, when it comes to the question of spending money. The money is voted and the board is responsible for its administration. In all the items mentioned in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis, you will find that there is the possibility of spending the money of the board without the board having any say in the matter. The hon. the Minister’s case is that they do not want to do things like this; that they do not want to get involved in this situation. Sir, that is not the question. The question is whether we should allow the board to do this, on the basis that everyone will act in good faith and responsibly.

May I just say in reply to the hon. member that I think he loses sight of one thing. He takes it for granted that the board will grant wide delegated powers to individuals in the way which I maintain no autonomous board will be allowed to do. No Minister will ever agree that the board should be allowed to delegate in that way. With regard to the point made by the hon. member, the position is that the board itself could enter into such an agreement, if it were irresponsible enough to do so. If the board is going to act irresponsibly, then it could do so without the powers which are being provided for here. This is purely administrative. I appreciated the point raised by the hon. member and by the hon. member for Von Brandis in his amendment, and I wanted more information. When I put it to Satour they advised that the whole purpose of this was administrative. The hon. member for Von Brandis knows that the Satour Board is jealous of its powers. It thought that it had certain powers and it has now discovered that it does not possess those powers. We are trying here now to set right a situation which has existed since 1947. I put it to hon. members that from an administrative point of view this amendment is necessary. It is not the Minister who is taking these powers. I cannot declare what powers the board should be able to delegate; that is a matter for decision by this autonomous board. I act as a check, as it were, because I am also responsible and in addition to that I am responsible to this House. Let me quote to the Committee what the Secretary for Tourism says on this issue—

According to the law they had to pass every picture of the calendar and every publicity item, and it had to be passed by a quorum of board members. The position was hopeless. The secretary goes on—

This is purely administrative therefore and if it were anything other than administrative, I can assure hon. members that I would also be most disturbed. Whatever powers are delegated they still have to be approved by me and if any delegation is at all unreasonable I will naturally refuse to approve of it. I assure the hon. member that this amendment is intended purely to enable the board to keep on functioning as it has been functioning since 1947. There is no other motive behind it.

Sir, on the Minister’s argument, I would like to make a suggestion which might perhaps meet both sides here. I would like to suggest that the Minister should consider re-wording this so that it will read something like this: “that the Minister may on the recommendation of the board delegate in writing any of the board’s functions” subject to these conditions. Then I think that we as a Parliament would be giving the right of delegation to a person who is directly responsible to Parliament. I can appreciate the thoughts of the hon. member for Von Brandis and the hon. member for Durban (North). They do not want to give a blanket right to the board. A board, as far as we are concerned, is something impersonal; we do not come in contact with it here in Parliament; we cannot call it to account on the floor of this House and hold it responsible for any of its actions or for any mistakes that might be made but we can do so in the case of a Minister. I think the hon. the Minister should re-word the clause in the way I have suggested, and I put this to him quite sincerely as a possible solution to the problem. It might be very much more acceptable to Parliament as such, because we are giving the Minister, who comes here and argues these things with us, the right to delegate certain functions of the board, after consultation with the board, or on the recommendation of the board, to certain officials to carry out. I think that would be a far more satisfactory way of wording this clause than it is worded at the moment.

I want to say to the hon. member for Umlazi that Satour has always jealously guarded its position as an autonomous board. As this amendment reads I still have to bear the responsibility because it says: “The board may with the approval of the Minister …” The board takes the initiative. I think it would cause a great deal of feeling if the initiative were to rest with the Minister.

That is why I suggested that it should read: “On the recommendation of the board, the Minister may …”

I have to approve of the delegation; so that I cannot see that it makes a great difference.

It is the same thing.

The present wording acknowledges the fact that the board is the body which decides how things should be done, not the Minister. The board will simply ask me whether I approve of this, that or the other delegation. Although I was quite happy to consider the suggestion, I am satisfied from my investigations that this is the best way to deal with the matter. I shall naturally exercise whatever control I have in a responsible manner, and I am sure that the board as a whole will be very careful in delegating its powers and functions. Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 35:

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us a little information on this clause. It was embodied in a Bill which came before this House, and if it had come forward in that way it would obviously have been subject to debate; we would have had the Minister’s speech on it and we would have become aware of his thinking and his reasoning in introducing it. As I see this, it is going to apply rent control and fix rentals as at the relevant fixed date which, according to this clause, is 1st April, 1949. That brings under that determination anything which under (1A) the Minister or the State President may proclaim. I want to hear from the Minister exactly what he intends to do, what he is trying to achieve with this and exactly what its effect will be. If he can give us that information it might shorten the proceedings.

As the Rents Act reads at present, living accommodation built after 1948 is subject to rent control and other living units can be brought under rent control, as we did a year or two ago, and in that case the rental charged on the given date is the rental which applies until such time as another rental has been determined by the Rent Board. In other words, after that date house owners cannot increase rentals arbitrarily. If they want a rent increase, they must go to the Rent Board. But what has happened in the meantime, since the last extension of rent control on living accommodation, is that many owners, of flats in particular, did not go to the Rent Board to ask for an increase in rent, but simply cut down on the services they provided at the flats. The effect of this is that they economize on services such as the hiring of servants, whereas they still receive the same rentals; in other words, in that way they increase their income at the expense of the services they are to provide to the tenants. I think this is wrong, and what we are trying to effect here, is to make the rentals that applied at the specific date, the fixed rentals, so that the owner, if for instance he used to employ 12 servants to clean the block of flats, may not keep fewer servants, for if that is the case it would be against the Rents Act. He must therefore continue to provide the same services, and if he wants to effect a change, he has to go to the Rent Board. What is being introduced here, is to my mind an essential safeguard as regards the tenants.

Do these services include electricity and water supplies?

No; electricity, water and all other moneys that have to be paid, may be included in the rentals in terms of the previous clause, which has just been agreed to, merely by submitting to the Rent Board the necessary proof to that effect. In that case there is no need for requesting a sitting of the Rent Board for that purpose, as was the case in the past. These can merely be added and the evidence must then be submitted, but this matter is not covered by this clause.

This is the so-called “Sobukwe” clause. The only thing to indicate it is some wording and the change of a date. Sir, what is the Sobukwe clause? I think that this Committee can well be reminded of what it says. It says—

And then it goes on—

When this was introduced in 1963 an amendment was moved from this side by me, to this effect—

which I have just read—

That was accepted by the Minister at the time, the present Prime Minister, and it was accepted because he did not want to hold Sobukwe, for ever, in the first place, and he agreed with the motivation of our amendment; he did not want this provision to become a permanent part of our law, or a part of our permanent law, if I may put it that way. That is why he accepted it, and this is what the Government is doing now. This matter is now coming up for renewal for the sixth time. When that amendment was accepted, it was made quite clear that this man was not going to be held for ever. It was also made quite clear that at that time he was the only person the hon. the Minister had in mind, and in succeeding years the Minister indicated, and the present Minister has indicated, that he has nobody else in mind. I would like to know whether the Minister at this stage has anyone else in mind, because this clause applies not only to Sobukwe, but it is of general application. Well, we opposed the first extension in 1964, and we will oppose this extension to-day. But I do want to say that when the hon. the Prime Minister replied to the debate on this clause in 1964, and we are now in 1968, he said—

I think that is our case. This, in principle, is not the sort of provision we deserve to have on our Statute Book. With all the powers it has, one is very surprised that the Government feels it necessary now for the sixth time to ask for the renewal of this clause to detain, apparently, one person only. That person could be dealt with in terms of the powers of banishment the Government has under the Native Administration Act of 1927, and the powers that there are under the Suppression of Communism Act to restrict such a person and make him report to the police daily or twice daily. We have a magnificent Security Police Force.

I want to emphasize that our Security Police have done a fantastic job. They are really on the ball and appear to have the situation under control. Furthermore, he could be allowed to leave the country on an exit permit, which means that he would not be allowed to come back, and if he does come back, he commits an offence and has to go to prison. With all these powers, it is astonishing that the Government is prepared to let one man hold our law up to ransom. The Minister must appreciate that by doing this all the time, he is in danger of making a martyr of this person in the eyes of the Bantu and the people who supported the principles of this former P.A.C. It makes him a sort of myth to other people, including the white population of this country. We do not believe that he deserves this image and we do not believe that our whole system of law, our security forces, our people and the powers of the Government, cannot contain one Bantu without this clause. We are not satisfied that it is necessary and I think that South Africa’s interests would be better served if this was not on our Statute Book. We will oppose this clause.

It is quite correct that this is the sixth time that we are asking for this extension by way of legislation in this House. It is also quite true, as the former Minister of Justice said, that we do not want this clause as a permanent part of our law, and I may add that no one on this side of the House likes this clause. We would not like to see it on our Statute Book if at all possible, but let us be realistic and sensible and ask ourselves whether there has been such a change in circumstances from that time up to now as would justify not asking for this extension.

I think the Minister of Justice pointed out very clearly at the Second Reading yesterday that particularly at this juncture the danger may even be greater than it was a few years ago. Sir, you have probably seen the newspaper report to the effect that the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. are sending their terrorists across our borders. A day or two ago the Eastern Province Herald also carried a small report in which it was stated that Sobukwe was the leader of the P.A.C. The hon. member for Houghton challenged me across the floor of the House yesterday to prove why I can say that he is a communist, and she said that he had been found guilty of a crime of a lesser nature than a contravention of the Suppression of Communism Act.

I want to say to her that last year the Minister of Justice made it possible for the chairman of the Justice Group of the United Party and myself as chairman of that group on this side, and the chairmen of both those groups in the Senate, to interview Sobukwe. We did go to interview him and we had a look at the place in which he is living. It is a flat which is isolated and fenced in and he has a sitting room and a dining room there. We also had a look at his bookshelves and we saw what literature he was interested in. Among others, there were books written by Marx and Lenin, and I asked him whether he was interested in them, and he said: Yes, he liked to read Marxist literature. I asked him whether it was his ideology, and he said yes. I then asked him: “Have you ever considered changing your ideology?” He said: “Not until the day of resurrection.” Now the hon. member for Houghton still wants to challenge me across the floor of the House that he is no communist. He is an avowed communist, out of his own mouth. Must we now release him, as head of the P.A.C., at this stage, while the terrorists are at our borders, while they are arguing just beyond the Mozambique border as to who should be the acting leader of the P.A.C.?

They have kicked out Pottako Labello and put somebody else in his place; they are arguing just beyond the border as to who should be the acting leader and we, for our part, must now release their real leader, their acknowledged leader. Let us be realistic. We cannot fool around with these matters. It is not only a person that is involved here. What is involved here, is an ideology and hostile actions which are being committed against our people and our fatherland. Surely we cannot adopt a childish approach in these matters. We must deal with these matters like adults. What is more important to us, the security of our State or the release of Sobukwe? To say that we should release Sobukwe so that he may go across the border, as the hon. member for Durban (North) said, is far-fetched. Now we are to send him out of the country on a one-way permit to take over the leadership of his group. Surely that is outrageous. Surely we cannot act in that way.

Let us realize what the dangers are, and as long as those dangers exist, we will necessarily have to continue with this legislation, and we will necessarily have to renew it as required by the circumstances. When there is no more danger from abroad, or when the “day of resurrection” has come when he is no longer a communist, this section may no longer be necessary. But in the present circumstances and in view of the seriousness of the situation to-day, with the terrorists, of whom he is the acknowledged leader, coming from the north, we cannot permit the non-extension of this provision and the termination of Sobukwe’s detention.

I must say that the hon. the Minister last night gave us a far more reasonable explanation of why he is reintroducing this clause for the sixth time than the one we have just listened to from the hon. member for Heilbron. However, I would not have agreed to this clause, as the hon. the Minister knows, no matter how persuasive he was. That is why I opposed the second reading of this Bill last night, because it includes this clause. But after listening to the hon. member for Heilbron, how anybody could feel reassured is beyond me. First of all he says that because he visited Sobukwe and found Marxist literature on his shelves ...

And he admitted that that was his ideology.

That may be, although I still say I doubt it very much. [Interjections ] Let the hon. members control themselves. I doubt very much that Sobukwe meant to imply that he was a member of the Communist Party. There is a great deal of difference between old-time Marxist theory and the present Communist Party and the hon. member is extremely ignorant if he does not know that. But when I went to visit Sobukwe he was studying French and the Bible was very much in evidence in his bookshelves, which consisted of the most catholic array, and I use that in the wide connotation of the term. A wide array of literature was displayed, but what does that prove? It proves that the man has been sitting alone now for six years and he is taking the only possible course, and that is that he is reading as widely as possible in order to keep himself sane; because I would like to tell the hon. members of the things he said to me. It was pathetic. [Interjection.] There is only one man kept in solitary confinement in that barracks on Robben Island, and that is Sobukwe. He said to me that he was forgetting how to talk because he had been alone so much. This was his ninth year in prison, and his fourth year alone on Robben Island, when I spoke to him, which was about 18 months ago. Nothing that the hon member for Heilbron has said has convinced me that there is any justification for this at all. May I ask whether the hon. the Minister has had any conversation personally with Sobukwe, or whether he is relying on a report which has been submitted to him, and hearsay evidence? And may I also ask him why it is that he says that Sobukwe has not changed his views in any way? Now this may very well be so. Sobukwe went into prison as a confirmed opponent of the Nationalist Government. I am quite sure that he does not deny that. (But there are thousands of people in South Africa who feel exactly the same way. It is not a crime, as yet, in South Africa, to be opposed to the Government. This includes me. Do I make any bones about it? Of course I am a confirmed opponent of the Government.

Are you a communist?

No, I am not.

That is why you are not there.

Ah, it is only if one is a communist that one is there? That is a new one on me. Anyway, at least I have an admission that I am not a communist. That is something from the hon. member. Let us leave that to one side. The point that I am making is of course Sobukwe would say that he is still of the same opinion, that he is against the laws of this Government and that he is against the pass laws, incitement against which was his crime, let me remind this Committee again as I tried to remind the House last night. He is not there for communism, for terrorism, for sabotage, for treason. Sobukwe was sent to gaol by a Judge of the courts of South Africa for incitement against the pass laws. A sentence of three years and three years only was passed on him.

Sobukwe tried to overthrow the Government of the country.

The hon. member for Turffontein is hardly qualified to judge Whether that sentence was just or not. In fact, I do not think he is qualified to do anything. And he is certainly not qualified for that. The hon. the Minister mentioned this Dar-Es-Sa-laam resolution and of course the hon. member for Heilbron has done the same thing. What responsibility can a man who has been sitting on Robben Island for What will be six years after this further year has elapsed, plus three years in one of our gaols, take for resolutions passed in Dar-Es-Salaam by men with whom he could not possibly have had any contact and men heading an organization which bears no resemblance to the organization that he headed although it carries the same name? Because, as I pointed out yesterday, the Pan African Congress was anti-communist and anti-violence When Sobukwe went to gaol. In any case whatever the hon. members say, the Minister must explain to me what responsibility this man can possibly have for resolutions passed by the Pan African Congress in Dar-Es-Salaam. There can be no possible connection between the two.

I am very disturbed by something which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (North), and I should like some reassur ance from the Minister on this point. It is true that Sobukwe is the only man held under this particular section of the Suppression of Communism Act at the time of going to Press. But we are getting used to this sort of thing in South Africa. We used to express our uneasiness about it. I admit the hon. Minister expressed uneasiness about this again last night. But what worries me is that when I earlier asked him to reconsider the special position of political prisoners in this country as far as remission of sentence is concerned, he asked, “How do we know they have changed their minds? People like these do not change their minds.” This is a new idea we are getting in this country: (a) no remission for certain crimes and (b) certain people who have committed certain crimes are kept in gaol after they have served the sentence imposed on them by courts of law. I want the Minister’s assurance that this way of thinking is not becoming general for everybody who has ever been sent to gaol for a political crime. There are about 20 white political prisoners still in the Pretoria Local Gaol, and there are some women. I know that some of them have recently come out and I am very pleased about this, but I am worried about this new trend of thought which seems to be so easily accepted these days. I said before that our threshold of tolerance in South Africa rises all the time. We are horrified at something that happens and then it happens again and we get used to it. Stricter and stricter laws are imposed, and we get used to that too. The rule of law is abrogated, and we get used to that. When I visited Robben Island there were something like 850 so-called political prisoners on the Island. I do not know how many there are now.

Why “so-called”.

They are called “so-called” by me, and they are called by the Minister “persons who have committed offences against the State”.

Are you enjoying yourself?

No, I can never enjoy myself when I am in the presence of the hon. member for Heilbron, I can assure you. That is not possible. Enjoyment and the presence of the hon. member for Heilbron are mutually contradictory. I should like the assurance from the Minister that this is not going to become something accented in South Africa and I would remind him once again of this book entitled “The Rule of Law” which we have spread throughout the length and breadth of the civilized world. [Interjections.] Hon. members on that side never know what I am talking about; therefore I wish they would stop interrupting. In that book we stated firmly that decisions are left to our courts of law and if a man is found not guilty, that is the end of the matter. I quote literally from that publication: “That is the end of the matter”.

Equally I would say that if a court imposes a sentence on a man who has been found guilty, “that should be the end of the matter” when he has served his sentence.

Mr. Chairman, I will not detain the Committee very long. I rise to reply to the hon. member for Heilbron. In the first place I must say I am rather surprised to have heard the hon. member speaking across the floor of this House and disclosing what in his opinion was the feeling of Sobukwe. I am surprised, because I did not think that was the purpose of the visit. I have refrained from saying anything publicly about it and I want to tell the hon. member that I have seen this man twice. I saw him the day he arrived on Robben Island and I saw him in the company of the hon. member for Heilbron on the second occasion. I think the hon. member has perhaps usurped his function. He is not the judge of Sobukwe. What Sobukwe is or is not is not the issue. The hon. member judged Sobukwe. He has judged him on a series of facts. The hon. member will remember that when he looked at Subukwe’s bookshelf on the Island he saw a book by Engels, the well-known economist, and a book by Marx. He asked Sobukwe, “Why have you got these books?” And the reply was, “I am studying economics. They are prescribed books for the degree.” He added, “You have to study them if you are studying economics.” That may be thought to be right or wrong. Then from there the hon. member talked to this man in his charming manner and eventually they reached a point where they were discussing the day of the resurrection. I think the hon. member has put an unfair gloss on it. I am not protecting Sobukwe in any way. [Interjections.] Sobukwe may well be a communist, for all I know, but I am not able to say he was a communist after talking to him twice. I want to say this, Sir. The point is not that we should judge Sobukwe.

As an analogy hon. members will remember that during the Rivonia trial the Government had a case against every accused, but one of them, Bernstein, was found not guilty. The Rivonia case was a most serious case. What has happened to Bernstein? I presume he is still in the country. I presume he has been restricted. I presume he is being dealt with adequately. It is difficult to conceive what the Minister thinks will happen if in fact he were not to renew this section, and I hope the Minister will indicate to us not only that, but for how much longer he expects he is going to ask for a renewal of this section.

Mr. Chairman, for the specific reasons mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (North) I took the trouble of going over to have a special talk with Sobukwe. His reply was that he still held the same views. What are those views? I would not say that Sobukwe is a communist. But I honestly believe that his views amount to this, that he would instigate people to commit acts which would further the aims of communism. That is what he would do. He is where he is because he incited people to protest against the pass laws, as the hon. member for Houghton said. That is true. He still holds precisely the same views to-day. The hon. member asked me whether I had gone to Robben Island again this year. I have not gone there again this year. I do not think that the hon. member expects me as Minister to pay a special visit there every year. I can also obtain this information in another way, as I have in fact done.

It is a very serious thing to send a man to gaol every year in this way.

Yes, it is a very serious matter. I have said that I considered it very carefully, after the facts had been placed before me when it was reported to me that he was still of the same opinion. That is precisely why I have acted as I have done. I realize all these things. I therefore associate myself with the hon. member for Heilbron. I want to say that under the present circumstances and as a result of what I think this man would do and the way in which he would do it, I feel that I have acted correctly. They are the tools of the communists. He himself is also a tool of communism. He would incite people and he would further the aims of communism. He would advocate it as well but he would not advocate it as an ordinary person, because he is a leader. That we must realize. He is a leader, a man who had the entire country in turmoil within the space of a few months. At this stage they are quarrelling amongst one another to determine who the leader will be and they all swear allegiance to Sobukwe. You can appreciate what would happen if we were to set him free at this stage, while I believe, it is also my information, that he is still of the same opinion. I simply cannot do it. Much as I feel sorry for him, I cannot do it. Precisely because I feel sorry for him, I have tried to alleviate his lot as much as possible. I have allowed his wife and children to visit him twice a year. If she wanted to go there more often I could have allowed that as well. I have tried to make his position as pleasant as possible under the circumstances in which he is living, but more than that I cannot do without betraying this House and our country. And if I did that, I would be failing in my duty.

Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which provides that the Attorney-General …

Order: Hon. members are not allowed to stand over there and hold a conference.

… that the Attorney-General in his discretion may refuse bail. He may provide a certificate, if he is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order, that such a person shall not be released on bail, or otherwise, before sentence has been passed or he has been discharged. Members will recall that when the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, now the hon. the Prime Minister, asked for this power, we granted this power after discussion. As far as we were concerned we agreed that the Attorney-General should have this power. The hon. the Minister made a case. It was especially so in respect of robbery cases where such persons were allowed out on bail. They had a lot of money to pay their bail and they then went out and committed more robberies. The proposed amendment provides that the Attorney-General may also refuse bail by certificate if he considers that it is in the interest of the administration of justice. I want to say that this is an extension to this power which is very considerable when one considers that the meaning of the words “administration of justice” in this context are in fact very wide. It is very difficult to know quite what is meant by “the administration of justice”. In fact, I think one could say “in the interest of the administration of justice” and leave everything else out. I am indebted to the hon. the Minister’s department for a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in this regard, namely that of the State against Hartman and Jacobs, which is reported in volume 1 of the 1968 South African Law Reports on page 278. In this case the court found that by the words “safety of the public”, and “public order” in section 108bits of Act 56 of 1955, which empowers the Attorney-General to prohibit the granting of bail to an arrested person in certain circumstances if he considers it to be necessary in the interests of the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order, is envisaged the safety of the public in general and not of a couple of specific people, and likewise the public order in general and not breaches of the law concerning a few specific people. It goes on to say that the Attorney-General is not empowered to make an order under this section in an ordinary case of arrest for murder. One appreciates that this might well be an interpretation, but one fails to appreciate what the hon. the Minister’s difficulties are. I say that because if, in fact, the Attorney-General’s case is that the man as in this case lived near the Beohuanaland border or that it was likely that he would commit some other offence, surely if that information is put before him. he would refuse bail. This is what one would have thought. I do not know what the hon. the Minister has in mind and I am a little bit worried about it. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some indication at an early stage so that we can understand the motivation of the clause. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has in fact consulted with the Bar Council on this matter. I understand from the hon. member for Pinelands that the local sub-committee of the General Council of the Bar, which is the Cape Bar and their legislative sub-committee, would be very pleased if this matter could stand over so that they could examine it. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will first of all indicate to us what the position is and whether he is prepared to let the matter stand over so that it can in fact be discussed by the people concerned.

Mr. Chairman, it is a fact that the local Bar Council has asked me to discuss this matter with them I received this request late last night. This morning I had an engagement with an executive council as well as other engagements which I simply could not put off, and consequently I was unable to discuss this matter with the Bar Council. But I shall tell the hon. member what our difficulty is and he will then appreciate that a discussion of this matter cannot really produce anything. The judgment to which the hon. member referred—the case of Hartman and Jacobs—which was dealt with as a single case, in fact made a mockery of the original Act as it read at that time, namely “when it is in the interest of the safety of the public or when it is in the public interest”. As regards the safety of the public, the hon. the Prime Minister, who was Minister of Justice at that time, specifically mentioned robbers, murderers, saboteurs and so forth. In those cases the Attorney-General must have the power to refuse bail. This relates to the offences mentioned in Part II of the Second Schedule, in respect of which the Attorney-General is empowered to prohibit bail from being granted. The then Minister of Justice mentioned a number of examples. I shall mention a few of them. He said, inter alia—

It was therefore intended for ordinary people. He then mentioned quite a number of offences which are the same as those mentioned in Part Uh is of the Second Schedule. Then we had these two cases, namely those of Hartman and Jacobs. As far as these cases of Hartman and Jacobs were concerned, the Judge, with all due respect, said that the legislature never intended the provisions to be as wide as that and that this power had to be interpreted in a narrow sense. It affected the freedom of the individual and for that reason it had to be interpreted in a narrow sense. In other words, the Attorney-General may do so only when the safety of the country and the public safety generally are involved. In other words, we are back precisely where we had been before this Parliament gave those powers to the Attorney-General. The intention of this clause is simply to put it in the best way in cases where it is in the public interest. As far as the two particular cases are concerned, the one was a case where the possibility existed that one of the witnesses would be eliminated. The other case was one where it would not have been within the jurisdiction of the court. There is, therefore, no better way of putting it than the way in which we have put it now, namely when it is in the interest of the administration of justice.

Let me say at once that the hon. the Minister is quite right inasmuch as we knew what the intention of the legislature was. It was quite clearly to deal with all those cases the hon. the Minister has indicated. And indeed we supported the Bill. We supported this power on the basis that it was to deal with robbers as much as saboteurs. In fact more so in the case of robbers. The hon. the Minister has certainly indicated the difficulty that he has. If the Jacobs and Hartman judgment is to say then the hon. the Minister is in difficulty. What we intended can clearly not be applied by the attorneys-general. In these circumstances we would offer no objection and I am glad that the hon. the Minister has explained the position.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 42:

Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain further the proposed amendment to the Animal Diseases and Parasites Act which is contained in this clause. I take it that it is proposed to deal with the position where certain animal products might be smuggled into the Republic, animal products such as fertilized eggs which might in themselves carry disease in the embryo of the egg and then that those eggs might be hatched out artificially incubated. I take it that as the law stands at the moment the department has not the power to act against people who smuggle those eggs in and incubate them and to seize the product, namely the chickens that have been incubated. I take it that this could have a large bearing on the outbreak of diseases such as Newcastle disease of which we have seen a terrible example recently here in the Western Cape. It cost the poultry producers and presumably the State also, thousands of rand. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to confirm whether that is the correct interpretation.

The hon. member for Albany is quite right. I shall furnish the desired information very briefly. This amendment has become urgently necessary because the illegal importation of necessary poultry and eggs has assumed alarming proportions recently. I am furnishing this information because I should like it to be on record. It is presumed that the present outbreak of Newcastle disease among poultry in the Western Cape, the outbreak with which we are faced at present, and which is being combated at considerable expense to the State, is due to eggs and poultry having been smuggled in. The South African Poultry Association made serious representations to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to curb the malpractices. Discussions were held between the Departments of Justice and of Customs and Excise, and an additional solution seems to be to amend the existing legislation in such a way that it will serve as a deterrent. The present Act does not serve as a deterrent. Although confiscating powers are contained in the Animal Diseases and Parasites Act of 1956, specific provision has to be made for the progeny of such illegally imported animals and things, for example chickens hatched from incubator eggs. It is precisely as you have stated it. We must also have the right to confiscate all those chickens, because they may transmit these diseases.

In the light of what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, I would like to say that we feel that it is necessary that this loophole be closed up for the protection of the whole animal husbandry industry in the country, and that a few individuals should not be allowed to endanger the whole industry.

Sir. the hon. the Minister of the Interior is not here. It is not very satisfactory to deal with Interior matters in the absence of the Minister. I appreciate that he is sick and cannot be here. I am not so much concerned about this clause but I am concerned with one which comes later where I think the hon. the Minister is the person who should give us the information we want. I want to ask what the purpose of this clause is. You see, Sir, on 14th March, this year, the Hon. the Acting State President signed an amendment to the Public Service Act—it is now Act No. 17 of 1968—which says in section 1(1) (c) (a)—

(12A) If it is in the public interest —

1. (a) to retain the chairman of the commission as a member of the commission beyond the age at which he shall, in accordance with subsection (12), vacate his office or retire, he may be so retained from time to time for further periods which shall not exceed in the aggregate two years.

That is the subolause that we inserted by the Bill which became an Act on 14th April. 1968, and one might say that “the body is hardly cold”, and we are already coming with a further amendment. We were given special reasons why the chairman’s services should be retained for a longer period and we supported that amendment, but now there is an amendment which is intended to make it possible to retain the services of any member of the commission for an extra period of two years, and I would like to know why this has become so urgent; why it follows so hard on the heels of an amendment which went through this year.

The hon. member pointed out that the Public Service Act was amended at the beginning of this Session. That is correct, but that amendment did not provide that a member of the commission could be retained in service in his office after reaching the retirement age, and that is precisely what we are providing here now. It will now be possible for a member of the commission to be retained in service in the same office. As the section has read up to now, the chairman could only be retained as a member of the commission.

In other words, it is a technicality.

Apparently it is now being extended to other members of the commission, so that they may also be retained in service after reaching retirement age, and that is quite right too. Public servants may be retained for two more years if it is in the interests of the country. The Act as it now reads provides that the services of the chairman may be retained and we are now providing that the members of the commission may also be retained after reaching retirement age if it is deemed necessary in the interests of the country; they may stay on in the same position.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would indicate why this amendment is necessary and whether it would cover the position that he will be able to apply the provisions of the Act to, say, England or Scotland, as opposed to the international country known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The position is that the law advisors are of the opinion that in this country we should have a specific law dealing with reciprocity, and this has landed us in some difficulty. We have a large number of German immigrants in this country, and in West Germany there is no specific law which provides for reciprocity; it is contained in their common law. We have (found it necessary to put it in the form that the State President may make the Act applicable to any country which he may designate.

This appears to be a clause which tightens up the use of the word “hotel” or any similar word as laid down in the Hotels Act. As the clause reads it extends the prohibition of the use of the name to “other premises or business”. I assume that what the hon. the Minister is aiming at is to prevent other accommodation establishments from using the name “hotel”, but I suggest to him that in point of fact this means that various other businesses, which have nothing to do with providing accommodation, will also fall within the ambit of this prohibition. I refer, for instance, to the name of a firm called “Hotel Supplies (Pty.), Ltd.”, a firm called “Hotel Reservations (Pty.) Ltd.”, or similar firms which provide a service to the hotel industry, in the one case supplying linen and similar things and in the other case handling hotel reservations as a business. “Hotel” forms part of their title, but they render a service to the hotel industry and they do not pretend to be hotels. I would like the hon. the Minister to clarify the position.

The hon. member is quite right. The whole intention was to apply this to accommodation establishments. If there is any doubt in the case of firms, such as the hon. member has mentioned, firms which supply hotels or which undertake hotel bookings, I will most certainly see to it that that doubt is removed. I assure the hon. member that I will make the necessary inquiries immediately and if there is any doubt whatsoever I shall see that an amendment is brought about in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will notice on the Order Paper that I intended to move that this clause be negatived.

Order! It is not in order to move such an amendment.

I am not moving it; I am just saying that I gave notice on the Order Paper that it was my intention to do something along those lines. I am going to go further than vote against this clause. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice, who is obviously here in place of the Minister of the Interior, to withdraw this clause, and I am doing so for the basic reason that it is quite unnecessary. Let me try to show the hon. the Minister why it is in fact unnecessary. Section 2 of Act 64 of 1967, which is substituted for section 5, says that every person whose name is included in the register shall be classified and every Coloured person and every Bantu whose name is so included shall be classified by the secretary according to the ethnic or other group to which he belongs. It goes on and in subsection (3) (a) it says—

Now, that is the first thing. Subsection (3) (b) says that a proclamation under subsection (2) —that is any proclamation—may be issued with retrospective effect as from a date not earlier than the seventh day of July, 1950, or in other words the day on which the Population Registration Act came into force. Well, we have had an example of what has happened. On 24th January, 1967, a judgment of Mr. Justice Steyn set aside, on the grounds of vagueness, the classifications into which the non-white groups had been divided under that clause, and which had been done by proclamation in the Gazette. The hon. the Minister will remember this, because there were many Press reports about it. Immediately the Minister of the Interior published a statement to say that the seven coloured race groups would stay; in other words, he indicated that he was going to do this in a manner which would reinstate them in spite of the court’s judgment. He did this by way of Proclamation 123 of 1967, and he set this position out quite clearly in terms which obviously he believed were the best terms in which he could reestablish what had in fact gone wrong, and put it right. He also made this provision retrospective to the beginning of the Act, so that it embraced everything that had been done previously. Since then I can find nothing which has happened, except an article in a law journal, which has sent the hon. the Minister and his Department once more into a state of panic. It obviously sent them into a state of panic, and the hon. the Minister of the Interior and his Department have obviously very little confidence in their own ability to draft a proclamation which will do the things which the law empowers them to do. In a state of panic they are therefore rushing to put this provision into the law; they are putting this into a statute, and why are they doing this?

It was not done in a state of panic; it was done to make assurance doubly sure.

No, there is no cause for it; there is no reason for it. This Act has existed since 1950 and it has never been done before, and why is it being done? It is to make sure that they will not “boob” again and that the court cannot challenge for vagueness or stupidity or for any other reason and nullify this legislation-by-proclamation. Sir, I think this is a terrible state of affairs. I think it is an admission of inability, and I think it is something which should never have appeared in this Bill. It is quite unnecessary. It serves no object. It does not achieve anything. It does not overcome anything which has happened since this proclamation was published, and I am going to ask the Minister to omit this provision from the Bill.

The hon. member supplied the answer. That is precisely how it is. A possibility, or a probability, does exist; the possibility was expressed that this proclamation might perhaps be declared invalid, and there are reasons Why we cannot allow this proclamation to be declared invalid, because there are elections which will be based on this proclamation. The election of the Coloured Council will be based on this proclamation, and in what an awkward position would we not be next year if the whole election were to take place and it was then to appear that the same fate had befallen this proclamation as befell the previous proclamation. Simply in order to prevent this, we are making, as I said, “assurance doubly sure”. There is nothing odd in this.

The difficulty is that in terms of the case I mentioned last night, Arnold and Others v. Race Classification Board, the former proclamation which was very similar to this, was declared ultra vires on the ground that it was void for vagueness on the basis that one person could fall into several categories at the same time. Even if that proclamation is valid, When passed in its present form, is it not still subject to that difficulty that it may well be so vague that you can fall into different categories? I must say that is the only basis on which it has ever been suggested that a proclamation might be declared invalid. I must say that I think that it will be most unfortunate to have a proclamation which might be declared, but for this protection, to be void because it was too vague. That is a most unfortunate basis for the holding of an election. The principle involved is very difficult. Surely, if it were declared to be invalid, the state President could issue another proclamation. Surely it is not beyond the wit of this Government to find a formula to proclaim the sub-groups so that they would be intra vires of the Act. Surely that is not asking too much, or otherwise there is something wrong with the Act.

What objection have you got to the proclamation as it stands now?

I have no objection to it on legal grounds as it stands now, but I did not have any objection to the one before on legal grounds. I looked at it and I found no fault with it, but I did not look at it for that purpose. Someone else did, and the Cape Supreme Court held that it was ultra vires. That was decided by a full Bench of the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. This is the point. If you cannot make proclamation intra vires of the Act, then there is something wrong. The hon. member for Prinshof said to the hon. member for Umlazi, when he said that they want to enshrine it in an Act so that it cannot be assailed by the courts, “What is wrong with that?” Well, what is wrong with that is that this proclamation is inherently weak. What we are in fact being asked to do here is to validate something that the Department itself feels is so vague that it may well be declared ultra vires.

There is only one difficulty and that is that there is too much at stake; but I should just like to ask that since this is a proclamation which my colleague ought to have dealt with, since I can in fact add nothing and since we cannot neglect to say either that the Opposition is accommodating in this case, let them yield the point and let us pass this clause as it stands. I really cannot add anything to what I have said. The hon. members themselves know what the reason is and I now want to appeal to them to allow this to go through.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is one which is aimed at making three things possible, i.e. to make it possible to grant certain concessions to buyers and occupants of dwellings, erected with housing funds; secondly, to plough back as much as possible of the proceeds arising out of the utilization of housing funds into housing; and to have all available housing, as far as this is practicable, utilized for housing purposes. I should like to deal with the various provisions of the Bill one by one.

Hon. members will remember that at the outset of the discussion of my Vote, Community Development, during the Budget De bate, I announced that I wanted to introduce alleviation in respect of rates of interest which had to be paid by buyers and lessees of dwellings erected out of the Housing Fund. The intention is that the current rate of interest in respect of economic projects, which at present stands at 6¾ per cent be reduced to 6 per cent, but that the difference of ¾ per cent will not be supplemented by an appropriation of Parliament, as in the case of the rates of interest of auxiliary housing schemes; the revenue reserve account of the Housing Fund will carry this liability itself.

The insertion of clause 1 into the Housing Act will make it possible to effect this concession. I realize that the wording of this clause, and in particular the latter part of it, may seem strange to members, and I should therefore like to refer to it briefly.

The Housing Act makes provision for two kinds of housing, i.e. for auxiliary housing in the first place, for which funds are at present being made available at an interest rate of i per cent. The difference between the ¾ per cent rate of interest for auxiliary housing and the current rate of interest of 6¾ per cent which has to be paid into the Treasury is being supplemented for the Fund out of the appropriation made by Parliament under subhead F in the Revenue Account under the Community Development Vote, and consequently comprises a liability against the taxpayer. The other kind of scheme for which the Act makes provision is the economic scheme which is self-supporting and earns interest at a rate similar to that which has to be paid to the Treasury out of the Fund. Thus in cases where concessions in regard to rates of interest are being made in respect of economic schemes, which amount to aid, such econnomic schemes would, owing to a lack of the necessary statutory provision, immediately have to be converted into auxiliary housing schemes, according to the definition in the Act. To prevent this it is necessary to provide in clause 1 that such schemes, in spite of the accommodation, will be deemed to be economic schemes.

In terms of section 12 of the Housing Act, which was inserted in 1964, it has become necessary for the Minister of Finance to be involved in, and for consultations with an Administrator to be held about matters on which the Housing Commission, as a result of the functions which it has to fulfil, ought to take an independent decision. According to the provisions of the present section, all the necessary formalities must be complied with in respect of any amendment to the approved conditions of an advance, even in all those cases which do not even affect the bodies concerned. In this way, for example, it is necessary in terms of the existing provisions for the Administrator, the Minister of Finance, and myself to be consulted where a proviso has been stated by the Commission to the effect that tenders for the construction of a scheme must be called for, and a local authority then applies to carry out a scheme to better advantage departmentally; or where applications are made to use a dwelling in a scheme for an essential creche (a purpose which falls within the purview of the Act); or where a local authority makes application for the redemption of a scheme sooner than had originally been approved. Even where circumstances warrant, and a local authority desires that a sub-economic scheme be converted into an economic one, this entire procedure will have to be complied with.

Hon. members will understand what an absolutely heavy and extensive administrative burden this unnecessarily places on the shoulders of all the parties concerned, and the Minister of Finance has already made it apparent that he need not be consulted in matters of this nature. Clause 2 eliminates this purposeless consultation. It will still be necessary to obtain the approval of the Treasury for the conversion of a scheme into one which would be less beneficial to the State, but this approval is not required in terms of the provisions of any Act, but is in fact required according to the directive of financial regulation No. 1525. I have written to the various Administrators to explain the circumstances, which make the proposed amendment necessary, and have pointed out that it has for a long time already been the administrative procedure not to hold consultations in regard to matters of this kind. Nevertheless I gave the Administrators the undertaking that if consideration were ever given to amending the condition of an advance so that it would be prejudicial to a local authority—although it is not really possible to imagine an example of a condition of this kind, because nothing like this has ever cropped up—it would not be done unless the Administrator in question is first consulted in regard to the matter.

Paragraph (b) of clause 2 simply makes it possible to utilize moneys which are being kept unutilized and unrequired in a reserve fund for housing purposes, as determined by the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, and in appropriate cases with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development as well.

I come now to clause 3. In terms of section 46 of the Act, the Housing Commission can change the name of a town if it has developed the majority of the plots in such a town. Where the Commission tackles the task of laying out a town itself, it can, as town developer of course, allocate a name to the town. However, the allocation of street names is at present the prerogative of local authorities, and Administrators must only be consulted when existing street names are changed. Unfortunately it has already happened on occasion, when local authorities undertook new town lay-outs or schemes with housing funds, that names which are totally unacceptable for the future occupants were allocated to streets, possibly because so many sources of street names have already been exhausted. I know of names such as Aasvogel Street, Uil Street, Spreeu Street and others. [Interjection.] I shall make special provision for a “Sparrow Lane”, where we can put the hon. member for Simonstown. These are streets in which future occupants simply do not want to live, and I am afraid that I really cannot blame them for not wanting to do so. At present the only way of clearing up this type of matter satisfactorily is still by means of negotiations between the Department of Community Development and the local authority. Although there have in fact been cases where it was possible to iron out the problem in this way, there were other cases where an agreement simply could not be reached, and it is clearly necessary for steps to be taken to ensure the co-operation of the local authorities.

Consequently clause 3 provides that the Housing Commission may allocate and may change street names in towns which it develops. However, I want to move an amendment in the Committee Stage which will make it necessary that in cases where the Commission changes a street name which it proposed itself in a scheme, it will also have to obtain the consent of the Administrator, in the same way as a local authority or a town developer must do. In other words, I want to treat the Commission in precisely the same way as I treat local authorities. Street names and schemes carried out by means of housing funds, must be allocated in consultation with the Commission. Hon. members will note that it is included in this Bill that the Commission will have the right to change the street names in respect of a scheme for which an advance was allocated in the past, and where street names have already been allocated. This was never the intention and during the Committee Stage I shall propose that the following words be deleted: “or in any scheme in respect of which the Commission has granted an advance.” In place of these words, the words “in consultation with the Administrator” will be inserted. A further amendment will be proposed which is in fact an obvious one. Where it is provided in the Bill that these changes should be effected free of charge by the Registrar and the Surveyor-General. the words “where they deem it necessary” will be inserted. Sir, it is not always necessary for these changes to be made. Where a local authority lets a dwelling and the lessee falls behind in his payments and is in danger of eviction, section 65 (b) of the Housing Act provides that final notice may be served personally on any adult occupant in the house. This provision enables the representative of the local authority to point out to the lessee, or another adult person in the house, the serious consequences of omitting either to pay the rental or to make acceptable proposals for such payment. This of course serves a very good purpose. Section 18 (1) (b) of the Community Development Act contains, for the same reasons, an absolutely identical provision. However, in the case of a purchaser, where omission to pay entails much more serious consequences, section 55 of the Housing Act unfortunately does not make provision for the personal serving of the final notice on the purchaser in order that the very important implications of his omission to pay can be pointed out to him.

Local authorities and utility companies which sell dwellings which have been erected with Housing Funds, as well as my own department, feel that it is in the interests of the individual purchaser, who is not always acquainted with the statutory implications, that it should be possible, as a last resort, to approach him personally in order to point out the dangers of his omission to him, and so that he can be placed in a position, if necessary, to make arrangements with the visiting officer for complying with his obligations. The proposed amendment in clause 4 will make this possible. It is obvious that utility companies and other bodies fall into a totally different category, and that it would consequently be nonsensical to make the amendment apply to them as well.

Clause 5 simply expands the existing principle of the utilization of surplus income from paid-up schemes for purposes determined by the Commission after consultation with the local authority and in consultation with the Treasury so that the Minister of Bantu Administration is also consulted in respect of Bantu schemes in regard to the application of such funds. This is a statutory power which has already been vested in the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

The position at present is that where a surplus for a particular scheme is approved and the usual conditions for the creation of a reserve fund for maintenance, and so on, are imposed, and the scheme in question is subsequently converted into a scheme with a different character, or is converted as a result of a group area proclamation, the reserve fund is not transferred, together with the changed scheme, for the purpose for which it was created. In this way money which has accumulated as a result of an advance out of the Fund for housing purposes cannot be utilized as far as the establishment of housing is concerned, and since the establishment of housing is so essential, it is necessary for every possible amount to be ploughed back into housing. This present deficiency in the Act, which was only recently disclosed as the result of a legal opinion, is being rectified in clause 6.

Hon. members will recall that I announced that as far as the joint building society housing commission loans are concerned (which for various reasons met with a very poor response in the past), and which only made provision for the construction of dwellings, legislation would be introduced to make it possible to purchase newlv-completed dwellings as well, which have not been occupied before, with such a loan. I deemed it desirable that such an amendment should be introduced for two rea sons. In the first instance it ought to serve as an incentive to developers and speculation builders to continue on a large scale with the construction of sale houses in certain categories, in the knowledge that an additional source of financial assistance had become available to prospective buyers, and in the second place, because it ought to be cheaper for buyers to buy one house out of a major project, where all the houses had been erected simultaneously, than would have been the case if the dwelling had been the only one to be built.

As far as the individual loan schemes out of the Housing Fund is concerned, i.e. the 90 per cent loan direct to the individual, through the agency of local government, and those which are granted directly by my Department of Community Development in cases where local authorities do not endorse such loans, I have, for the same reasons, seen fit to introduce a similar concession in the Act. Such amendment will therefore make it possible for families in the various income categories to obtain individual loans either for the construction of a new house or for the purchasing of a new house which has not been occupied before. House ownership will, in this way, now be brought within the reach of many families, for whom this has previously been impossible. Families with an income which is not in excess of R5,000 a year will consequently be able to make use of the joint building society/commission loan scheme in order to obtain a dwelling, while families with up to two children. and an income of up to not more than R225 per month, and those with three or more children, up to a maximum income of R300 per month, can make use of the 90 per cent individual loan schemes of the local authorities—or in cases where local authorities do not endorse that scheme, by my department —in order to obtain their own dwelling. The purpose of this loan scheme has always been to help provide additional dwellings, because the Housing Act has always made these loans available for the construction of houses only. The aim is still the provision of additional dwellings, and that is why the concession is only aimed at the purchasing of new houses. Clause 7 makes it possible to implement these concessions, but also covers the cases where it is necessary to purchase structures for old age homes, or for approved hostels, as defined in the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act. Section 81 of the Act provides that if the construction of dwellings can be prejudiced by a shortage of manpower or building material— by the application of these for buildings other than dwellings, and their construction is regarded as less important than the construction of dwellings—I can by proclamation prohibit the construction of such other buildings for a period, and on the conditions prescribed by me. However, the problem is that once such a prohibition has been imposed on a building, and the period of the former prohibition has lapsed, there is absolutely no way in which the erection can subsequently be stopped, regard less of how essential it may be to prohibit it again in the interests of the provision of dwelling accommodation. By means of the insertion in this section of the words “from time to time” as envisaged by clause 8, it will be possible for me, in areas where the construction of such projects, after the period of prohibition has elapsed, will in reality slow down the provision of housing, to prohibit the construction of such projects again for a further period.

There is another very important matter which has to be rectified by means of this Bill. In terms of Seotion 85 of the Housing Act no person may without my written consent demolish a dwelling which has been legally constructed within the jurisdiction of a local authority. Numerous actions to have occupied controlled flats or tenement houses, which offer excellent and essential housing to families, often from the lower income groups, demolished are being refused because suitable alternative accommodation is not available for the inhabitants. In all the major cities, however, a new malpractice has made its appearance. Owners of occupied controlled flats or tenement houses, for example, which still offer excellent accommodation, which they, for reasons of their own, want to have demolished, or in other cases of which I am aware, owners of blocks of flats who ultimately want to utilize those blocks of flats as an annexe to an hotel, are now making every attempt to force the occupants to vacate those dwellings. For example, owners terminate services which had been provided and acquiesce in reductions in rental. They only apply maintenance, with the result that very soon such a situation arises that it is simply impossible to continue to occupy the dwelling. Hot water cylinders are not repaired; broken and unusable toilet pans are left in that state; water pipes are not maintained, and leaking roofs are not repaired. In this way they simply force the occupants to leave and the individual dwellings, as they are vacated, are simply left unoccupied. Before long all the flats or houses are empty, and after the building has stood empty for a long period—for months or even for more than a year—and have fallen into such a state of disrepair that it becomes a health hazard, the local authority can, upon re-application, do nothing else in the interests of the health of the community as a whole, than insist that the necessary authorization to demolish be granted. In this way a great many properties which provided suitable and proper accommodation for the lower income groups, e.g. pensioners and the aged, are being demolished, simply so as to make place for business premises or luxury flat complexes. I am grateful to be able to say that it is not only I who am upset about this situation. Provincial administrations, civil associations and even local authorities are upset about this situation, and have approached my Department precisely because their hands, as the Act reads at present, are tied, and they are quite helpless in the face of the invitation which such owners address to vandals to come and pillage their property, and so create a health hazard.

I feel myself further supported by the fact that some of the hon. members on the opposite side have also expressed their concern in regard to this matter, the one during a report-back meeting in his constituency on the Rand, and the other in a letter addressed to me in which he inquired whether I did not have the powers at my disposal to authorize the regional representative of the Department in his area to let such unoccupied units, and if I did not have the power, whether I would not introduce amending legislation, which would be with retrospective effect. I am very grateful that there is so much unanimity in respect of such a real problem.

Section 85 of the Act also provides that when a person demolishes a dwelling without my authorization, he can be punished upon conviction by a fine of R200 or imprisonment for one year, or both. Now, it happens that the owners get rid of their tenants and then, without requesting authorization for demolition, or in spite of the fact that one has been refused, simply go ahead and demolish, in the knowledge that the maximum penalty is R200, which in the light of what is going to be erected on the premises, does not have any deterring effect at all, and they pay this fine with pleasure. Obviously conduct of this nature by persons whom The Cape Argus, on 24th May, 1968, so aptly referred to as “tyrant landlords” simply cannot be defended or endured. Now it strikes me that the seriousness of this sort of offence is not generally realized possibly because the stipulated maximum penalty or term of imprisonment is not exceptionally high. For example, a case recently occurred where the owner company, in spite of an emphatic refusal of their request to have two dwellings demolished, simply went ahead and demolished them, and this happened to be a proposed demolition to which various bodies had protested. Upon prosecution the company in question was fined R25. Because an offence of this kind, by means of which the public is being deprived of essential housing, is a serious offence, it is absolutely essential that the prescribed penalties be increased, and consequently clause 9 makes provision for an increased maximum fine of R2,000, and/or imprisonment for a maximum period of two years. Because I regard this kind of offence in such a serious light, I have given very strong consideration to having another additional provision inserted which would enable a court to force an offender to restore what he had demolished. Because new substantive provisions for that would have to be written into the Act, I have decided, for the time being, to let the increased penalties suffice, in the hope that this will bring home to all persons concerned the fact that this kind of offence is being regarded in a very serious light.

This measure, although it is hoped that it will control unauthorized demolitions as such, will however not contribute to preventing un scrupulous lessors of getting rid of their lessees in a piecemeal fashion and then leaving such dwellings unutilized until the entire complex is empty and is demolished as a unit or adjoined to an hotel. That is why I have decided to insert in the Housing Act an additional measure, in accordance with the requests which have been addressed to my Department, by means of which owners can be compelled to utilize such dwellings, out of which they have forced their tenants, for dwelling accommodation.

Clause 10 will make it possible for the Secretary of Community Development to notify owners of unoccupied dwellings in urban areas to let such dwellings, and where such dwellings are being neglected and can reasonably be used for dwellings, to do so. Where such an owner omits to let the dwelling or dwellings in question, the Secretary of the local authority can do so on behalf of the owner. Obviously such a provision implies certain problems. Involuntarily it occurs to one that dwellings, the owners of which are temporarily overseas, will be summarily let or that vacation dwellings will be involved in this matter if they should remain unoccupied. This is not the idea at all, and to make provision for such a likelihood, subsection (2) has been added in clause 10. In the same way it would be possible to read into such a provision the possibility that essential development can be hampered as a result. Provision has been made for this as well.

Obviously the position may arise that a row of occupied dwellings will in due course have to be demolished to make way for essential development. As the position stands at present, it will be simply impossible to utilize some of the individual dwellings, as they become vacant again on a temporary basis, until such time as the entire complex is vacant, since new tenants would enjoy the protection of the Rent Act. To make provision for such contigencies, subsection (7) provides that, in appropriate cases, despite the provisions of the Rent Act, temporary leases in respect of such dwellings can be entered into and that tenants must vacate the premises once the term of contract has elapsed.

The other provisions of clause 10 are so self-explanatory that I accept that they need not be elucidated. Clauses 11 and 12, respectively are the rectification of the long title and the short title.

Sir, I rise in a state of exhaustion to deal with this particular Bill. Sir, it is very nice to visualize that the hon. the Minister must be so happy in his work that he has given the speeches for all three stages at the same time. This is obviously going to saye us a lot of time later on. But the point I want to make in all seriousness is that, if the hon. the Minister has considered it necessary to go into the detail which he has gone into, surely to goodness this must be an indication that this Bill lends itself to the issuing of a White Paper, because what the hon. the Minister has now had to do is to make a speech which is virtually in substitution of a White Paper. Sir, legislation of this kind has to convey not only the letter of the Bill but also the spirit and the intention of the Bill.

That can only be done by issujng a White Paper in regard to Bills of this nature, and I want to say for the Minister’s information that we on this side of the House have had to do more work, proportionately, on this Bill at this stage of the Session than we would have to do on a Bill probably twice the length of this one. A White Paper would have been of the greatest assistance. I am sure it would have helped the passage of this Bill through the House and it would have assisted the hon. the Minister, too; he would not have had to talk for so long.

On the whole we agree with the terms of this Bill. It implements to a large extent legislation which we discussed before. It implements various methods of helping the purchase of housing. We have already had an opportunity to discuss these things and we are basically in agreement with them, but there are one or two clauses, one or two aspects of this Bill, which is essentially a Committee Stage Bill, on which I would like to pass some comment.

The first clause I wished to comment on was clause 3, but the hon. the Minister, I am very pleased to say, has gone quite a long way to meet us in our objections. The interpretation put on a subject such as this, the renaming of a township and the renaming of streets, can be very controversial. Whilst the Minister has given us some examples, such as Aasvoelstraat, one can also argue the other way. There are people living in streets whose names they like. They can live in an area where the streets are named after trees, flowers or birds or animals, and as a result an area such as that usually build up some sort of character which goes with these names. The names and the area become associated the one with the other, and these can be completely changed; you can change the whole character of an area or a township by just renaming its streets. But as I say the Minister has gone quite a long way towards meeting us by ensuring that consultation will take place, and he has also agreed to remove certain words.

I should like to comment briefly on clause 4, not because I disagree with it but because I think the wording is shocking. Let me just read this to the hon. the Minister and let us see if it makes sense. It says—

You see, Sir, “a utility company or other body” is obviously not a person. If the hon. the Minister said notice had to be given to the secretary of such body or company, or if he wanted to incorporate both a person, a utility company or other body, he could say “to such person or the registered secretary, owner, director of that company or body”, and I think that would make sense, but at the moment it does not make sense at all. I have looked at the Afrikaans version to help me, but that is worded exactly the same and I think it is quite ununderstandable. [Interjection.] Even if I were a legal man, I still could not agree with bad grammar and wording which nobody, I am sure, will understand.

Now I want briefly to comment on clauses 9 and 10 together. We have seen articles in the Press and we have heard a lot of talk about people who buy habitable buildings, whether they be rows of houses or blocks of flats or the like, and they immediately have ideas of converting these places in many cases to commercial or industrial use, and so they let these places fall into a state of disrepair, as the Minister has said.

He mentioned the hot water systems which they leave so that they do not work. Some people, I understand, leave the places open to vandals so that they can cause as much wreckage as possible, and then they are able to go along and apply for a demolition permit, they then knock down this housing and the land then becomes available for whatever purpose they want to use it for. This is all very well, but I believe that we are legislating here largely for exceptions. The Minister might need these powers in cases of necessity. I read an article in the Press just the other day about the Mayor of Cape Town, Mr. Ferry, who condemned this sort of practice in the bitterest terms because obviously he had seen it happen. But I want to repeat that I believe that mostly we are legislating here for the exception and not for the rule, and I want the hon. the Minister to bear this in mind, because you see, Sir, there is the honest person who might do a little speculation buying in regard to a row of houses which obviously invite demolition, perhaps in an area where the land is to be used for some other purpose in the not too distant future. Now, under the provisions of this Bill that owner can under the direction of the Minister or his Secretary be forced to put those buildings into a habitable condition. This might be a very costly process, and why should the owner of comparatively derelict buildings be forced to take steps to make these buildings habitable when it can never be an economic proposition? Is it fair to ask that of this particular owner? I do not think it is. The Minister may say that he has made provision for certain cases; he has made provision, for example, for holiday flats where these people cannot be forced to make their flats available to anybody, provided they let them for holiday purposes; he has made provision in the same clause for people who go overseas and leave their places empty, but those are not the cases I am talking about. The Minister has also provided, and I am very glad he has, for the person who, the Minister agrees, should be allowed to demolish within a certain period, but in the meantime those dwellings, flats or houses should be made available for habitation because of the shortage. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister, but is it necessary to force the owner to make those houses habitable, at an expense which he can never recover in the period which is available before his demolition order comes through and he is allowed to demolish the buildings? This is a very important point, because if he is forced on a non-economic basis to restore the buildings sufficiently to make them habitable, are we not rather taxing the owner or the speculator—call him what you will—who is doing his business legitimately? Are you not taxing him rather to make up for the short-comings, perhaps, of the Department of Planning or the Department of Community Development, or some other department which has not been able to provide housing for one reason or another—do not let us go into the reason for it—and now we are clutching at straws and we are possibly going to penalize a man who has had foresight enough to buy a row of derelict houses which can never economically be turned into useful dwellings, a block of flats which is perhaps in danger of falling down? I want to put this to the Minister because in legislating on housing, I think one of the dangers we have to provide against is that we do not always look upon the owner, the landlord, as the big bad wolf; because we must remember, too, that he does in fact provide housing and I think we have to co-operate with him. Whilst I would not like under any circumstances to see him get preferential treatment which would put the tenant, the person who has to hire a house from him, in the position where he has to pay excessive rentals, I do think that we have to keep our minds balanced in our approach to this matter. I am dealing with these two clauses together, especially in view of the fantastic penalties imposed, a penalty in one case of a fine not exceeding R2,000 or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both such fine and imprisonment, if he demolishes buildings when the Minister considers them to be habitable.

The hon. the Minister will come with the argument and I know what he is going to say. He is going to say that a man can buy up a row of houses, which can be occupied by people. He will resort to these various ruses and methods that we have discussed here tonight to get the tenants out of them. This person is then going to demolish them without an order and pay the existing R200 fine. This will then be a very sound and cheap investment. So it will be cheap to pay the R200 and to demolish the houses. There are, obviously, people of this nature, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that those are the exception and not the rule. If one does come across them to any large extent, and one may come across them in a place like District Six, for instance, the hon. the Minister has powers under the Slums Act to control this, however. He has all the powers in the world. What I am trying to say and the point I really want to make is that I do not think people who are acting in good faith and honesty in consultation with the Minister should be placed at this great disadvantage because certain people have taken advantage of the provisions of the existing legislation. We support this Bill in principle, but there are these few aspects which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister in order to make sure that these are not applied to people who do not deserve it.

Mr. Speaker, I would almost say that it has done my heart good to-night to hear that the United Party is supporting an amendment Bill. I am sorry that the United Party—it seems to me that they are becoming tired or worn out—took so long to understand this Bill and asked for legal opinions from the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister had not given them such a comprehensive explanation, I could have done it for them, because it did not take me so long to understand it. I see these amendments in the Housing Act not only according to the letter of the law, but I also see them in the light of the shortage of housing. I also see these amendments in the light of the future, because if the predictions and calculations are true, i.e. that in 30 years’ time the population of South Africa would have doubled, we are faced with the task of having to provide during the next 30 years as much housing as we have provided during the past 300 years. We must take into consideration the fact that our standard of living has increased a great deal recently, and this will also be the case in the future. Consequently more housing will have to be provided, and it is therefore our duty to make use of every means of eliminating this housing shortage. I was very pleased therefore to hear that the hon. the Opposition also support this amendment Bill. In addition I think that this Bill, on a general level, affects everyone. The purpose of this Bill is, in the first place, to make provision for the reduction of the housing shortage. I do not want to deal with all the clauses now, because I think the hon. the Minister made it as clear as could be.

Even the United Party can understand it.

Even the United Party can understand it, as my hon. friend has said. As I have said, what this Bill envisages, is the elimination of the housing shortage both now and in the future. It also affords the investor the opportunity of contributing his share, something which I do not want to go into now, but which the hon. the Minister has explained. With these schemes, which involve the State, provision is now being made for the purchasing of these houses. In the past this only took place by means of individual applications and these people must either have had a piece of land, or they must have had a house built themselves. Now, however, the investor has the opportunity of building 50 or 100 houses, and has it in fact in regard to this two schemes which are affected by this, i.e. the building society scheme, and the local authority scheme. All of us know that when 50 houses are built, the costs are brought down. In the first place, therefore, this is more beneficial to the house owner, and in the second place it is to the benefit of the investor since he is able to share in this market and in this way supplement housing. This Bill also provides that the assistance being rendered by the State, for example the reserve funds, can now be utilized in various ways. Previously this was not the case. I am thinking now of the case where an advance has already been paid back, and where that local authority was consequently left with the entire profit of an advance which was given for housing in the first place. This advance is paid off, and the profits on the rentals exceed the expenses by far. The funds established then can be utilized for any purpose. However, it is now being provided that it must only be utilized for housing, for which this advance was, after all, made in the first place. This advance is contributed by the State, and it is no more than fair that the profit should be used for this purpose. If we think in terms of Bantu housing in a few years time we see what profits local authorities would have in this respect. In particular the hon. member for Umbilo objected to clauses 9 and 10, stating that they had actually been introduced for the exceptions. I think that any law is introduced for the exceptions, and it is precisely in regard to this exception that the Act is being contravened. As the hon. Minister explained, there are many cases, and I think that the hon. member for Umbilo himself knows about a few cases, where people…

Umlazi. That is the one where you put up the stranger.

Yes, I was looking right at you. There are people who already have the advantage of owning a building which has been in use for so many years that it has been possible for them to pay off their own advance already. It was easy for them, and they did not mind paying the maximum penalty of R200. It is true that there are in fact people who will be deterred by an increased fine. I think that the fine which has been included in this Bill should be even higher, because I want to predict that there will still be people, with major projects, who own an old building on an expensive plot, who will still be prepared to pay that fine of R2,000. I think the hon. the Minister could have made this fine much higher.

I should like to mention a few cases because the hon. member stated that this was the exception. However, the exceptions to the rule are so numerous. I want to mention one case in Johannesburg which I have already brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister, namely that of an old building where the people have taken drastic steps to have that building vacated. It is precisely for persons in this lesser privileged group, who usually live in small flats, that provision has to be made. We all know that these people change their place of abode quite often. If such a flat is vacated, the owner simply gives notice that no more flats are available. They go even further and allow these empty flats to remain unlocked, with the result that loafers soon get to know about it. They go in there, and even make fires on the floor. When this building is in a deplorable condition, the owners go to the city council inspectors and complain that the building has become a nest of vagrants, that the position is getting out of hand, that these people do not pay them, and that they cannot control the situation anymore. They then apply for the building to be demolished. They have had another project in mind for a long time. The inspectors and officials of the Department of Community Development then investigate and usually find that the situation is of such a nature that they can do nothing else but accept the notification of these people and grant them a demolition permit. I can mention an example in Sea Point where the case of a certain building with ten or eleven flats came to my attention.

Order!. This is not relevant now.

Mr. Speaker, I am now discussing clause 10 which provides that if flats remain unoccupied the owner can be notified that he must let those flats again. According to this amendment a person can, if those flats are standing empty, approach the owner and inform him he wants to let one of those flats. If the owner refuses to do so, he can then contact the Secretary of Community Development and tell him that he wants that flat. The Secretary can then fix a rental, and that person can lease the flat directly from the Department. But if this amendment is not introduced, and such a building stands empty, then that person can apply for demolition.

What about the case of vacation houses and flats?

Provision is being made in subsection (2) for the case of vacation houses. That is quite out of the question therefore. If the hon. member had listened to the hon. the Minister he would also have understood what is going on. The hon. member also spoke about the development. Subsection (7) determines that if a person wants to demolish a building for development, and the Minister wants to see to it that this is done correctly, then the Minister can grant him an extension and inform him that he can demolish after three years for example. The investor is therefore being protected by this amendment so that he has the permission of the Minister to let those flats for a certain period only, for example up to 1st January, 1971. Therefore I cannot see how this hon. member can have any objections to clauses 9 and 10, because they are clear and fair towards the lessor, the investor and anybody else involved.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umlazi has said that we are dealing here with legislation which is intended for the exceptional cases, and not for the general cases. That is entirely correct, but the hon. member must remember that most of our legislation is of this nature. If it were not for the exceptions we would not have needed legislation against murderers or thieves, for example. We must make provision for the exceptional cases. What I find interesting is that that hon. member has the exceptional ability of always failing to recognize cardinal points in a Bill. He made a long argument on the fact that we are now taking powers here by means of which we can compel a person to have a building restored if a person has bought an old dilapidated building or row of houses. We can force him to have those buildings renovated on an uneconomic basis. But this Bill provides explicitly:

In other words, it is clearly a restrictive provision on the power of the Secretary. If it cannot, in a reasonable way, be made habitable, then he cannot take any steps. In other words, if it can be made habitable, solely by spending money there on an uneconomic basis, then it is not “reasonable,” and then he cannot do so. The entire argument made here by the hon. member dealt with a matter which simply cannot happen. I think that the lawyers would support me in this if I stated that if the Secretary were to instruct a person to have a place renovated and if this were to entail uneconomic repair costs, then any court would, upon the application of that person, find against the Secretary. The Bill states emphatically that it must be reasonably possible. But apart from that, even if it were not stated in the Bill, the hon. member must remember that this must be seen in the light of the Slums Act on the one hand, to which he also referred, and the Rent Act, on the other. If a person owns a number of houses which have to be made available for occupation under this clause then he can at least take into account the money which he has spent doing so in an application to the Rent Board for a rent determination. If it is an uneconomic amount which he has had to spend in repairing it, then the rent will be so high that he will simply be unable to get those dwellings leased, because nobody will live in that type of house at such a high rent. In other words, the problem envisaged by the hon. member will not arise in practice. In addition the argument used by the hon. member to the effect that we will find persons purchasing houses and flat buildings, etc., in a poor condition, which are in fact in such a state of disrepair that they should not be restored, is not relevant now. We have the Slums Act for that. Steps in terms of the Slums Act would have been taken against such dwellings before such a position could arise. As regards the type of dwellings to which this hon. member referred, which it would not be possible to maintain and which would not be possible to restore economically either, steps have to be taken in terms of the Slums Act by the local authority. They should not be there, or else they should have been repaired a long time ago. The problem which the hon. member envisages here can in fact, if the local authorities do their duty, simply not arise. With the powers which my Department have under the Slums Act as well now, we are seeing to it that the Slums Act is applied in such a way that these dilapidated conditions simply do not arise. But we do have a problem with these buildings which are deliberately being kept untenanted. Let me take the case of Cape Town. There is a flat building in which some of our Members of Parliament are living and which is in an excellent condition but which is situated near to an hotel and which belongs to the same owners as the hotel. In that building there are flats which have stood empty for more than a year.

Yes, like Olympic Court in Durban.

Yes, there are such flats in Durban as well. It is for such cases that we are making provision. It is for such cases that persons deliberately want a demolition permit, and then allow the building to become uninhabited and virtually invite vandals to wreck the place so that they can obtain a demolition permit. These amendments are necessary so that steps can be taken against these people in time. It is for these reasons that we deem this position absolutely necessary.

The hon. member also referred to the increase in the fines from R200 to R2,000. I want to repeat, as the hon. member also said, that a person who in fact wants to have a place demolished with the intention of erecting another building there very easily and readily pays the fine imposed upon him. The case I mentioned was of a person who was refused a demolition permit because the building was in a good, decent condition. In spite of the refusal of the demolition permit by the local authority that person nevertheless demolished the building. Subsequently a fine of only R25 was imposed upon him by the magistrate’s court. It is for the very purpose of bringing home the seriousness of this type of offence, with which local authorities are experiencing a great deal of difficulty, that we are making the penalties heavier. However, I hope that hon. members will realize that these measures are very essential. I can inform hon. members that the largest property owners’ association, namely V.E.E.S.A. have informed me that they have no objections or reservations in regard to this provision at all. They envisage no problems in regard to these provisions. They know, as does the hon. member for Umlazi, that we will only use this provision for the exceptional cases, and that we are doing so in the national interest. As regards the other matters mentioned by the hon. member, we can discuss them readily in the Committee Stage. In the meantime I shall ask the language experts and the lawyers to have a look at clause 4.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is one which is introduced each session in order to make provision for concessions to the various types of pensioners, as announced by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech. As hon. members know, concessions in respect of social pensions are being implemented from this year on by means of regulations which will be promulgated in terms of the various social pension laws, with effect from 1st October, 1968. Some concessions, however, must still be implemented by means of Parliamentary sanction, since they entail amendments to the relevant pension laws. In addition, certain provisions of existing pension laws are also being amended in order to rectify problems which are being experienced in the application of such provisions. Apart from the temporary allowance which is being paid to certain civil pensioners, a bonus on a sliding scale according to the date on which such a person retired is being paid to all civil pensioners. Since 1st April, 1966, the bonus has been increased by 5 per cent. In order to bring alleviation to these pensioners it has been decided to increase the bonus, with effect from 1st October, 1968, by a further 5 per cent. Clause 1 makes provision for this.

An ex-serviceman to whom a war veteran’s pension has been granted, also receives a family allowance in respect of his wife with whom he was married within 10 years after the termination of his military service, and in respect of children who were born within the same period. The same also applies in respect of the privileges payable to the widow and dependant children of the ex-serviceman after his death. Although this time limit of 10 years initially served a useful purpose, and it seemed at that time as though few ex-servicemen were being prejudiced as a result of it, the restrictions have, with the passage of time, become obsolete, and are no longer suited to altered circumstances. At present Citizen Force ballotees are, for example, also being included under the provisions of the Act, and in view of the fact that they are called up for military training at a very early age, many of them, to whom benefits under the Act are being allocated, can subsequently be prejudiced by the time limit of 10 years.

Clauses 3, 4, 9 and 10 up to and including 14 provide that this time limit be abolished in all cases, and also make provision for certain consequential amendments.

Clause 7 makes it possible to promulgate regulations which have been promulgated under the Government Service Pension Act of 1965 with retrospective effect, where it is to the benefit of members. This is not at present the case. During 1965 certain allowances and bonuses payable to ex-servicemen were consolidated with their war pensions. This consolidation in particular resulted in major indirect benefits, and no concessions were made to these pensioners during the past 2 years. However, to bring these pensions into line with the concessions which have been found necessary in respect of other pensions, it has been decided to grant a bonus allocation of 10 per cent. It is important to point out that this bonus concession is not being introduced in respect of the basic pension only, but that it also has a bearing on the allowances which are payable to war pensioners. Clause 15 gives effect to this concession.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House undoubtedly welcome the provisions of this Bill, as most of the provisions provide for improvements as far as the existing position is concerned. We also feel that relief is being afforded to a group of persons who perhaps need relief most in a time of inflation. However, there are certain comments which we should like to make in regard to the Bill before us. Firstly, in dealing with the increases that have been granted in terms of this Bill, the civil pensioners will receive a general increase of 5 per cent on the various bonuses that are paid, depending upon their dates of retirement. When one looks at the second last clause of the Bill, one notes that the effective date of this increase will be the 1st October, 1968. If you look at the other concessions which are being made to civil pensioners, which have to do with the rate of contribution, and which vary the rate of contribution to their pension funds, and if you look at clause 7, you will see that these concessions are to be retrospective to the 1st April, 1968. According to a recent Press statement by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, after he had met the Public Servants’ Association, the concession to the civil pensioners would be retrospective to the 1st April, 1968. It appears from the hon. the Minister’s speech this evening that, as far as the bonuses are concerned, they will only come into effect from the 1st October, 1968, and not the 1st April, 1968. Whilst I am dealing with these various dates upon which the various increases come into effect, I want to say that it is a pity that a means has not been found whereby these increases can be granted from the beginning of the financial year, from the 1st April, 1968, in this particular case. It seems now to have become the practice of the Government, when granting these concessions, to make them effective only from the 1st October, instead of the 1st April. The hon. the Minister has indicated, for instance when we were discussing social pensions under his Vote, that there were certain administrative difficulties in bringing about these increases from the beginning of the financial year. However, Sir, with the system of computers and so forth, it does appear that the administrative difficulties should surely be overcome, so as to grant immediate benefit to these people, at least from the beginning of the financial year, namely from the 1st April. It would appear that this is an economic factor rather than an administrative difficulty which is causing the payment of this increase not to be retrospective. In the past many of these people have looked forward to a little windfall which, it is true, perhaps came only five or six months after the 1st April of that particular year, but they looked forward to that windfall. On this occasion it appears to be becoming the practice of the Government not to grant that increase from the 1st April.

There are other improvements which we undoubtedly welcome. One of these improvements will eliminate a hardy annual that has been raised in this House every year for many years. I refer here to the ten year limit that was fixed in regard to the rights of a wife who was married to an ex-volunteer, and also as far as dependants are concerned. Various members on this side of the House have been pleading for this particular concession, and so has the South African Legion which deals with a tremendous number of applications and which has experienced difficulties in the past in their efforts to assist people where the child was born outside the time limit. This is one of the 20-year old problems facing these people. We welcome the fact that the Government has seen its way clear to accept this plea which has been made to it over a period of years.

They have seen the light at last.

The other matter which I believe is an important one is the one to which the Minister referred towards the end of his speech, and that is the 10 per cent increase to those persons who are in receipt of military pensions. This is another welcome provision. Our only concern is that some of these people who are to receive this increase may not in fact receive it if they are also receiving a social pension. We know that when concessions are made, many of the people who look forward to receiving that relief find that their social pension is reduced by an amount similar to the concession. There are people who are receiving military pensions and also war veterans’ pensions and there are certain widows who receive old-age pensions. Although this Bill, which certainly has our blessing, provides for an increase of 10 per cent in the pensions of these people, some of these people are going to find after the 1st October, 1968 that their social pensions will be reduced by a similar amount and that they will in fact be no better off. Sir, the Minister’s colleague, the Minister of Mines, made an announcement on the 24th May concerning increases in pneumoconiosis compensation. We know that in the past where increases have been granted to people, those increases have been negatived by the fact that the social pensions have been reduced. The hon. the Minister of Mines said in the course of his statement that an arrangement had been arrived at with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions that these increases would not be taken into account in applying the means test.

Thank the Minister.

Obviously we welcome this provision and I only hope that the hon. the Minister will show the same sympathy for the military pensioners who are not going to receive any increases in terms of this Bill if their social pensions are reduced by a similar amount. I refer the hon. the Minister to this generous concession that he is making to persons receiving pneumoconiosis compensation and I hope that he will show the same generosity to the other groups of pensioners who otherwise would receive no increase whatsoever in terms of this Bill. Sir, this is an important point as far as these people are concerned. They are in need of assistance and they can only look to the Government for that assistance. Many of them are grateful for the assistance that they receive, but I believe that in this particular instance the hon. the Minister should at least take steps to ensure that they do in fact receive the assistance to which they are entitled. Sir, there are one or two smaller items we would like to raise during the Committee Stage, but at this second-reading stage, this Bill has our support.

Mr. Speaker, most of the arguments raised here have already been dealt with on a former occasion. I should like to repeat that although we have a great deal of sympathy for pensioners and persons receiving social support from the State, and one would like to give them the benefits of additional concessions as quickly as possible, we have reached a situation where, in view of the manpower shortage in the public service and in the country as a whole, we simply cannot have the increases take effect before a certain date.

Why do you not pay them properly?

Then we have less money for the pensioners.

Order! The hon. the Minister need not take any notice of interjections.

I cannot help taking a little notice of the hon. member for Durban (Point), because he so seldom understands a point correctly that I like listening to the things he sometimes says here. The argument which I should like to make clear is that if we make the benefits payable at an earlier date then it can only take place if a considerable number of temporary staff members are employed, or if a large amount of overtime work is done by the existing staff of the Department. From the nature of the case this entails considerable additional expenses, and for that reason it is in my opinion preferable to allocate the benefits in such a way that I allow social pensioners to receive all the money which I have received from my colleague, the Minister of Finance, rather than to pinch off part of it to pay for overtime work and additional staff.

Can’t you stop taxing pensions?

Order! The hon. the Minister must proceed with the discussion of the Bill.

Hon. members will understand that although the entire system of payment is highly mechanized and is done by means of computers, it still involves a great deal of work to check each individual file in order to take into account the particular circumstances of every person, so that the details can be fed into the computer. That is why we cannot complete this sooner than more or less six months after the announcement of the improvements. That is more or less the amount of time required. If we were to pay the increases from an earlier date, then it would mean that monies in arrear would have to be paid at a later stage, and that would entail a great deal of additional work. Another consideration is that I usually try to obtain as much from my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and that his estimates of the year in question sometimes does not make it possible to make provision for the full costs which such an increase entails over a whole year, whereas he may perhaps be able to make provision for that during the next year. Consequently it also helps the Minister of Finance to grant the increase in this way.

The hon. member referred to clause 7. I could not understand clearly why he compared clause 7 to the clauses which provide for the payment of increased allowances. Clause 7 merely gives us the power to make the regulations which are being promulgated under the Government Service Pension Act with retrospective effect, and the reason why the authorization is needed now is because it has been decided to decrease the contributions of Government employees with effect from 1st April of this year. Consequently this is a benefit which is being granted to them, although it is not a cash benefit in the sense that it will entail increased pensions; it is merely a revision of their contribution to the pension fund. Therefore I cannot understand how the two can be compared with each other. Hon. members will realize that it will be possible to deal with this Bill to better effect in the Committee Stage, and I do not think it necessary to say more about it at this stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government’s decision, as announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech on 27th March this year, to introduce a new scheme of assistance to gold mines.

This new scheme will replace the old loan scheme which has been in operation since 1st April, 1964, and in terms of which unsecured loans were granted by the State to certain gold mines to cover working losses and approved capital expenditure. These loans covered working losses to a maximum equivalent to 10 per cent of revenue and over the four years 1st April, 1964 to 31st March, 1968, a total amount of R12.9 million was made available by means of such loans to altogether 13 mines. In spite of this assistance, however, seven of the mines which received assistance under the loan scheme ceased underground mining operations.

The main reasons why the old loan scheme was not as effective as initially expected would appear to be that this form of assistance came too late in a mine’s life, i.e. usually when working losses were already being incurred; that the loans covered such losses only up to a maximum of 10 per cent of revenue, and that the assistance thus granted covered only some 4 per cent of the industry’s present annual gold production.

From available information it is anticipated that some 14 gold mines will have to cease production before the end of 1975 unless they are assisted more effectively. Even if the price of gold should then be increased to such an extent that some of the ores in these mines again become payable, the mines would be unable to resume production as the costs of re-opening and re-equipping dilapidated and flooded mine shafts and underground workings would be prohibitive and these ores would therefore be lost permanently to the country.

The problems facing the gold mining industry and the need for further State assistance have, consequently, been investigated very thoroughly and at a highly expert level by a working committee appointed by the Economic Advisory Council for this purpose and, following recommendations made by the Council, the Government has decided to replace the old loan scheme by a more comprehensive and scientific scheme of assistance.

Particulars of the new assistance scheme have already been furnished in an explanatory memorandum which was tabled at the conclusion of the Budget speech and I, therefore, confine myself to a few summarizing remarks and some additional information.

Stated briefly, the new scheme is basically designed not only to enable a gold mine, by means of financial assistance, to mine lower grade ores which would otherwise be non-profitable, but also to ensure that a gold mine which accepts such assistance is in fact mining such lower grade ores.

In order to be classified as an assisted gold mine under clause 2 of the Bill and thus to qualify for financial assistance under the new scheme, the Minister of Mines will have to be satisfied—

1. (a) that unless such mine is assisted, it is likely that it will have to cease production within eight years; and
2. (b) that if the mine is granted assistance and the conditions under which it is classified as an assisted mine are observed, the life of the mine will be appreciably prolonged and its production of gold or uranium (or both) will be significantly increased.

One of the conditions which the assisted mine will have to observe is that it will immediately lower its operating pay limit by approximately 20 per cent and conduct its future mining operations in accordance with the average grade of its ore reserves as determined on the basis of the lower pay limit. Clause 2 (4) makes provision for the necessary inspections to ensure that these conditions are observed and, therefore, that the lower grade ores are in fact being mined. In addition, certificates issued by the Government Mining Engineer to the effect that the conditions imposed by the Minister have been complied with, are required to be furnished periodically under clause 5.

To compensate the mine for the smaller profits which will be derived from the lower grade ore, or for the losses which may even be incurred thereon, financial assistance will be granted to the mine in the form of tax relief or, where the ratio of its profit to revenue is less than approximately 9 per cent, in the form of acual or direct payments to the mine.

The standard tax formula for gold mines is where “Y” is the percentage of profit payable to the State and “X” the ratio of profit to revenue. A gold mine will continue to be assessed in accordance with this standard formula until it is no longer a high or medium grade mine, but has become a low grade mine with a profit to revenue ratio of 30 per cent or less, and with an expected remaining life of less than 8 years.

If such a gold mine, although still earning a profit, then becomes an assisted mine and lowers its operating pay limite by some 20 per cent, it will be taxed at a lower rate, on a new formula , until it ceases to paw tax (when its profit is equal to ± 9 per cent of its revenue). When its profit drops to less than about 9 per cent of its revenue, payments will be made to the mine out of funds voted by Parliament for this purpose.

The amounts so payable will be calculated on an alternative version of the new formula, as set out in clause 3 (1) of the Bill. These amounts will increase automatically as the mine’s financial position deteriorates but will not exceed 25 per cent of the mine’s income. In other words, the maximum assistance which will be granted by way of direct payments to an assisted mine during its income tax year will be equal to 25 per cent of its mining income during that year.

The amounts payable in respect of an assisted mine will be determined by the Secretary for Inland Revenue (clause 4), but the Secretary for Mines may also make advance payments, or interim payments, in order to assist the mine until such time as the Secretary for Inland Revenue has made the necessary determination after the close of the year of assessment.

The remaining clauses of the Bill embrace mainly adaptations of the assistance scheme to the provisions of the Income Tax Act and other Acts and, as in the case of all the other clauses, have been drafted in close co-operation with officials of the Department of Inland Revenue.

I should perhaps refer to the provisions of one other clause, i.e. clauss 3 (3) of the Bill. As mentioned earlier, this scheme of assistance replaces the old loan scheme. The accumulated State loans to a mine that has been assisted under the old scheme and is now admitted under the new scheme will be frozen at the amount due to the State at the date on which the mine is now classified as an assisted mine, i.e. no more interest will be payable or accrue, but all the other provisions of the agreements entered into with the mines in this connection will remain effective. The winding up of the old loan scheme does not require special legislation and will be done administratively, except as regards loans made to a mine under the old scheme during a year of assessment in which payments are also being made to it under the new assistance scheme, i.e. when there is overlapping. In terms of clause 3 (3) such loans will no longer be regarded as assistance under the old loan scheme but will de deemed to be advance payments made by the State under the new scheme.

Is is estimated that the new scheme will cost the State approximately R82 million over the next eight years, i.e. in loss of tax and lease consideration and in direct payments, but that it will result in the production of additional gold to the value of some R330 million over the same period at the present gold price, and it is possible that as many as 18 to 20 gold mines may be able to participate in the scheme.

Although only time will tell to what extent the new scheme will be effectual, we do believe that it will be a big improvement on the old scheme and that it will be of real benefit not only to the mining industry but also to the country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. As the House knows, for several years now we have been pointing out to the hon. the Minister the anomaly that has arisen especially in regard to assisted mines. We were always perturbed by the fact that assistance to the marginal mines was not given with a view to encouraging the mines to extract as much low-grade ore as possible. We were perturbed that the assistance that was given previously to the mines was at the most only a temporary measure and could at best prolong the life of mines for a very short period only. We welcome this new method of assistance.

I think that our assistance to the mines must have a two-fold approach. Firstly we have to make sure that the low-grade ore is brought to the surface, that every ounce of mineable ore must be brought up and together with that, of course, our production of uranium, the demand for which is increasing every year, will also increase. Secondly, in addition to this we have to keep the mines going for other reasons. We have for many years spoken about ghost towns arising at those places where mines close down. This Bill will help to keep those towns alive. The Minister of Mines is also the Minister of Planning and if he is earnest in his statements that he will restrict industrialization in certain areas, which could quite easily be in the vicinity of gold mines, and that he will encourage industries to go to border areas, it becomes even more important that we should make sure that those mines are kept alive.

The hon. member for Hillbrow last year gave us some very interesting figures to illustrate the importance of the mining industry. As the Minister knows, we have 50 mines to-day which are producing and 14 or 15 of these are considered to be marginal mines producing low-grade ore, which means we could be in danger of losing a little less than a third of our mines. It could still happen immediately after the eight-year period is over unless, of course, the price of gold goes up. That will be a further stimulus to increase the life of the mines. Up to now the mines have provided almost R130 million in taxation alone and the wage sheets reflect an amount of R235 million a year which is paid out and which goes into circulation. Further fantastic sums are being expended on purchases for mines. An amount of R275 million is being spent by the mines on purchasing goods which are made almost exclusively in South Africa. It shows us how important it is for the Government to face up to the fact that these mines must be kept alive for as long as possible. The closure of mines on the Reef and in the Free State must be borne in mind constantly. It is going to happen some time in the future, we have to face up to it. We can keep them alive for eight or ten years, and possibly for twenty years, but eventually the mines are going to dry up and then the Government will not be able to assist these mines any longer. I am pleased that to-day we are facing up to the fact that we will help them for as long as possible but we must take into account what is going to happen when these mines close down.

When I suggested last year that this be done the Minister of Finance said it would cause inflation.

Order!

I am pleased to tell the Minister that we on this side of the House welcome this legislation. We hope it will be the forerunner of other legislation which will help to keep the mines working. We hope the mineworker will benefit from this measure and we also hope the Minister will take into consideration taxation methods when the price of gold goes up. The other day when the Mines Vote was before the House I spoke briefly about this matter, and I would say to the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Finance who is here now, please do not throttle the mines by over-taxation.

Order!

Am I out of order, Mr. Speaker?

Yes, that is not under discussion now.

I am sorry. With these few words I say we on this side support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising only to tell the hon. member for Rosettenville that I agree with almost every word he said, and that I am grateful that we are able at this late hour to dispose of an important measure such as this in such a fine spirit. I may add that the same fine spirit prevailed during the discussions with the Chamber of Mines and the Economic Advisory Board. In conclusion, I want to make this final remark. The hon. member referred to the fact that our gold mines were a vanishing asset and I think that we as representatives, and also the Chamber of Mines and others, should do well to realize that, from the taxation point of view, the gold mines are a vanishing asset which affect the whole country. I want to thank hon. members for their support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In November of last year a deputation of the Federation of Mining Trade Unions interviewed me and inter alia made representations for the increase of the benefits payable to pneumoconiosis sufferers and their dependants under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act. As you know, the problem of inflation was at its most serious at that stage, and difficult as it was for me, I could make no promise to that deputation that benefits would be increased. I did undertake, though, to reconsider the representations as soon as circumstances made this possible for the Government.

I am glad to be able to say now that circumstances have improved to such an extent that the position of beneficiaries under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act could be reviewed and that the Government has found it possible to agree to certain concessions. It has been decided to grant relief only in those cases where relief is most necessary. I believe that the group which needs relief the most, is the widows and the dependent children of deceased pneumoconiosis sufferers. It has therefore been decided to grant relief to this group. Their pensions are consequently being increased by R6 per month in the case of widows, namely from R36 to R42 per month, and by R3 per month in the case of every dependent child of a deceased pneumoconiosis sufferer, namely from R18 to R21 per month. The pensions of widows and dependent children of deceased Coloured labourers are being adjusted proportionally.

The second group which was considered was pneumoconiosis sufferers who became entitled to benefits before 1st October, 1962. Because persons who became entitled to benefits prior to that date had already received a benefit of a lump sum of R960 for first-stage pneumoconiosis which persons who became entitled to privileges after that date had not received, their pensions have, to date, been calculated on a lower scale. However, in 1965 the lump sum benefits for the dependants of a mineworker who at his death suffered from pneumoconiosis with less than a 20 per cent disability, were re-introduced. Therefore, although the mineworker did not receive that benefit prior to his death, his dependants are receiving it now and in addition the amount was increased by 20 per cent to R1,150 in 1965. The grounds on which a differentiation was made in the scales of the pensions payable to persons who became entitled to benefits prior to 1st October, 1962, and those who became entitled to pensions after that date, have now therefore fallen away and justification for this discrimination no longer exists. It was consequently decided to place all pensions under the Act on an equal basis.

To mineworkers who became entitled to pensions before 1st October, 1962, and who are more than 50 per cent but not more than 75 per cent disabled, this concession will afford an increase of R12 per month, and for mineworkers who are more than 75 per cent disabled an increase of R9.60 per month.

This concession—and this is important—affords considerable relief to the vast majority of pneumoconiosis sufferers. From a total of 6,004 mineworkers who receive pensions, 4,367 will benefit from this concession immediately or when they are placed in higher disability categories. 1,802 will benefit immediately.

The third group which was considered is those beneficiaries whose pensions are limited to the amount of the mineworker’s monthly wage. As the Act now stands, a mineworker’s pension in respect of himself and his dependants, and after his death, the pension of his dependants, may not exceed the amount of his average monthly earnings for the six months prior to certification. In many cases this six months was 20 or more years ago. This restriction results in a number of beneficiaries not receiving the maximum pension provided for by the Act. It has furthermore been decided—and provision is being made for this—that the maximum pensions will henceforth be paid in these cases as well, irrespective of the amount of the mineworker’s monthly wage.

However, I must point out and make it clear that the legal principle that compensation cannot and may not exceed the damage suffered by way of loss of earnings, is not being relinquished. This principle is being retained in the Act, but in order to solve this specific problem, discretionary powers are being given to the General Council for Pneumoconiosis Compensation to grant the maximum pensions in such cases irrespective of the amount of the mineworker’s monthly wage.

With this concession a matter is being rectified which has been discussed a great deal in this House and about which many representations have been made both to my predecessors and to me by both sides of the House. It is specifically the old mineworker who was certified years ago when wages were very low, who is hit by this provision and who has suffered heavily under it. For them, and for the dependants of such mineworkers who are deceased, this concession will bring welcome and considerable relief. I am not going to tax you with figures now, but in certain cases it has brought considerable relief.

Lastly, the position was considered of persons who simultaneously receive a pneumoconiosis pension and an old age or other social pension. The hon. member for Umbilo referred to this earlier this evening. The present arrangement is that social pensions are decreased by the amount by which the pneumoconiosis pension is increased. These increases could even result in social pensions falling away altogether in some cases. This would mean that a considerable number of persons, the majority of whom are widows, would not benefit at all by the concessions under this legislation, while others would even be worse off.

With a view to having these persons benefit by the concessions as well, the Government has decided that the increase of pneumoconiosis benefits under this Bill will not be considered as means for the purpose of social pensions. The actual number is not known—it is difficult and costly to calculate—but it is estimated that about 2,000 persons can benefit by this concession.

These concessions create additional liabilities for the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund, which, as hon. members know, consists of three separate accounts, that is, the A, B and C accounts. The C account (that is to say, the State account), is liable for the payment of compensation in all cases which were certified prior to the 1962 Act, and the A and B accounts—that is, the mines’ accounts—are liable in respect of all cases which were certified subsequent to the commencement of the 1962 Act. In 1956, however, the Government accepted the principle—and it still applies to-day—that mines cannot be burdened with additional debt arising from the retrospective increase of benefits. The Government then decided that this retrospective burden should in all fairness be borne by the State. The Government has again decided now that the State should bear the burden which will be created by the retrospective increase of benefits of beneficiaries who became entitled to benefits after 1962.

Similarly the Government decided in 1956 that it was unfair to burden existing mines with additional obligations created in respect of mines which had been closed down. The Government therefore decided that this burden should also be borne by the State.

The increase of the benefits of existing beneficiaries will place an additional burden of about R9,300,000 on the C account, that is to say, for this amount the State must accept sole liability. The abolition of the monthly wage restriction will, it is estimated, entail a further liability of about R600,000 for the C account.

This means that the total obligations which the State will have to accept in respect of the C account, is at this stage estimated at about R9,900,000—R10 million in round figures.

The mines remain liable for future certifications. It is estimated that the increase of benefits of widows and dependent children of mineworkers and Coloured labourers who are certified in future, will increase the liabilities of the A account by R 1,500,000 and the liabilities of the B account by about R150,000.

Hon. members will therefore see that the State takes by far the greatest part of the liability upon itself and that the liability of the mines is not so great that it should create any problems for them.

Another concession which appears in the Bill, relates to the granting of assistance to a child of a benefited miner in his university or college training, irrespective of his age. It will enable the child who went to university under his own steam and who experiences financial difficulties before completing his studies, to apply for assistance in order to complete his studies, irrespective of the fact that—and this is the important change—he has already reached the age of 18.

This concession is of course not as great as the trade unions requested. However, it has been explained repeatedly in this House that there are limits to the liabilities which the mining industry can carry. As you know, the State is already rendering assistance to a number of gold mines in order to prevent them from closing down. We have just passed the second reading of legislation in this connection. It would therefore be highly irresponsible to burden the mining industry with large additional liabilities and thereby to hasten the closing down of the very mines which the State is trying to maintain. I may also say that all these matters have been discussed with the mining industry; that the discussions took place in a very good spirit and that this is a joint decision on the initiative of the Government.

Apart from inflation, there are therefore also other considerations and factors which limit the amounts which can be spent on compensation. It is also necessary that a reasonable balance be maintained between the benefits payable under the. Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act. With the allowance for all these factors, I am, however, convinced that this legislation does provide welcome and considerable relief—as I have already indicated—to those beneficiaries who need relief the most, and that it reaffirms the Government’s good faith towards the mineworker and his dependants. I am sure that all of us here have a great deal of sympathy with the mineworker who is suffering from an industrial disease, and with his dependants. I think that it is unnecessary to say that this House is continually giving very sympathetic attention to that. It is, however, necessary to see the question of compensation in perspective and in relation to all the factors involved and to approach it with the necessary sense of responsibility. Under present circumstances I am therefore satisfied that these concessions are the best that can be granted. If circumstances should change further, and if inter alia there should be a considerable increase in the price of gold, the Government and I are obviously prepared to review the position and to make further adjustments and concessions as may appear necessary and are of course feasible at that stage.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will naturally assist the hon. the Minister to have this Bill passed as soon as possible. We will support the Bill, and I must say that I, particularly, am happy that those matters which have been brought up over the past 10 to 12 years by this side of the House have at long last borne fruit. I do not want to harp on this, because I think it is far more important for us to pass this legislation as soon as possible. The hon. the Minister made two statements. Firstly, I am happy to hear him say that if the price of gold does go up, the door to the further increasing of benefits and pensions to miners will not be closed. I am very pleased to hear this and I am sure that the mineworker and the pensioner will then know that there is a strong possibility of him sharing, as I said last week, in the bounty that is sure to follow. The next statement from the hon. the Minister that I was pleased to hear, was that he is at long last going to breach the barrier of the means test. I am hoping that other Ministers who deal with pensions and the like will take an example from him and also do likewise.

Order! That is not under consideration now.

I will not enlarge on it, Sir. There is one point that I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. He said that the intention was to give benefits where they are the most needed. I am sorry that he did not find it possible to be a little more generous in the benefits that he is giving to the coloured pensioners. When one works this benefit out, one sees that it hardly meets the increase in our rising cost of living. Let us take the example of the coloured labourer whose monthly earnings amounted to less than R24. A man is really in a very sorry state if he earns less than R24 per month. The widow of such a labourer will only receive an increase of 3 cents per day and for her child she will receive 2 cents per day. To get an increase of only 5 cents a day is very meagre, to put it at its best, for a family that does not have a breadwinner. If one thinks about it one realizes that 5 cents does not even buy one a cup of coffee. It is very little. I know it is proportionate to other increases, but I think that we have got to get away from this proportional attitude. People pay the same for food and clothes. We must admit that it is astounding to adhere to these proportional increases. We will have to improve the present position. If the hon. the Minister says that he does not have the funds, I will accept that. But let us get away from the idea of the proportional rise. Let us rather deal with these matters on the factual basis. For instance, if the cost of living has risen by 2 or 3 or 4 per cent, let us raise their pensions accordingly. It would then be more factual. It does seem a little niggardly when you come to work out how much these people will get per day. The hon. member sitting behind the Minister wanted to know what the total was. In respect of a widow of a labourer who earned R24 per month, the total amount per month is 85 cents. If I offered that hon. member an increase in pension of 85 cents, what would he think? He would accept it because it will be something he did not have. He would be grateful for the little bit he received. But when you put it down in black and white, what will he say? I know that the hon. the Minister is handicapped because he is adhering to percentages. If the Bantu were involved here, it would be still less for him, namely about half of this amount. I say that when one breaks this increase down, the amounts are very niggardly when taken from day to day.

There is one other matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. I am sure that he will agree with me that it is necessary to include certain words in clause 7. I am not going to move an amendment myself, but I think that if I bring this matter to the notice of the hon. the Minister, he may want to include this amendment himself. If, however, he would like me to move this amendment, I shall certainly do it during the Committee Stage. I shall then place the amendment on the Order Paper. To make this position quite clear, I shall read clause 7 (1). It reads as follows:

I am fully in favour of this provision. It is a very good provision. But I now ask the hon. the Minister to include after “a university or a college” the words “special schools”. By that I mean that there are children of deceased miners who have been left attending schools for which a fee had to be paid. A retarded child, a backward child or a cerebral palsied child would fall under this category. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to include those two words in clause 7 (1). If he does so, I shall be quite satisfied. With those remarks and observations, I should like to wish the Bill a speedy course through this House and through the Other Place. We should like to see it come into operation as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and the Government for the assistance which they are giving in this Bill to mineworkers suffering from tuberculosis and to the widows and dependents of such sufferers. We are very grateful for that. However, I just want to bring one matter to the hon. the Minister’s attention. This is the question of pneumoconiosis sufferers in the third stage. These people can no longer belong to the sick funds of the mines. This means that they themselves have to pay all their medical expenses and for their medicines. They are people who as a result of their lung disease are subject to accute bronchitis and pneumonia. This means that they have to buy antibiotics. They have to pay for medical services as well as for oxygen. This means these poor people have to spend a great deal of money. Under the Pneumoconiosis Act the Minister may provide by regulation that the Pneumoconiosis Council may pay the costs of the medical services provided to these people. I should now like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he cannot promulgate regulations accordingly. It will mean a great deal to these people, and therefore I ask the hon. the Minister to accommodate them in this regard.

I may just say to the hon. member for Geduld that we are already meeting these people halfway as far as transport is concerned. As regards the specific request made by the hon. member, I shall draw the attention of the Pneumoconiosis Council to the discretionary powers which it has in this connection to see if we cannot meet these people halfway here as well.

I shall certainly keep the question of the Coloured people, as raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville, in mind, and in the light of his strong plea here, I shall also discuss it with the Federation of Mining Trade Unions to find out what their attitude in this regard is. As far as clause 7 is concerned, I shall go into the hon. member’s proposal. I am sure that all of us are sympathetic towards his proposal. However, I shall first have to look at it. At the moment it appears to me as if it is already covered, because in terms of section 86 of the Act the Council may make provision for the education of dependent children of deceased mineworkers. If I remember rightly, the Council may make provision for education of such nature as the Council may determine with the approval of the Minister. Consequently the cases to which the hon. member referred may already be covered.

Does it cover boarding?

I shall make sure of that. The Department of Social Welfare looks after these children, even from the age of 16 years. But, as I said, I shall go into the matter to see whether a change is necessary and whether it is not perhaps already covered by section 86 of the Act.

In conclusion I want to thank hon. members for their support of this measure, a measure which will be welcomed not only by the mineworkers, but by everyone who has the welfare of our mineworkers at heart.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, this side of the House objects to the recommendation made in this case and, accordingly, we shall vote against it. Here we have certain properties, situate in the district of Pilgrim’s Rest, Transvaal, 26,424 morgen, or approximately 50,000 acres, in extent. These properties constitute forest lands and have been demarcated for that purpose in the late twenties and early thirties. Apparently these properties are situated in a scheduled area, i.e. No. 33, in the Transvaal, as defined in the first schedule to the South African Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936.

Because these properties are demarcated forest areas a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament is required for their withdrawal. This particular provision was placed in our law to prevent forest lands just being disposed of. In those days these areas were not just Crown lands, to-day termed State-owned lands, which could be dealt with without any particular difficulty—for example without having to get Parliament’s approval first. There is a statutory provision that both Houses of Parliament shall agree to the alienation of such land. Let me at this point say that we in South Africa are woefully short of natural forests. And here we have an indigenous forest area and not an area planted by exotic species. By common consent both sides of the House will agree that we are in fact very short of natural forests in South Africa and all that goes with it, e.g. protection of our water resources. Here now we have some 50,000 acres of such forest land. A few years ago the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and the Department of Forestry came together to decide upon the alienation of this land and for it to go over to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development as part of area No. 33, Transvaal. Because there was a value attached to that property, the value had to be assessed on a financial basis. And if I point out to you, Sir, that its value was assessed at R2.4 million, you will realize how important this area is. It is no small acreage nor a very small amount of money that is involved. The arrangement is that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development has to pay that amount over to the Department of Forestry and not, let me point out in passing, to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The figure of R2.4 million is an agreed figure.

In the memorandum the department placed before the Select Committee about this matter, it is stated inter alia—

Now, what are these “certain aspects” which must still be agreed upon? Because apparently there are aspects which have not yet been agreed upon. Subject to those, whatever they may be and I hope the Minister will tell us, the financial arrangements have been concluded. The fact that those arrangements have not been finalized leads to the recommendation that the Minister of Forestry shall say when the time comes for the actual dominium in the land to pass to the Bantu Trust that it cannot pass until such time as the Minister says, “I am now ready to hand over but these matters, whatever they are, and they are not specified, have not yet been agreed to and they have to be finalized”. Only when the Minister of Forestry is satisfied as regards what I call the “X” questions, the questions which are not specified, then he can say that transfer will take place. He gets his R2.4 million and the Trust gets the land. When agreement is reached the land becomes the property of the Bantu Trust and the Minister is entitled to his money. The Trust are obviously being very careful and they want to make certain before they pay over the money, they will be in a position to take transfer of the land. That is only common commercial practice, as hon. members well know. It is now being established as a principle apparently between two Government departments. Is money in fact being paid over? Is the Bantu Trust in fact paying R2.4 million? That is the price. The papers say it is being paid. Is it just a book entry? I wonder whether I can excite the curiosity of the Minister of Finance about this transaction because I take it he will be the custodian of the proceeds of this transaction, and even the Minister of Finance will not sneeze at R2.4 million. Is this money in fact being paid? I understand it will appear on the Estimates of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development next year so it will at any rate be a book entry transferring it from the Bantu Trust as income to the Department of Forestry. I should like to know whether money is in fact handed over. I should like to know what are the “X” questions which are still unsolved, unsettled, and undecided. Until they are decided, transfer of the land cannot take place and it is for the hon. the Minister of Forestry to determine when that particular moment has arrived.

It is all corn off the same cob.

Is it necessary for me to listen to that hoot from the back, Mr. Chairman? If it is not necessary, then I will not listen. The position then is this: On principle we on this side object to 50,000 acres, which is 25,000 morgen, being taken away from proclaimed forest land and added to an area which the Government proposes establishing as a self-governing, sovereign, independent Bantu state. In principle we are against it. We are against any land over which this Parliament is sovereign being taken and handed over to a sovereign Bantu parliament here in South Africa, an independent sovereign state, even for an amount as much as R2.4 million, which may in any case only be a book entry. We believe it to be absolutely wrong in principle. We consider it to be indefensible. [Interjections.] I know hon. members opposite have different ideas, but then they have a different set of principles. We on this side will not alienate our heritage, we will not diminish the land which we inherited from our forefathers. We propose to keep it under the control of this white Parliament. That is our intention. We are not prepared to sell it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, what I like about the hon. member for South Coast, is the fact that we share the same feelings as regards the love we have for the soil and the maintenance of plantations, etc. The hon. member seems to forget, however, that it was the United Party Government which, under the 1936 Act, declared certain areas as released areas, and those released areas established by proclamation at that time. The Government is developing the homelands, but the homelands cannot be self-sufficient in the field of agriculture of this land is not made available to the Bantu. The United Party reserved this land for the Bantu as a released area.

It forms part of South Africa.

Hon. members opposite say it forms part of South Africa. Were the United Party dishonest when they said in 1936 that this area would be reserved for the Bantu? If this land is being reserved for them, it has to be transferred to them sooner or later; otherwise the Bantu were deceived in 1936. Let there be no misunderstanding as far as this matter is concerned. These areas were declared released areas in 1936 and by doing so, Parliament told the world and the Bantu of South Africa that they could have those areas.

For occupation and use.

Very well. We have seen that many Bantu are flocking to those areas and these Bantu cannot make a living out of agriculture alone. Therefore, we have decided that the forest area should also be transferred to them to render them self-sufficient. This forest area, however, will not be destroyed. The Department of Forestry, as an agent of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, is going to continue developing this forest area as a unit.

What happens to your argument then?

I shall come to that. The Department of Forestry will, as an agent, afforest and develop this area further. The hon. member asked what matters remained to be finalized. The matters still to be finalized concern the long-term contracts with sawmills and the pulp factories, as well as other matters of an administrative nature. Those are the only matters which still have to be finalized. The essence of this matter is simply this. When Native representation was abolished in this Parliament in 1936, certain areas were demarcated by Parliament, and the world and the Bantu were told that those were released areas which would be occupied by the Bantu.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order 23.

I move—

Sir, we supported the second reading of this Bill. It is, of course, like all General Law Amendment Bills, mainly a committee stage Bill, and in fact, as we indicated, it is several Bills rolled into one, including a General Law Bill. It contains not one principle but perhaps at least a dozen principles. We support the third reading of this Bill for the same reasons. We have dealt with the various matters in committee; we have had enlightenment on some of the matters that we were worried about, particularly the bail clause, namely clause 39, and all the other provisions of the Bill have been approved, generally with our consent.

I wish to emphasize for the record that the support which we give this Bill at the third reading must in no way be interpreted as support for clause 36, the so-called Sobukwe clause, on which we made our attitude clear during the committee stage, nor support for the apparent inefficiency of the Minister of the Interior which necessitates the provisions in clause 62.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say again that this Bill is really an abuse of the process of a General Law Amendment Bill. The liquor provisions could have been in a different Bill. The attorneys’ provisions should have been in a different Bill and the Prisons Act provisions should have been in a different Bill. All these matters should have been before the House in separate Bills, with opportunities for debate, and they should have been placed before the House at an earlier stage. As I indicated, one expects of course, a General Law Amendment Bill to be brought at a late stage, but one does not expect matters such as the liquor provisions, the attorneys’ provisions and the prisons’ provisions to be brought before the House at a late stage because these matters generally require consultation. I express the hope that this will not again happen next year and that the General Law Amendment Bill will remain what it should be, namely, a measure for tidying up the bits and pieces of the department which are of necessity brought forward towards the end of each session.

Sir, nothing could make me vote for the third reading of this Bill any more than anything could make me vote for the second reading. I cannot help the fact that the Minister and the various other Ministers concerned have taken advantage of a General Law Amendment Bill to insert a lot of innocuous material but also to insert a clause which I find particularly repugnant and that is clause 36. I do not wish to go in for any tedious repetition; I have made my attitude quite clear at the second reading. [Interjections.] If that hon. member provokes me I will be tediously repetitious; so I would like him to keep quiet. Sir, I have made my objections perfectly clear. Nothing that has been said at the committee stage of this Bill has in any way altered my mind. We have the Minister’s opinion to go on, on the one hand, about the state of mind of the particular person who is being detained in prison for another year, now making it six years after the completion of the original sentence imposed upon him by the courts of law. The only other explanation that we have had has been the somewhat hazy recollection—I put it in the most polite manner that I can—of the hon. member for Heilbron of a private conversation which he had with Sobukwe on Robben Island. For the reasons which I have already made very clear to the House I wish to move the same amendment at the third reading that I moved at the second reading and that I have moved on all previous occasions in this House when this very repugnant clause has been before it, and that is—

Unfortunately I was unable to be present when the detention clause was discussed yesterday. I was only in time for the division. I voted in favour of the detention clause, and I feel that I should explain why I did so. Sir, in my law studies I studied, among others, the subject of English Constitutional History. What made a great impression on me was the long battle waged over the centuries until it was eventually enshrined in law that the citizen should be entitled to an opportunity to have his case heard if a charge is laid against him. When the first General Law Amendment Bill came before the House, I read it and found it disturbing that the House was to pass such legislation. But I considered the matter objectively, and I discussed it with my former colleague, the late member for Karoo, at the time. I came to the conclusion that the then Minister of Justice, who was a lawyer, and the Cabinet and the Government as such, with the information at their disposal through the agency of the Security Branch, would not bring such legislation before the House if it were not necessary. When that legislation came before the House, I abstained from voting. The following year my attitude was proved correct when the Opposition voted with the Government when the further General Law Amendment Bill was introduced, except as regards the 90 days provision. I was convinced that that legislation was necessary in the interests of the security of South Africa.

I listened attentively to the explanation given by the hon. the Minister of Justice and I found myself in complete agreement with his explanation. I sympathize with him for having had to take that decision, because if I had been in his position, I would have found it very difficult to take such a decision. But I feel that as an individual and a member of this House, I do not have the same information at my disposal as the hon. the Minister has at his disposal, and if the hon. the Minister, a man with a sense of justice and with legal training, had to take such a decision, then there must have been very good reasons for it. If we take the circumstances into account and consider what happened in the past, then it is quite clear to me, however much I pity Robert Sobukwe, that if he were to be released, then it will not take long before he is smuggled out of the country to Dar-es-Salaam to reunify the P.A.C., who are now divided, with the loud-mouthed Leballo on the one side and another lot on the other side. Although it is very difficult to take such a decision, I feel satisfied that there must be very good reasons for the Minister’s decision, and since I do not have the information which the Minister has at his disposal, I cannot tell him that he is making a mistake here, and I cannot accuse him of being a liar. I cannot tell the Government, which has certain information from the Security Branch at its disposal, that they are acting incorrectly.

I just want to reply very briefly. I want to thank the Opposition for the way in which they received this measure. It is true that it is a measure containing diverse provisions. I explained in my second-reading speech what the circumstances were. I am grateful for the way in which this measure was received in all the various stages and for the spirit in which it was debated. I also appreciate the words of the hon. member for Outeniqua. I do not find it pleasant to detain Robert Sobukwe; it is a very great responsibility. I have nothing to add to what I have already said. I have respect for the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton. I know how she feels and she is entitled to her opinion, and she is entitled to move the amendment which she did. But I want to say to her that if her amendment were to succeed and Robert Sobukwe were released, we would have a fine to-do in this country. It is an easy matter for the hon. member to move such an amendment, because she knows that her amendment will not be accepted, but if she were sitting on this side of the House, with the responsibility which the Minister of Justice has on this side of the House, she would have adopted a different attitude.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

As is customary this Bill is being introduced so as to give effect to certain budget proposals. As for the rest it deals with various other matters affecting the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Railway and Harbour Fund.

I do not consider it to be necessary to deal with each clause in detail, since the various clauses are being explained in the explanatory memorandum hon. members have before them. If an hon. member should require more information about some aspect or another, I shall do my best to furnish further particulars, or if it deals with a matter which is more specifically the responsibility of one of my colleagues, he will reply to that.

I only want to refer to clause 4. Since the powers conferred upon the custodian of Enemy Property were extended in 1965, continued attempts have been made to return the remaining funds to the rightful owners. However, considerable difficulties have been experienced in this regard, not only because no contact could be made with several former owners, who presumably still find themselves behind the Iron Curtain or perhaps at some place or another in East Germany or Poland and in respect of whom practical methods could not be found to ensure that the rightful owners will receive the assets to which they are entitled, but also because there are quite a large number of smaller accounts the former owners of which are deceased. In the latter case a drawn-out procedure has to be followed to ensure that each of the heirs, or in some cases even the heirs of the heirs, receive his rightful share. Negotiations of this sort take up a tremendous amount of time.

The total outstanding on the 18 accounts still held by the Custodian, amounts to R1,921,532. Of this amount R1,073,624 is on the Japanese account and R699,883 on the German account, whereas the balance of R 148,025 is made up of the amounts on the other 16 accounts. As regards the German assets, with the assistance of the West German authorities attempts are at present being made at tracing owners who are presumed to be living in the Russian-occupied sector of Berlin or in East Germany, whereas finality has not yet been reached in regard to the question of the disposal of the Japanese assets.

In addition to the above-mentioned balances on the various accounts, the Custodian also has funds in a reserve account and an interest account, the joint balance of which stands at more than R5 million at present. The reserve account was established to make provision for the defraying of administrative expenses incurred in regard to the control and custody of enemy property. Over the years this account has regularly been credited with a portion of the income derived from the investment of these assets. The balance of the income is being paid into the interest account.

The duties of the Custodian have decreased to such an extent that at present only a part-time Custodian has been appointed and only two officers are being employed on a full-time basis. The Government is therefore convinced that maintenance of the office of the Custodian can no longer be justified and that a further continuation of those activities in terms of the War Measures is also unnecessary.

Consequently it is now being proposed to pay over all the balances of funds held by the Custodian into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Provision is also being made for any subsequent rightful claims to be met by the Treasury Administration out of appropriated moneys. The total amount the Treasury may have to pay out in this way, may of course not be in excess of the balances reflected in each of the above-mentioned 18 accounts as at 30th June, 1968. However, it is very unlikely that all rightful owners will be found.

Since attempts at returning the remaining assets to the rightful owners have by now been made for a very long time, facilities for meeting claims cannot be expected to be provided for ever. At some stage or other they will have to be regarded as finalized. That is why we envisage maintaining these facilities for another few years in the way we propose to do now, and then to discontinue the consideration and payment of claims on a fixed date. This will be done by proclamation, and prior notice will be given of this specific date.

We agree with the hon. the Minister that this Bill is really better dealt with in the Committee Stage and we shall make whatever remarks we have during that stage. I may just say that in regard to clause 4, on which the hon. the Minister has made a statement, we agree with him. He is doing the right thing in gradually attempting to finalize the work of the Custodian of Enemy Property and to bring that account to a close. He has told us that now it is going to be handed over to the Treasury to handle and that he considers that in due course a final date must be fixed. But meanwhile the Treasury will handle it. I think that is the right way to deal with it, and as far as that clause is concerned I do not think we have any further comments to make.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage.

Clause 2:

I merely want some information on clause 2. It deals with the Bantu Education Account. In the accounts given us this year the estimated revenue, if I remember correctly, was R26.1 million, and the estimated expenditure was R33.3 million. There was a difference of R6.2 million, an estimated deficit which has to be met, and this clause deals with the manner in which that deficit can and will be met. I should like to express my thanks for the explanatory memorandum because that helps us. It gives a good deal of detail and it is strange that one should have to ask for any further information, but I cannot quite get the figures to balance. You see, Sir, it says in this explanatory memorandum that there is at present a deficit of R2,076,533. Then it is estimated that there will be a further deficit of R5.9 million. Does this mean that the deficit is the total of these two figures, i.e. R8 million? If so, I cannot quite see how this is balanced. Could the hon. the Minister perhaps give us an explanation of this?

Mr. Chairman, I find myself rather confused about the position as outlined in the explanatory memorandum. For instance, from the explanatory memorandum I note that the account reflects a deficit of R2,076,533,02. What I should like to know is how this figure has been arrived at? For some years now I have been trying to get clear in my mind the amount of Bantu taxation paid into the Bantu Education Account. As far back as 1963 I asked the then hon. Minister of Finance what amount of income and personal tax payable by Bantu persons was in arrear each year from 1956-’57…; and what amount of these arrear taxes was collected during each of these years. The answer I received was—

I then tried through the Minister of Bantu Administration to find out what the estimate was of the percentage of Bantu who had not paid their taxes and what the resultant loss to the Bantu Education Account was. The reply I received was that these figures…

Order! In what way is this connected with this clause?

My point is that whereas I have been told year after year that figures in this respect were not available, I find now that the figure is given as accurate as up to 2 cents. Consequently, I should like the Minister to tell me how he arrived at this figure. But I have yet another problem. In the current Session I addressed a question to the Minister of Police inquiring how many Bantu in the Republic, excluding the Transkei, have been sent for trial for infringements in connection with Bantu tax during each of the last five years for which figures were available. I received the staggering information that more than 733,000 Bantu had been sent for trial in this connection. The factor in which I was most interested was the amount of money which may have been collected as a result of these Bantu being sent for trial and the amount of money by which the Bantu Education Account would benefit. I therefore asked what the total amount involved was, but I was informed that statistics of this nature were not being kept. So, I find the situation extremely confusing, and I hope the Minister will be able io explain to us how the present figure has been arrived at and also whether when in future I ask questions of this nature the required information will be forthcoming.

I want to inform the hon. member for Durban (Berea) that this matter is indeed a difficult one; it is indeed difficult to be able to determine exactly what amount of taxation is in arrears. There are various approaches according to which calculations are being made. I have had access to the various methods, but to set them out here, would mean that I would have to be very technical. But I want to give all hon. members of this House the assurance that this calculation is a very difficult matter, in spite of the fact that the amount reflected here was calculated to the nearest cent. Everything depends on the system of calculation. We have acquired a computer for the Department, and this computer is now being used for these and other calculations. In addition, the collection of Bantu taxes has been undertaken on a much more intensive scale over the past few years. As hon. members know, the system of paying and collecting Bantu taxes operates on a voluntary basis, unlike in the case of the Whites where it is compulsory. Under these circumstances it is difficult to say, for instance, what the arrears for the present year are, for in addition to the taxes collected his year, there are taxes which should have been paid last year or even before that, but in general there has been a very great improvement as regards the collection of these taxes, and there has been an increase in these amounts. For instance, it is anticipated that we shall collect considerably more than R10 million in taxes this year, as against an amount of R7¾ million that was collected in the year 1965-’66. There has therefore been an improvement in the collection of taxes.

I may tell hon. members, and I hope this will meet with general approval, that the Government has recently decided that, in view of the fact that the Whites of South Africa are subject to a system of compulsory deductions in respect of taxes, the time has arrived for legislation to be prepared for imposing such an obligation on the employers of Bantu taxpayers as well. This ought to effect a further improvement as regards the payment of taxes by the Bantu, taxes which are at present being utilized exclusively for meeting expenditure in regard to education.

I hope the hon. member for Durban (Berea) will be satisfied with my explanation, although it is not quite to the nearest cent as the hon. member may perhaps have wanted it.

As regards the point raised by the hon. member for Kensington, I want to admit that there is a slight difference between the figures furnished in the explanatory memorandum and the other figure. But I can just tell the hon. member that as regards the past financial year, the deficit on the Bantu Revenue Account amounted to R2.8 million, and that it is being calculated that the deficit for the current financial year may amount to R6.2 million. That means that the deficit by 31st March, 1969, may amount to R9 million. This state of affairs must be faced. There are other matters which are receiving attention in this regard. One of these I have already mentioned, i.e. a system of compulsory tax deductions for Bantu taxpayers, something of which I hope general cognizance will be taken so that the employers and the Bantu may know what is coming. Then there is another matter in regard to which I may take the Committee into my confidence, i.e. that the Government has also decided recently that the overhead expenditure incurred in regard to administrative matters, especially as regards the officers of the Department of Bantu Education—from the Secretary down to the inspectors—who have up to now been paid out of the Bantu Education Account, will from now on be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. At this stage already it will mean a saying of considerably more than R2 million to the credit of the Bantu Education Account.

Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to hear the Minister tell us about the difficulties concerning Bantu taxation. I think the Minister will agree with me that tax which cannot be collected, brings the system in disrepute. If one cannot enforce a tax, then it means that…

Order! I think the hon. member is off the point. We are only considering the financing of a deficit, and not taxes and what they are supposed to bring in.

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw your attention to the explanatory memorandum.

Yes, but that is not under discussion. This particular clause is under discussion.

The explanatory memorandum says this.

I have allowed very wide discussions up to now.

Mr. Chairman, the explanatory memorandum says this in connection with this clause. I am discussing this clause, and I have the explanatory memorandum before me. It says:

If this clause deals with the difficulties with regard to the collection of Bantu taxes, and this provision in the clause deals with a deficit, I submit that we are entitled to discuss the question of Bantu taxes.

No, I am not prepared to allow that. This clause only provides for means to meet deficits.

Mr. Chairman, there would not be a deficit if the tax had been collected.

That is not under discussion now. That should have been raised under the Vote concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry; I do not want to argue with the Chair. We have an explanatory memorandum which deals with the very question of deficits and the collection of Bantu taxes. We have a clause dealing with that question.

There cannot be a discussion on the question of Bantu taxation now. I am not going to allow it.

What on earth is the good of an explanatory memorandum when one cannot discuss the part of the memorandum dealing with this clause?

It explains the position. It is not there for discussion. It provides the background, that is all. I cannot allow a discussion on Bantu taxation now.

So we cannot discuss the background at all?

No, I am not going to allow a discussion on Bantu taxation now. I have allowed enough latitude up to now.

I do not intend to discuss Bantu taxation. I intend to discuss the machinery for collecting the Bantu taxes to avoid a clause like this being necessary again. Surely, Mr. Chairman, that is reasonable?

I have given my ruling.

The Minister has made a statement on the matter. Can I not discuss the Minister’s statement?

No. The Minister went too far. I allowed the Minister to reply to the previous two speeches.

So I take it, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot discuss the Minister’s statement.

The hon. member cannot discuss Bantu taxation.

I cannot discuss the explanatory memorandum either. That is your ruling.

The hon. member cannot go into detail on that matter.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the explanation, as far as it has gone. It has helped to some extent. I hope there might still be an opportunity, even during this Session, to pursue the matter further.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, the Minister could enlarge a little bit on the explanation given in the memorandum as to the purpose of this clause. The memorandum says:

Could the Minister explain the position a little more fully?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to inform hon. members that the object of this clause is not to bring about drastic Changes in the administration of the State, but merely to confirm what has been the practice throughout the years. The hon. member for Constantia, who used to be a Minister, will agree with me that there are numerous matters with which a Minister has been charged and with which his chief officials deal in practice, as the officials know the policy of the Minister, and the Minister does not have the time to go into all those small matters. Especially in the case of the Minister of Finance, many Acts contain provisions that the Minister, of Finance has to be consulted by other Ministers in regard to this or that matter. Now it has become the practice over the years that officials dispose of a large number of those items. The question has now arisen whether that practice is legal, and whether the action which as been taken in regard to a matter to the minor details of which the Minister has not given his personal attention, is legal. We simply want to ensure that such actions taken by an official in accordance with the policy of the Minister, as has always happened when the Minister has not given his personal attention to the matter, are not illegal. I just want to point out that this does not mean that the Minister is delegating his powers to officials for all time. This will always be a temporary delegation which the Minister may withdraw at any time, and the final responsibility still rests with the Minister.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, here again I refer to this excellent explanatory memorandum in addition to the clause of the Bill. I am not going to discuss pension funds. This money, of course, is intended for pension funds. I am not going to discuss the “Government Pension Fund” as it is described here, because hon. members know my view, namely, that they should not be funds. It should be a non-contributory system. That is only by the way. I am not discussing it.

I would like to say that it seems that the funds have been invested at 4 per cent. Four per cent on R20 million is R800,000 per annum. That is distributed amongst the various funds. Apparently, this has been the system up to now, while the value of money in investments has been 7, 7½ and 8 per cent. One per cent of R20 million is R200,000. So, if they were to get 7 per cent, instead of R800,000 a year, these funds should be getting R1½ million namely R800,000 plus R700,000. These funds throughout this period have not been receiving the among of money they deserved to receive. Now they have the opportunity of investing money in what is called “semi-gilt-edged stocks”. I know what a gilt-edged stock is and I know the kind of stock that is called “a blue chip”. But I do not know what a “semi-gilt-edged stock” is, unless it is the kind of stock which the hon. the Deputy Minister discussed with us, when he said there were certain stocks where the Government guaranteed the interest. He was anxious to meet us on that occasion. He said that it was a case of investment in stock, such as the I.D.C. That would be regarded as one of the special guaranteed stocks. Now I should like the hon. the Minister of Finance to tell us, in the words of the popular song “How long has this been going on” that these funds have been invested at such a low rate of interest when the market rate of interest has been very much higher. These Government pension funds for civil servants have not been receiving the amount of money they should have received.

Order! I think the hon. member is out of order. The hon. member is going too far.

Sir, I think I have pursued that as far as I wished to pursue it. I should like to know what has been the policy up to now, what they intend to do in future, and how much money is still left in these funds at 4 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I may just tell the hon. member that in this clause his wishes are being complied with. It is also realized that this 4 per cent investment is too low for pension funds. This clause now facilitates the matter. Whereas it used to be provided that the moneys could only be withdrawn on 1st April…

Is this of retrospective effect?

We cannot make it of retrospective effect. After this Bill has been passed, it will be possible to redeem some of the 4 per cent stock to the amount of at least R20 million in the course of the year and not only on 1st April. This may then be invested by the Public Debt Commissioners. As the hon. member knows, an Act has been passed authorizing the Public Debt Commissioners to invest also in “semi-gilts” for example Iscor, Escom, etc. In other words, the possibility has been created for the Public Debt Commissioners as from now to invest large amounts—it need not be R20 million, it may be much more—which may become available on the redemption of 4 per cent stock in other stock, which need not be Government stock. The way has now been cleared for the pension funds to earn a higher rate of interest to a very large extent.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, the clause and the explanatory memorandum both deal with the Stabilization Account and I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether he has used any of the funds of the Stabilization Account so far. Has he transferred any portion of the Account to Loan Account, and to what extent does he intend to use the Stabilization Account funds during the coming year? There is no doubt about it that the Stabilization Account represents over-taxation of the people, and the Minister, instead of transferring it to Loan Funds, is using it as a reserve fund and putting it into the Stabilization Account to freeze it for the time being. It is just another way of putting aside the over-taxation for a while until the Minister wants to use it again. We have a very brief memorandum dealing with this clause and the next one and I should like the Minister to give us a little more information about this Stabilization Account in so far as it is affected by this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is right when he says this Stabilization Account has been created for the purpose of regulating internal monetary conditions. If we have a surplus we can invest the surplus in this Stabilization Account and keep the money there in reserve and not spend the money in order to drain away excess liquidity in the public sector. That is the idea behind it. The hon. member asked me whether I have used any of that money and what the intention is. No, none of that money has been used so far; it is still all in the Stabilization Account. According to the Act, I cannot take the money out of the Account once it is in. That is the difficulty. None of this money has been used and we have no intention of using any of that money. If we have to use that money we will have to appropriate it through Parliament. It will come into the Loan Account as an income for the Loan Account and that will be appropriated by Parliament. There is no intention at the present moment of using that money which is in the Stabilization Account. However, we must provide in the Act for the possibility that we may some day want to use that money. Then it will be appropriated by Parliament.

Is not the purpose of this section to give the Minister the power to draw this money from the Stabilization Account while Parliament is in recess?

No, it is just to create the over-all possibility of drawing from it. If we do draw we will have to come to Parliament later on for approval. But we do not intend to draw money; there is no intention on our part to make use of the Stabilization Account.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides for various matters concerning the hon. the Minister of Finance. Amongst other things, it provides for certain adjustments to the Bantu Education Account. In the memorandum certain problems are raised in connection with certain Bantu taxes. We do not want to discuss the question of Bantu taxes itself but we feel it should be avoided that a Bill of this kind has to come before us again next year. We feel the whole matter of the collection of Bantu taxes should receive consideration. The method and the administration of taxes should be investigated. We feel that steps should be taken to avoid the necessity for a similar provision in the following year. We feel it is creating an unfair burden on existing taxpayers because they pay their taxes whereas their compatriots go free. If a person does not pay taxes it means those who do, have to bear a heavier burden. Therefore I was interested to hear the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education saying during the Committee Stage that he felt persons liable for tax should be compelled to pay. With that we agree. If the payment of tax is not compulsory then the system is soon abused. Indeed, nobody likes paying taxes, and we would resent it if we were to learn that one of our colleagues did not pay tax just because he decided not to pay. Therefore I commend to the Minister of Bantu Education that consideration be given to the introduction of a tax collecting system similar to our P.A.Y.E. system for the Bantu people. In other words, tax is deducted at source. If machinery similar to that used in our Inland Revenue Department were introduced, we would get, I submit, a more effective system of collecting taxes and we will not have a similar clause before us again next year. The Department of Bantu Administration and Development will have better housekeeping, as will the Department of Bantu Education. Therefore, not only would the Bantu who do pay taxes be relieved to an extent because more of their compatriots will be paying tax but the general taxpayer of the country would be helped because he would not have to bear such a heavy burden. Therefore I say we should have a more efficient and more effective system of collecting Bantu taxes.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to reply to the questions and suggestions of the hon. member for Pinetown. As I stated during the Committee Stage a short while ago, the Cabinet quite recently decided that the time is now opportune for us to prepare legislation whereby Bantu taxes can be collected compulsorily from a stage which will be as soon as possible. We must differentiate between two matters. One matter is the payment of taxes by the Bantu and that is, of course, compulsory. Every Bantu man should pay. There are two types of tax they should pay. There is what we used to call the poll tax and then there is an additional tax. However, the collection of the tax is not compulsory as is the case with the white taxpayers in South Africa. The Government has decided that a scheme of compulsory collection should be introduced. I cannot give particulars of the scheme at this stage because they are still to be worked out. But, as I say, the decision was recently taken by the Government and I am sure hon. members opposite will welcome this development.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move the amendment as printed—

I gave the reasons for this yesterday.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Yesterday I raised the question of the wording of this clause with the hon. the Minister and he was going to go into this aspect with the legal advisers. I wonder if he has any news for us?

I had an opportunity to discuss this clause with the legal advisers, with members of my Department and with other people concerned, and it appears that if we are to retain the present wording of the section, as it stands in the principal Act, then it is impossible to insert these words in any other place. The only alternative would have been to break up the section into two subsections, but as it stands there is no problem as far as interpretation is concerned, and there is no problem as far as language is concerned because “such person” refers not to a utility company or other body; it refers to “such person” in line 57, in other words, it refers to “registered letter addressed to such person at his last known place of abode or business”. The words “such person” in the last instance refer to the same person as “such person” in the first case, and there is no difficulty as far as that is concerned. I am assured that there is no difficulty as far as the interpretation is concerned.

I accept the Minister’s explanation. He has explained that the additional words “or by letter handed to such person” apply only in the case of the person mentioned in line 57. Why not then move these words up to line 57 and say “prepaid registered letter addressed to such person or by letter handed to such person” and then leave the other on its own? I think the hon. the Minister has a point but I think perhaps the legal people do not appreciate the point, grammatically speaking. This says “or by letter handed to such person”, and these words appear after the words “in the case of a utility company or other body”, and you cannot call either of those a person. The Minister has made it obvious now that as these words do not apply to a utility company or other body, they should be put in their proper context by inserting them after “person” in line 57, in other words, before any reference to a utility company or other body.

I put that very same question to the legal advisers and they assured me that if we did that we would have to repeat the section when we come to a prepaid registered letter addressed to a utility company or other body. You would have to repeat those words afterwards if you did it the other way around. They told me that it would lengthen the already very long sentence considerably.

Clause put and agreed to.

This clause in paragraph (a) grants an increase in the bonuses payable to civil pensioners, and in the second portion of the clause, paragraph (b), the derivation of the funds out of which the additional bonus is to be paid, is clearly defined. When we look at the clause we see that the increased bonus to be paid to the civil pensioners is to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund with one exception, the exception being the Bantu teachers, who will receive this bonus from the same source from which they receive their pensions, that is to say, from the Government Non-White Employees’ Pension Fund. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this amendment to the definition of “revenue fund” in paragraph (b) (b) will have an adverse effect on the Bantu Education Account and whether it will mean that additional moneys will have to be paid out of that account, whereas in the case of the others the bonus will be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could advise the Committee why it is necessary for the bonus to be met out of the Bantu Education Account rather than out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as is the case in respect of the other racial groups.

The position is that section 47 (5) of Act 33 of 1943, a very old Act therefore, which has already been on the Statute Book for 25 years, provides that the first 5 per cent of a bonus has to be paid out of the pension fund concerned and the balance out of the revenue fund concerned. This is an old existing arrangement which we cannot change in respect of one pension fund, because then it may eventually have to be done in respect of other pension funds as well. The effect of this will be that 5 per cent will come out of the Bantu Teachers’ Pension Fund and 5 per cent out of the Bantu Education Account as far as Bantu teachers are concerned. I do not think we can discuss the position of the Bantu Education Account at this stage. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the Minister of Bantu Administration is fully aware of the problems and that the necessary attention will be given to them.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

This clause abolishes the 10-year limit in regard to the definition of a child and of a wife. I would particularly like to refer to the definition of a wife. We know that this clause amends the War Special Pensions Act of 1962 affecting the First World War persons, and a similar position exists in regard to the Second World War and subsequent wars as dealt with in clause 9. My point is that in the past a situation has arisen where an ex-volunteer has married within the 10-year time limit but his wife has predeceased him and then he has married again, but the second marriage occurred outside the 10-year time limit so that the wife did not qualify for a widow’s pension in terms of other provisions. The clause before us abolishes this 10-year time limit entirely and I would like confirmation from the hon. the Minister to the effect that as regards the position which arose before, where an ex-volunteer married for the second time outside the 10-year limit, the effect of the amendment now being moved will be to grant the second widow the same benefits as were granted to the first wife. I hope that this will obviate the difficulty which has arisen and which resulted in hardship. Therefore I would like the Minister to confirm that the clause before us will have that effect of entitling the second wife also to obtain a widow’s pension.

The answer is definitely in the affirmative.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 13:

The amendment contained in this clause, which is to insert certain words, will have the effect of altering the existing procedure whereby the dependants of a deceased ex-volunteer receive their benefits automatically. In terms of this amendment, these persons will now have to make application to receive those benefits, due to the fact that this amendment inserts the words “other than the benefits under section 7 or section 16 (3) or (5)”. Here I would like the Minister to indicate whether administratively it will be possible to advise the deceased’s dependants after his death and perhaps to forward to them the necessary forms so that these people are fully informed of their rights; because in terms of this amendment the dependants’ allowances and the wife’s allowance will no longer be paid automatically when the ex-volunteer dies and it is now necessary for the dependants to make application. I hope the Minister will take into account the effects of this clause so that these persons will be fully aware of their rights.

I shall go into the suggestion made by the hon. member and where it it is in any way possible. I shall gladly give effect to it, because I adopt the attitude that persons who are entitled to benefits must be enabled to receive them and must not go without them merely through ignorance. I am therefore in agreement with the suggestion and where it is in any way possible we shall give effect to it. But the problem which arises here is, of course, that we are not always aware of these dependants and that we do not know where they are. In cases where we do know of them, we shall take the necessary steps in order to meet them halfway.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

This is the clause I referred to during the Second Reading debate last night, which grants a 10 per cent increase to all persons receiving military pensions. The object of the clause is to grant a 10 per cent increase to the various recipients of military pensions, but my difficulty is that the granting of this increase will cause an adjustment of other pensions that these persons might be receiving. In some cases particularly widows receive a military pension there are also parents who are receiving certain allowances, where in terms of certain provisions of the War Pensions Act they are entitled to claim benefits if it is felt that their deceased sons could perhaps have contributed towards their maintenance during the latter part of their lives.

Consequently these allowances are small and when one comes to the practical application of the clause and the granting of this 10 per cent increase, it brings to mind certain cases where a person receiving a parent’s allowance of R16 a month, in terms of this clause will receive an increase of 10 per cent or R1.60 a month, but due to the fact that they are receiving an old-age pension or a social pension as well, the social pension will be reduced by R2 per month. It will then mean that in actual fact they will be slightly worse off. The result is that these persons actually do not receive an increase of 10 per cent because their existing pensions are adjusted accordingly. I hope that the Minister has had an opportunity of considering this matter. It was raised during the Second Reading debate, but unfortunately the Minister did not give an indication as to his attitude. I hope that in giving effect to this clause before us, the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to ensuring that these people will in fact receive the 10 per cent increase.

There are two matters that I want to mention in this connection. The first is that cases may indeed occur where, as a result of the calculation, a person will theoretically receive less in respect of the two pensions together. This can be put right administratively, and we shall see to it that a person will not, as a result of an increase granted in terms of this new provision, receive less by way of old-age pension or other allowances, which would then ultimately leave that person with a lesser total. We shall prevent that administratively.

The second matter is that although an improvement is effected here as far as war pensions are concerned, it may have the result that this improvement is offset by a proportional decrease in, for example, an old-age pension. Now I should mention that this can only occur in highly exceptional cases, because most war pensioners and also widows are already receiving pensions which place them beyond the scope of the means test for an old-age pension. Very few of them still fall within the scope of old-age pensions and other benefits such as family allowances, particularly because many of them no longer have dependent children. The position may of course change now as a result of the abolition of the ten-year provision. This abolition may bring about a change in this situation.

The hon. member is aware of the fact that in the case of the recent increase of penumoconiosis benefits we succeeded in introducing a new principle in that regard for the first time, i.e. that those increases will not be taken into account for the means test. This was done with the object of ensuring that the beneficiaries will receive the full benefit of the increase. I have already issued instructions to my Department to go into the possible implications if similar provisions which may have an adverse effect as far as the means test of social beneficiaries is concerned, are introduced in future in respect of other benefits. I have issued instructions for this to be investigated, because I have a very sympathetic attitude as far as this matter is concerned.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, during the second reading of this Bill I drew the Minister’s attention to the fact that I felt that special schools ough to be included under this clause together with universities and colleges. The Minister promised to investigate the position of children attending such schools and whether provision could be made for them if such provision did not already exist. Could the Minister inform us of his findings?

In the first place, I want to point out to the hon. member that the amendment he had in mind would not have been allowed by the Chair because it would have involved increased expenditure. In the second place, I want to point out to the hon. member that such an amendment would also have been unnecessary. The hon. member may have created the impression—I accept that the hon. member did not mean it in this way at all—that nothing was being done for cerebral palsied children, for example. However, the position is that the same allowance is being paid for such a child as that paid for any other independent child. As regards the training of such children and of others falling in the category which the hon. member has in mind, I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the provisions of section 86 of the principal Act, as amended by Act 50 of 1964. In terms of this section assistance may be granted to dependents of mineworkers in connection with “the provision of education of a nature determined by the Pneumoconiosis Council with the approval of the Minister”. Furthermore, I want to point out that children falling in this category, such as cerebral palsied children, are in any case cared for by the Department of Social Welfare. Such a child is, therefore, not left at the mercy of others. However, I want to investigate this matter still further, but at the same time I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that it is customary to discuss all cases where there is a possibility of increased expenditure with the Chamber of Mines, and I want to adhere to this practice. On this basis I shall investigate the matter further during the recess.

Clause put and agreed to.

When the debate on this case was adjourned last night, I was pointing out that this land had been declared a released area by the 1936 Act, and had been reserved for the Bantu as long ago as that. Now the hon. member for South Coast put certain questions to me in this connection. In the first place there is the question of the value of the land, Which was determined at R2.4 million. In this connection the hon. member asked certain questions. I want to assure the hon. member that this transaction is not a mere book entry. On the contrary, on the Loan Vote of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, provision is made for the payment of this R2.4 million to the Department of Forestry. This represents the actual cost incurred by the Department of Forestry in connection with the afforesting of that area, minus the benefits the Department of Forestry received from this in the past. The other point is that, considering the carrying capacity of this land, the area is over-populated by the Bantu—i.e. more Bantu are settled there, or go there of their own accord, than the agricultural potential of that area can carry. Consequently we have to allow the Bantu, if we want to apply our policy in a consequent manner, also to have the benefit of forestry development there. The only delaying factor which still has to be eliminated is in connection with the long-term contracts with the sawmills, the pulp factories, etc. This is all which still has to be ironed out.

In conclusion I want to give the Committee the assurance that the Department of Forestry will still have to undertake the development and the afforestation on behalf of the Bantu. After all, we know those people are not yet quite mature enough to do it themselves. Especially the hon. member for South Coast, who always tells me that a Bantu should not “kabanga”, knows that we will still have to do the work for them for a long time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a most interesting reply we had from the Deputy Minister in regard to this item. I would like to deal with one or two of the points he has made, because I must say quite frankly that I think that he has put up a very poor defence for the recommendation before us. May I say in passing that it is very interesting to notice how sensitive the Nationalist Party is in connection with criticism of this kind, where the fulfilment of their policy is concerned, where they are taking land which is particularly protected by Proclamation, requiring indeed to have a resolution of both Houses of Parliament before it can be taken away from the control of the Department of Forestry.

It was taken away by the 1936 Act.

No, it was not taken away by the 1936 Act. I shall come to that in a moment. As I say, this shows sensitivity. It was shown this morning very clearly. Perhaps the Deputy Minister listened to the S.A.B.C. broadcast this morning. The S.A.B.C. went so far as to cast reflections on you, Sir, in its report this morning. When the S.A.B.C. was giving its report from Parliament and it came to the question of this debate yesterday, in which I spoke as well as the Deputy Minister, it did not refer to any of the arguments used and the question of this land being transferred. It simply said that “then the debate became a wrangle”. I think that is a reflection on the Chair for them to broadcast that the debate became a “wrangle”. You, Sir, I am quite sure, will not permit any “wrangle” to take place. I resent such an implication in the broadcast this morning. They had nothing to say about my arguments or those of the Deputy Minister. They simply said categorically that the debate descended into a “wrangle”. That was their report as to this particular matter.

Is “wrangle” such a bad word?

I think it is a bad word when one bears in mind the dignity of this House and the proceedings which are controlled by yourself, Sir. I think it is completely wrong to say that the debate descended into a “wrangle” while the Chairman was in the Chair. Whatever the hon. the Minister may think about it, he may not think that that is reflecting on the dignity of the House. However, that does not deal with this question of the Deputy Minister’s claims in this regard. His claim is that under the 1936 Act this land became part of a scheduled area. This land did not become part of a scheduled area under the 1936 Act. The purpose of the motion before us is to make it, under the 1936 Act, part of a scheduled area. It cannot become a scheduled area while it is still proclaimed forestry land. It is still so proclaimed. It cannot cease to have that protection as forestry land in terms of the necessary legal enactment until such time as in terms of this draft resolution, the Minister of Forestry said: “This is the green light. The transfer can take place.” Only when the Minister of Forestry says the transfer can take place, can it in fact become scheduled Native area under the 1936 Act. Paragraph 4 of this memorandum says:

So the Deputy Minister, who spoke just now, in painting a picture of this land being Bantu land in terms of the 1936 Act, was painting a picture which was completely beside the fact. But he ruined his own case immediately after that, because he said: “As part of the Bantu land dealt with in the 1936 Act, the Bantu have a right to it.” That was the basis of his claim to-day. He says that it was promised to them. He says that we in the United Party accepted the 1936 Act and we promised it to them. A colleague of mine interjected and said, “Yes, but under the dominion of this Parliament”. It is not in terms of another, foreign Parliament that a new Bantu kingdom is to be established there.

We did not accept the 1936 Act in that light. It is against this that we protest to-day. We protest against this on that ground. The hon. the Deputy Minister ruined his own case by saying that the Bantu were entitled, in terms of the 1936 Act, to the use of it and that they could exploit and develop it. He then said that the Department of Forestry was going to keep control over it, in other words, they are not going to let the Bantu have it in any case.

The Department will act as their agent.

Yes, precisely, the hon. the Deputy Minister proves my point. The Department of Forestry will act as the agent for the Department of Bantu Administration. If they are going to keep that 24,000 morgen as forest land, acting as the agent of the Department of Bantu Administration, that Bantu are not going to have the right to go and settle there, take possession and occupy it in the manner in which the hon. the Deputy Minister has suggested. They will not be permitted to do it. What will in fact happen is that the Department of Forestry will, for a period, administer it, care for it and will take the proceeds of any revenue. They will then hand it over to the Department of Bantu Administration, where it will go into their general revenue vote. The Bantu people as such will not smell a penny of it and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows this. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister: “They will not see it”. This story is a fable and the issue is a perfectly straightforward one.

Your new language is worse than a wrangle.

With due respects to the hon. the Minister, I want to say that it is a very fine speech from the Opposition. The truth of the matter is that this land is not scheduled as a Native area, but it happens to be surrounded by scheduled Native areas. The Department of Forestry has agreed under whatever the conditions may be, to sell their land, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has now indicated clearly, for R2,400,000. When the hon. the Minister of Forestry decides, the transfer will take place and that will be that. The hon. the Deputy Minister did, however, not answer the question I put to him yesterday, namely why it says in the papers that the hon. the Minister of Forestry must agree to the transfer. It says that he must agree because there are “certain aspects which must still be agreed upon between the Department of Bantu Administration and the Department of Forestry”. What are those aspects? I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to paragraph 3 of the memorandum laid before the Select Committee by the department.

There is the contract with the pulp factory and the sawmill.

We want much more detail than that. Is the position then that the Minister is going to agree to the sale of the very lucrative business here, to a separate independent Bantu kingdom which is to be established, in order to make it viable? Is the Government going to turn around next and say “Look at all the border industries we have established in the Bantu areas and look at the employment we have given the Bantu”. Will the Government say that they have spent R2,400,000 in establishing these industries and giving employment to all the Bantu, when as a matter of fact the whole thing is decided in advance and everything is cut and dried. Will this only be a camouflage arrangement and is it done in this way in order to protect the Government’s ideology in regard to Bantustans? I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us more about the pulp mill and the sawmill, so that we will have it on record, before it is handed over to the Bantu and before it is looked upon as a border industry created out of this driving, dynamic force behind the new Bantustans that have been created.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want us to discuss our apartheid policy again under this motion. The fact remains, however, that this forest area is situated in the middle of, and is totally surrounded by, released areas. Secondly, it is a fact that nowhere in the vicinity of that released area, which was declared in terms of the 1936 Act, is any private land obtainable to provide that Bantu homeland with sufficient living space. Thirdly, it is also a fact that this Parliament accepts that the non-White will have no say in this Parliament. I do not want to take this point any further, except to say that when this Parliament accepted the first phase in 1936, the Bantu were told that certain areas would be released for them to obtain. At the same time a total number of morgen was laid down in that Act which was passed by this Parliament. That total number of morgen we have to purchase, wherever they may be, whether they be State-owned land or private land. This is not private land and therefore thee Minister of Forestry granted permission for this area, which is totally surrounded by a released area, to be transferred to the released area in order to enlarge the Bantu homeland concerned by so much, and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development must pay R2.4 million to the Department of Forestry for the work which has already been performed there, for the value of the trees, etc. The hon. member asked what matters still had to be finalized. I have already told him that we have a sawmill and a pulp factory there which have contracts with the Department of Forestry. Those contracts first have to be ironed out.

As the hon. member knows, if Bantu are removed from a released area to another area, compensating land has to be found for them elsewhere. We cannot find that land at any place other than this. We release areas, black spots that were released in 1936, where Whites are living in those spots. We are making those black spots white, but we have to find compensating land somewhere. Here we have compensating land which is a white spot within a black area. We are now making this area black too. This is only logical.

Hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for South Coast, are continually asking the Government, “Where are the boundaries”. They ask “Where will you determine the boundaries; why do you not do so?”. Here we are determining the boundaries in one area finally and in a practical way, and we want to transfer a white spot within a black area to the Bantu area concerned, but at the same time we want to retain the afforestation there. That is all that we are doing here, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has now contradicted himself here, and I should like to know from him whether this land is quota land or compensatory land. Which of the two is it?

Mr. Chairman, what is the difference? I said very categorically that the 1936 Act provided what amount of land was to be purchased for the Bantu. Furthermore the 1936 Act determined certain released land in the schedule. The 1936 Act already declared this land to be a released area. This gives us a white spot withing a black area. If we now, in terms of the 1936 Act, make white areas completely white, and black areas completely black, we have to deal with both compensatory land and quota land.

Recommendation put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr. Speaker, I move—

After the first reading and before the second reading the original Bill was sent to a Select Committee. The Bill now before the House represents the unanimous agreement of the Select Committee. I would like to congratulate the members of this committee on their attention to a technical matter affecting various complicated details of the forestry industry and timber growing. They have produced for this House a carefully considered measure. For the information of the House I feel I should mention that the committee consisted of the following members: Mr. W. H. Delport, Col. J. J. P. Erasmus, Mr. J. P. C. le Roux, Mr. G. F. Malan, Mr. D. E. Mitchell, Mr. A. J. Raubenheimer, Mr. H. H. Smit, Mr. W. M. Sutton and Mr. W. T. Webber. For my part I realize this Bill was a complicated matter which needed a great deal of attention and I think the Select Committee conscientiously considered the matter.

In the period since the present Forest Act was passed in 1941 the forest industry in South Africa has truly come to manhood and has truly taken its place amongst the leading industries in South Africa. Timber-growing (unlike mining which is a wasting asset) has the distinctive virtue of creating a renewable natural resources. Locally grown timber has given rise to a large number of wood-using industries which collectively play a considerable part in the economy of the country.

Some idea of the development of the timber-growing industry can be formed from the fact that when the present Act was passed in 1941 the timber plantations in State ownership comprised 177,300 morgen. To-day the figure is 275,500 morgen whilst the combined area of timber plantations in public and private ownership has more than doubled itself during this period and to-day stands at well over a million morgen.

When the present Act was passed the main interest of the private grower was the production of wattle bark and timber growing as such was mainly in the hands of the State. The 1941 Act therefore centred mainly on matters relating to the management of State forests. Apart from the need to modernize the provisions of the existing Act the phenomenal expansion of private timber growing, also necessitates the revision of certain provisions in the recognition of the role played by private enterprise in both the growing and manufacturing sectors of the forest and timber industry.

Hon. members who have studied the report of the committee on private forestry released recently, will know that a number of recommendations contained in the report can be implemented, although in modified form, under the provisions of the Bill now under consideration. There are other recommendations in the report for which the Bill does not provide, and I refer particularly to those involving the establishment of statutory bodies with executive powers to handle the affairs of the private sector. For this the Bill does not provide, because the proposals imply far-reaching effects which will have to be given further careful thought. The select committee in its second report itself stated: “Your Committee is of the opinion that before such legislation is considered the industry should first be given an opportunity of gaining experience in the running of its affairs on a voluntary basis”.

A further report, that of the interdepartmental committee which investigated the question of afforestation and water supplies, has just been released, but since the committee does not recommend legislation at this stage, the matter has not been taken up in the Bill.

It is an accepted function of the Forest Service in many western countries to maintain running surveys of the supply and demand position with regard to timber and its derivatives. This information forms the basis for the planned development of the timber industry. Forward planning in forestry is particularly essential, because of the long-term nature of the undertaking, and the need for such planning applies equally to the grower and the wood-using industry. Up to now the only source in South Africa of this type of information has been the Bureau of Statistics through its agricultural census. The development of Forestry in South Africa has now reached the stage where information obtained from this source no longer meets the requirements of the Department and the industry generally, and provision is therefore made in the Bill now before the House for legislation whereby the Department can obtain information on which to base future projections of supply and demand. The intention is to make information available to responsible and representative bodies within the private sector to the extent that it may need such information for its own purposes, but of course with due regard to the form in which the information is presented so as not to violate the principle of secrecy.

The protection of his forest estate against destructive agencies, is one of the most important aspects of a timber-grower’s management problems. Forest, plantations and mountain water catchments cover large areas of land which, in our country with its dry and hot winds, are extremely vulnerable to destruction by fire. With the increase in the country’s population the danger of fires being started accidentally, through negligence or maliciously, is greatly increased. The Bill should therefore provide more effectively for preventative and combative measures which can be taken to safeguard State and private forest property against the danger of fire. A number of the new provisions was suggested by the South African Timber Growers’ Association, the South African Wattle Growers’ Union, supported by the South African Agricultural Union. Amongst these is the provision which enables the Minister to prohibit entirely the lighting of any fire in the open within a certain area, during a period of extremely dangerous weather conditions.

While I am on the subject of fire legislation, I may mention another rather important new provision in the Bill. Under the present Act an owner is liable for damages for any action taken by him in clearing a fire-belt on the common boundary, if such action was taken in the absence of the adjoining owner. Cases have occurred where the clearing of fire-belts had to be postponed indefinitely on this account thus increasing the fire hazard unnecessarily. The Bill now provides that if the formalities of giving notice and so forth, are complied with, no such liability shall attach to the owner for damages arising out of his actions in clearing a fire-belt. Several other measures have likewise been streamlined.

Two more matters deserve special mention. One refers to the provision now made for quality control of imported timber. It has long been the accepted view that imported timber was superior in quality to locally produced timber, with the result that imported timber was selling at double the price of local timber. This increased housing costs unnecessarily and at the same time deprived local timber of its legitimate market. This provision will be used to institute compulsory grading of timber and it is to be hoped that both the timber producer and the end-user will benefit from it.

The last matter of general interest refers to the specific provision in clause 29 (1) (h) which enables the Minister to regulate outdoor recreation on forest reserves. Much of the country’s forest area is situated in very scenic surroundings but since these areas, including the very extensive mountain catchments, are managed primarily for purposes of timber production and water conservation, they cannot be handed over to other bodies for outdoor recreation development. In such cases the Department of Forestry should be enabled to undertake development of the area for more than just a single purpose. This would be in line with modern trends all over the world, of managing State-owned land for a particular purpose and then dovetailing other forms of land use with the main object. It is gratifying to learn that the degree course in forestry at Stellenbosch has now branched out to include specific training in nature conservation as well. This should ensure that the large tracts of State-owned mountain catchments in the custody of the Forest Department are managed not only for the primary object of water conservation but also to protect and preserve the natural flora and fauna for the enjoyment of ourselves and for posterity.

Mr. Speaker, I do not now propose to deal with the details of the amendments and with new clauses in the Bill. If required to do so later, I shall be happy to reply in the committee stage to any queries in respect of any clause. This Bill was sent to a select committee before the second reading and the details of all clauses were carefully studied by this committee, and the amendments now submitted represent the committee’s unanimous decision.

As the hon. the Minister has said, this Bill as it has been sent back to the House, is virtually an agreed measure by reason of the fact that all the minor points and details were ironed out in the Select Committee, and I think it is true to say that no division took place, where there was a majority and a minority opinion, throughout the whole of the deliberations; so what eventually emerged from the Select Committee and what we have before us now is a Bill which was subjected to very careful scrutiny and in respect of which there was common agreement by all the members of the Select Committee. In that regard, Sir, may I pay a fleeting compliment to the chairman of the Select Committee for his patient handling of the proceedings. It is of importance to us on this side of the House, perhaps more so than to the Government side, that Bills of this kind should go to a Select Committee before the second reading. It is important because then the principle has not been established and we are able to sit down round the table and discuss these matters with complete freedom and without the feeling that we are being limited or restricted in any way in so far as the scope of the debate is concerned. We have perhaps not gone very far afield from the provisions of the Bill as it first came before Parliament. Some very important amendments indeed have been made, but apart from tightening up some of the provisions here and there and emphasizing other aspects, the Bill that has come back to Parliament is in the main, to a very great extent, the Bill that went to the Select Committee.

I would like to deal with some of the provisions of the Bill over the widest possible field. May I commence where the hon. the Minister left off. He dealt with the multiple use of land and the fact that the State forests, built up primarily for the production of timber, were also of value from the point of view of the protection of water supplies and he mentioned that a new concept, the concept of public recreation, had recently come into consideration in connection with State forests. He dealt with the fact that there were stricter and more stringent provisions in respect of the whole question of fires—fires started deliberately, fires caused by accident, fires starting in a plantation, fires starting on neighbouring properties and so forth. All these matters are dealt with in the Bill before us. But, Sir, when you realize the implications of the recreational use of forests and you put alongside of that the question of the risks from fire, particularly in our plantations of exotic pines, then you realize that there can be a clash of interests in regard to this particular matter. The visitor, the picnicker, the holidaymaker who is spending a happy day in the plantation, is not always as careful as he should be with regard to fires, and a fire, once started, as we know to our cost in this country, can lead to fantastic damage. I have in mind the fire which they had in George about two years ago and the amount of damage that was done there.

There is always the possibility that the use of forests for recreation carries with it the concomitant risk of damage by fire. This must be guarded against and this is a responsibility which will rest fairly on the shoulders of the department. It is a responsibility which I do not envy them because I know what risks are involved. That the hon. the Minister is right in believing that the forests should be made available for the purpose of public recreation goes without question; I agree with him entirely; I think that that must be so in spite of the risk which you run. I believe that subject to the controls and the discipline that must be enforced by the officials of the department, we must throw the forests open for public recreation where it is possible to do so, and naturally every case will have to be judged on its merits. We are woefully short of land for that purpose and if the Minister through his department and his officials will exercise that control and discipline, then I am quite sure that even the provinces, who are very jealous of their rights in regard to recreational areas, game reserves, nature reserves and so forth, will be only too pleased to co-operate if they are asked to do so. I am sure that while they would not wish to butt in, they will be pleased to say, “The Minister is willing to have his forests made available for public recreation under suitable conditions and at suitable places, and we agree wholeheartily.”

Having pointed a finger at the difficulties which will face the enforcement of the necessary controls and discipline in these plantations I would like to move on to the next point. The hon. the Minister dealt with the question of statistics and referred to the fact that provision is made for the gathering of statistics by the department and that there were outside bodies who wish to have the right by Statute to collect statistics. In this respect I feel that we were all entirely at one in the Select Committee—there was no difference of opinion—that the provision in the original Bill, that the statistics should be collected by the department, was the right principle to adopt. We feel that statistics must be collected. There has been a tremendous amount of difficulty and uncertainty in the internal markets in regard to various aspects of timber production in South Africa because the vital statistics associated with the production of the various types of timber have been lacking. Sir, there are various types of timber; I am not talking about different species of trees; I am talking about types of timber, the quality of timber. We are producing en masse to-day timber which is usually referred to as either logs in the round or pulp wood, and we are producing saw logs which are being processed here in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has pointed out that there was a belief in the past that our South African-grown timber was not of the same quality as timber imported from overseas. This has been a matter of longstanding debate in this House. Year after year, during the 20-odd years that I have been a member of this House, I have heard this matter debated here.

I recall pleas put forward by members representing timber-growing interests to the Minister of Transport that the Department of Railways should utilize South African-grown timber for construction purposes in their trucks, etc. Sir, some two years ago I was able to see South African-grown timber being exported to one of our neighbouring countries. I will not mention the name because officially they have a boycott against South Africa but, boycott or no boycott, they considered our timber to be sufficiently good to buy many truck loads of South African sawn and processed timber for the construction of railway wagons in their own country. When it came to quality and price South Africa could hold its own, despite trade boycotts and political manoeuvres. That shows the level at which we are able to produce timber of high quality in South Africa, and to a great extent, as time goes on and more of our plantations become mature and produce a mature quality of timber, we will be able to meet on a better footing competition from other countries. Processing of course also plays a part, and here I want to say that we in the private sector are very appreciative of the work done on the technical side by the officers of the Department of Forestry. They have led the way throughout. Let us face it. Private forestry today, which has outgrown its parents, started because the pilot plants, the introduction of seed, sawing techniques, etc., were pioneered by the Department itself and in the process they are showing that we can produce mature timber which can hold its own against any imported timber. But it requires time. You require trees of a certain age, usually 30 years and upwards, to give you not only the size but the quality, and as more plantations reach the appropriate age, so more of that quality timber will come on to the market. That is not to say that we will ever necessarily be able to satisfy the market completely. I do not know what the future holds in regard to the importation of certain types of timber, like timber for veneers and plywoods, etc. It may still be necessary to import those timbers for quite a long time to come, but from a country which had very little natural exploitable timbers, particularly soft timbers, we have developed into a country which is in some respects leading the world, and that is not an idle boast. Apart from a thesis written recently at Stellenbosch by one of the students there for his master’s degree, the best book on our conifers in South Africa was written by an Englishman. He wrote two books and he is one of the leading authorities in the world. He was an adviser to the British Government, and in his second book he says categorically that here in South Africa in regard to our techniques for growing conifers, we are ahead of any of the Western nations, even America. And that was written by an Englishman, an expert, who came from overseas with no pre-conceived ideas about our excellence or anything of that sort, but he came here and was shown everything he wanted to see. He is a man who had made a life study of this and that is his considered opinion which he has put down in black and white in a book. So we have nothing to be ashamed of in regard to our Forestry Department, and this Bill before us will enable us to take big forward strides. What the future holds I do not know, except that I am quite satisfied in my own mind that forestry will continue to go ahead and the total acreage will increase. We come up against this very difficult problem which the Minister will have to face and also his colleagues—I mention his colleagues because earlier on this Session I said that difficulty would arise because we have a Minister of Forestry whose forests are protecting water sources, “ons waterbronne”. Our sources of water are the big catchment areas in the high mountains where there are forests. Those are in charge of the Department of Forestry, protected by (special legislation to see that that land cannot be alienated, but the moment the water is in that stream it comes under the Minister of Water Affairs, a different Department altogether with a different Minister in charge of it. The Minister of Forestry is now shouldered out of the picture. The moment the water comes into the stream it falls under the Minister of Water Affairs, and associated with it is the Minister of Agriculture, who deals with the whole question of soil and water conservation and soil erosion. Erosion of the land comes under a third Minister. and if that water is to be used for industrial purposes, then it comes under another Minister again. From what I can see from our present set-up, it comes under the Minister of Planning, but certainly the Minister of Economic Affairs is interested in it because he deals with the big industries which are establishing themselves; and the pulp industry today in South Africa is a big industry, one factory alone producing last year R19 million in hard currency for South Africa. That is big business and there are several of these industries and others are seeking to establish themselves. This overlapping between one portfolio and another requires the greatest detailed cooperation as between one Department and another, so that the basic economy of South Africa shall not suffer because of the interests of one Department overriding those of another.

As against that, there is the question of agriculture, apart from timber growing. There is the ordinary cultivator or grazier, the cattle farmer or the man who is producing crops of various kinds on an annual or a perennial

basis. He says: I do not like to see timbergrowing taking up our veld and trees being planted where we should be grazing cattle and having a lot of trees drying up areas where we should be growing maize or vegetables or fruit. So there is again a possible conflict between these different interests of departments. The hon. the Minister referred to certain reports which were made available to members of the Select Committee. It was very interesting to see some of the tables worked out to show the high production per 1,000 gallons of water when the water was used for timber production as against the low production when that same 1,000 gallons was used for the production of food crops, which again makes it more difficult. The value to the economy of South Africa was infinitely greater per 1,000 gallons of water consumed to produce timber than to produce vegetables or food crops. Those of us who go into the private sector do not do it because we like to see beautiful trees. True, we may like to see beautiful trees and it may serve as cover for the birds and the buck, etc. That is all very nice, but we must earn our bread and butter and our plate of porridge and therefore economic considerations weigh with us. So if a man has land suitable for forestry and we say to him that he must not plant trees on his land because it will have a deleterious effect on the economy of South Africa in another direction, such as water conservation or whatever the case may be, then something has to be done about that, and that is a real problem. We cannot afford to fetter the private ownership of land in that manner unless the State is going to recognize it as a national matter which requires dealing with at national level. So if lands are to be reserved under grass or for agricultural purposes, which are otherwise entirely suitable for forestry, then some compensation has to be paid to the man who would preferably use it for forestry so that he shall not be the loser when the opportunity is offered to him because of the use to which his land is being put. I want to say that from those reports it is also clear that the best vegetal cover for water conservation is grass. It is not indigenous timbers or exotic timbers, but grass, and once the grass has gone you are substituting something else which is not as good from the point of view of water conservation. It seems to me then that sooner or later someone, presumably the Minister of Planning, will come into the picture and areas will be set aside which must be protected against cultivation of certain types to allow for the conservation of those areas for water conservation. There will undoubtedly be certain areas where timber production will not be permitted because of the destruction of the water supplies in those areas. One of the points to be considered is the indirect benefits to South Africa when the water is allowed to go down our rivers and is used by big factories and industries which are themselves the market for the timber produced on the high hills, and also by our urban complexes. More and more in South Africa are we finding our water committed as the towns grow bigger and bigger. There is the possibility that within the next 30 years our population will be doubled, and then the water consumption will at least be doubled. Some of the people who are calculating it put it as high as three times because of the use of water for industrial purposes which, as I say, is terrific. May I remind you, Sir, that greater Durban at the outbreak of war in 1939, with all the added areas, with all its own factories and its businesses and with supplying water to the big convoys going up the coast, was using 20 million gallons of water a day at the end of 1939. But I have one factory in my constituency producing pulpwood which uses 20 million gallons a day. One factory is using as much in one day as the whole of greater Durban used in 1939. Now that water must come down the river if the factory is to be able to use it. We cannot destroy the upper reaches of that water, and so here again we come to the point that timber, farming in its many different contexts, stockfarming, etc., have all got to be brought together so that there is ordered development. And overall I say that timber production will increase, in my opinion, because we are selling our products overseas, such as pulp, etc., in the open market against free competition from any other country that likes to bid against us and without any help from the Government, without any hidden subsidies and no preferential treatment or tariffs. The products of our pulp factories are sold on the markets of the world and they are competing successfully against all the other countries, although our timber is grown in plantation form and costs us money while they are relying on native forests which the Almightly in His wisdom provided for them to exploit. It is a very great performance, because it is building up, and I believe it will continue to build up.

One of the matters upon which statistics will not be available to the Department, as the hon. the Minister said, is this question of the costs of production where certain techniques are used by certain factories for the production of certain products. There are certain factories which have techniques of which the underlying principles are secret; they are trade secrets which they keep very closely to themselves, and in respect of that particular type of information provision is made that the Department cannot call for that. It is a special secret of any industry which has such a special technique and in terms of ordinary commercial morality it will be allowed to keep that information to itself.

I do not want to delay the House. I merely want to say that on this side of the House one of the things in the Bill which appeals strongly to us is the further protection in regard to fires. We have raised this point in the House from time to time, and last year we were given an assurance that the matter was being dealt with. As one who last week suffered two fires in my own plantation, I want to say how much I personally appreciate, and I am sure my colleagues will appreciate, the fact that this wide coverage is now made to try to assist us in dealing with this grievous risk we run even in our private plantations. We can now come with our people and put up a good case to the Department and get our own senior employees appointed with the powers of a ranger under the Forest Act in the employ of the Government, so that our people can protect our forests with similar powers. This is something we have wanted for a long time and this Bill will give us the authority to deal with this question of the outbreak of fire and we appreciate it very much indeed. So from this side of the House we wish this Bill all the success it deserves and we believe it will be the start of a new dispensation in so far as the forest industry and all its ramifications are concerned and we will vote for it.

I want to say a few brief words. One of the factors which emerged from this Select Committee was the pressure on the available land in South Africa which is suitable for forestry. We have a very limited area in South Africa where forestry can be practised and where the rainfall is sufficient. This means that we have to be ultra efficient in our utilization of ground. I believe that this Bill is a tightening up of a process which was started when the first Forest Act was passed in 1941. We have had a chance now to survey in the Select Committee the progress that the forest industry has made and this Bill to-day, which amends the old Forest Act, provides the foundation for the future development of forestry in this country. It was a pleasure to all of us to be associated in the Select Committee on a totally non-political basis, striving for the good of the forestry industry in which we are so interested.

The matter was raised by the hon. member for South Coast of the part this Department is going to play in water conservation, and I foresee the day when the Forest Department will be called upon to build big dams in the catchment areas in our mountain regions in order to conserve and to control the flow of water; because we have to start up in the mountain areas conserving, controlling and building up stocks of water to release during the dry periods further down the river. While I am touching on this matter, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister as Minister of Tourism has given consideration to the building of dams in the forest areas which he can stock with trout, because this would prove a tremendous attraction. The dam at Highmoor, which is run by his Department in the Midlands of Natal, is a tremendous attraction to fishermen throughout the province, and I believe the hon. the Minister can well give his attention to that aspect. If he is looking to the multiple use of his forest land as far as attracting fishermen to those areas is concerned, I can guarantee him the interest of a very considerable number of people in Natal. I do not think this Bill settles all the problems of the forest industry, but obviously we are facing economic problems. They are problems of the relationship between growers and manufacturers.

You mean they are millers’ problems.

It may well be. But the relationship between the growers and the department I want to say is of the best. I believe this is of the utmost importance, because the growers look to the department for protection in so many different ways. This emphasizes the vital status that the private grower has in this industry. This is a sociological problem. To my mind the private grower is of the utmost importance. I have no hesitation in claiming on behalf of the private grower from the Minister protection in every way he can give it, to retain the private grower as a private farmer, producing timber for the South African market. The power that the Minister has now taken to provide statistics is of the utmost importance. Because only on those statistics can any kind of forward planning be made. It is essential that the department should make an early effort to obtain results in order to get a realistic projection of the needs of the industry, to put the planning of the industry on a sound basis. The true position as to the supply of all species of timber is something of the utmost importance. I believe that the Minister and his department, when they have the facts at their disposal, will be able to come forward with a plan of assistance to make possible the wood lot system of timber cultivation where the private farmer will afforest those areas of his ground which perhaps are suitable for forestry but unsuitable for agriculture. This will have a two-fold effect which I believe is of the utmost importance. It will, as the hon. member for South Coast said when he raised the matters of the agricultural production of the farmers’ ground, maintain agricultural production. This is something of the utmost importance, because these are the well watered areas of our country where drought is fortunately a seldom occurring disaster. It is something we do not experience often. To maintain those areas which are suitable for agricultural production I think is important. This Minister, with the statistics he will have at his disposal, will be able to play a considerable part in that process as well as preventing the wholesale afforestation of ground which takes place when large companies buy up farms for their own purposes to guarantee their own supplies in future. I think it is of the utmost importance that the Minister in this way can do a great deal to preserve the catchment areas of our rivers by allowing the farmers to plant selected areas of their farms, rather than have the wholesale afforestation of very large tracts of country. I think that the Minister with the statistics at his disposal will be able to assist farmers in that way.

The last point I wish to make, is the following. The hon. member for South Coast mentioned fires. I think this Bill is something which the timber growers as a whole will look upon as a charter, because it has freed us now from many of the restrictions under which we laboured before. The Minister mentioned the provision whereby a man may now proceed upon his own to clear a fire-break without the risk of damages, provided he is not negligent, hanging over his head. This means that a thoughtful man, one who is prepared to take active steps to protect himself from fire, can go ahead and do it, without being held up by a neighbour who perhaps may not be co-operative. The point that I wish to make is that I hope the Minister is prepared to back up the farmers against Government departments who may be their neighbours. As regards the provision in the Bill which relates to the farmer being able to require the Roads Department, for instance, to assist and to co-operate in the burning of fire-breaks, the farmers regard this with the utmost gratitude. But I wonder how the Provincial Roads Departments are going to react, as well as the hon. the Minister of Transport in certain instances as far as railways are concerned. We look to the Minister, I tell him frankly, to see to it that the provisions which are in the Bill as it has come from the Select Committee, are going to be enforced. We are confident that he will do so.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for South Coast in complimenting the chairman of the Select Committee on the manner in which affairs were conducted on that Select Committee. As I said at the beginning, the big factor was that every member of the Select Committee was interested in the work that he had to do. Many of them had a full knowledge of forestry and each one of them contributed towards this Bill which is now before the House. With regard to the points raised by the hon. members for South Coast and Mooi River, I would like to say that I talked to various members of the Select Committee and they have kept me advised about their views. I am conversant with many of these matters, some of which are policy matters and almost outside the scope of this Bill, like the matters of private afforestation and water catchment areas.

I am aware of the problems associated with all these matters. I do not want to hold up the House for any length of time, but when it came to the quality control of timber, the whole basis was to break down the prejudice which was applied to South African timber on the grounds that imported timber was so much better. We were, therefore, prepared to put forward compulsory standards for South African timber, which were equal to imported timber, and in some cases better, so that no longer could there be this attitude that South African timber is not of good quality and that imported timber has to be used. I can assure the hon. member that I am convinced that this regulation which was passed with regard to quality control will have the effect of bringing South African constructional timber into its own.

I noted what the hon. member said regarding the management of the coniferous plantations and also the book he mentioned about coniferous trees written by a Mr. Hiley. I will make a point of reading this book during the recess. When it comes to these outside forest areas for recreational purposes I want to indicate what my attitude was. Although I also appealed to private foresters to open up their plantations, I realize that the State must first show its hand and must in a way help to educate the people against starting forest fires once they were allowed the benefit of going into these reserves. To a large extent the experiments will be undertaken in mountainous areas where there are no plantations, but even in plantations tourist amenities are being expanded.

Tokai plantation is an example of this. All of these arrangements will be under strict control and the behaviour of the people will have to be strictly supervised. They themselves must appreciate the opportunity that is given to them and must see to it that they are in no way negligent and perhaps by their actions create forest fires. I have seen the destruction caused by fires and I am satisfied that it must be the greatest catastrophe that can ever happen to a forester. There is no stopping many of these fires once they have started. This is all I have to say at this stage and I hope that I have answered most of the questions put to me.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Firstly, this Bill provides for the continuation of War Measure No. 146 of 1942, the currency of which expires on 30th June. Secondly, it provides for the termination of certain other war measures which were administered up to now by the Department of Finance and the Department of Labour, and which we no longer require under the circumstances.

Hon. members are aware that certain items of War Measure No. 146 of 1942, to which I referred, are administered by the Department of Commerce and Industries and that they relate to domestic commodity control and the Foreign Acquisitions Fund. The House will also be aware that circumstances exist which make it necessary for us to continue with this. We are no longer so sure that we can obtain all the supplies which we may need from time to time in the future and therefore it is necessary to make South Africa self-sufficient and economically prepared by making the necessary provision for strategic supplies which we need. You are also aware that a Bill called the National Supplies Procurement Bill was recently introduced in this House. This measure in fact made provision for the provisions of the war measures to be incorporated in permanent legislation.

This was done with certain adjustments and deletions where necessary, but owing to circumstances and the long discussion which it would probably have evoked, it was decided to withdraw that Bill and to continue with the war measures and their extension in the meantime. That is why we are coming to the House with this Bill to-day.

Furthermore, clause 2 makes provision for the termination of items 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the schedule referred to. Items 1, 2 and 6 deal with enemy property, the appointment and powers of the Custodian of Enemy Property, which property as I have said, is administered by the Department of Finance. That Department indicated that it was no longer necessary to continue with that and therefore these three items are now being deleted. The other item which is being deleted in terms of clause 2, namely item 3, deals with cost of living, which has been administered by the Department of Labour up to now, and that Department also indicated that it was no longer necessary for that war measure to be continued.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the provisions of this short Bill require no further explanation.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this Bill. Clause 2 continues the process of eliminating the remaining proclamations under the War Measures Act which are no longer necessary and I think it only leaves two provisions. One of them deals with procurement of supplies. We do not think these proclamations should continue longer than is necessary, but it is unfortunate that, as things have developed, it has been necessary, and we agree that it has been necessary, to retain so many of them for so long. When the Government asks for the continuation of a particular War Measure, as it is doing now, for a particular reason, we are quite prepared to agree to it, if we are satisfied it is indeed necessary.

This Bill asks for the extension of particular measures contained in the Act for a further three years. Are we to take it that it is the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to continue to act in terms of this Bill for the next three years?

No.

Well, then I think he is building up false hopes as far as we are concerned. I do not know why the Deputy Minister is asking for a continuation for three years if he intends to bring forward the Bill which he withdrew earlier on in the Session, next year. I hope he does not think that because we agreed with this Bill, which deals with the matter in a way which we think it should be dealt with we will also agree with the Bill which he proposes to introduce next year in substitution of the one we are now agreeing to. I am warning him in advance that we will probably have great objection to it. That does not mean that as long as the Government requires these powers from time to time we shall not be prepared to extend them, as long as the Government comes back to us from time to time and satisfies us that these powers are necessary. With those words we agree to the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to reply to the point raised here by the hon. member for Constantia. Although we are now asking for an extension of three years for the war measures, it does not mean that we will not come forward with the Bill which was introduced earlier this year. It is our intention to introduce it early next year. That is my reply to that point. In addition I just want to say that I am no so optimistic as to think that the Opposition will be so sensible as to agree with us about a good measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure makes provision for increasing the rebate which is allowed on estate duty, with regard to the basic rebate, as well as to the rebate in respect of married persons, when a deceased person leaves behind a husband or a wife. The increase in both cases is from R20,000 to R25,000. It is interesting to note how the increase in the rebate on estate duty has increased during the past few years. In 1955 the rebate in respect of a married man with two children, or a married woman with two children, was R38,000. In 1957 it was increased to R60,000. In 1964 it was increased once more to R65,000. Now, in this Bill, we are making provision for a further increase in the rebate of R5,000, both with regard to the basic rebate, and also in the case of a married person who dies. There is thus a further increase of R10,000, which brings the total to R75,000 in the case of a married person with two children. If it is borne in mind that the proceeds of an insurance policy and an investment in Government securities up to an amount of R25,000 is tax-free, it means that the assets of the estate of a married person with two children will have to exceed R 100,000 before liability for taxation will arise. This is all this measure is making provision for, and I therefore move.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill if for no other reason than that it is a step in the right direction. Our view is well-known. We think that estate duty should be abolished. We should like to see this figure much higher, but the Minister is making progress. He has gone from R20,000 to R35,000. We hope that in the near future he will have a change of heart and be realistic, and realize that this is a young country and a developing country, and that if we had better allowances, it would encourage people from overseas to invest in this country and settle here.

In your time there was no estate at all!

I am surprised at the Prime Minister’s ignorance. He forgets that in our time we lent Britain R160 million. I am surprised at the Prime Minister. His memory is going.

It has gone.

When the Prime Minister enters a debate, he must be sure of his facts. I know that he has many troubles on his shoulders and I know that they are embarrassing him.

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

Sir, the Prime Minister interrupted me. As I have said, we support this Bill, if for no other reason than that it is a step in the right direction. We hope that the Minister will improve the position next year still further.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since I have made a detailed explanatory memorandum on the various provisions of the measure available to hon. members, I do not deem it necessary to discuss each clause. The Bill embodies the tax proposals in regard to income-tax, and makes provisions for various concessions which are set out in the memorandum.

I want to dwell on a few of the provisions only. Hon. members will have noted that a further definition, i.e. that of an “assisted gold mine” has been inserted by clause 5, with supplementary amendments inserted by clauses 8 (1) (e), 13, 14 and 16. These amendments arise out of the Assistance to Gold Mines Act, 1968.

The other provision I want to refer to, deals with the inclusion of soil conservation costs which are incurred by lessors of farms on which farming activities are being practised. Because lessors are not farmers, they do not qualify for the deduction of such expenses from their income from rentals. It has been decided, upon the request of organized agriculture, and because the Government attaches great value to the fact that everything possible must be done to conserve our soil, to grant these concessions. The amount incurred in respect of each assessment year, will be restricted, for the purposes of deduction, to the amount of the rentals received, but provision is being made to carry over the excess to any subsequent assessment year. In doing so the possibility of setting off the excess against income from any other source is being obviated.

The amendments in regard to contributions to retirement annuity funds are being introduced with a view to eliminating malpractices. As hon. members know, even self-employed persons, as members of such funds, are able by means of their contributions, to a maximum of R2,000 a year, to provide for themselves a pension in order to meet their needs in their old age. For the contributions to be a deduction, the member must be in receipt of an income from a business. If follows from this that retired persons who obtain their income from dividends or interest, are not taken into account for this deduction. To circumvent this statutory provision, certain retired persons arrange their affairs in such a way that they are in receipt of business income, no matter how small, in order to receive the benefit of a deduction against their taxable income which consists of income other than business income. In this away they receive a concession which it was never the intention to grant to them and they are being benefited in comparison to other retired persons. The amendment closes this loophole in that a deduction of contributions which exceeds the working income in any year will in future not be deductible. The excess is carried over to the ensuing assessment year. I do not want to elaborate any further on this Bill, and I therefore move that it be read a second time.

Sir, we support the second reading of this Bill. Most of our objections have been raised in Committee of Ways and Means, but for the sake of the record we want to make it quite clear that there are still many anomalies in the Income Tax Act which we would like to see eliminated. Many of these matters are now being considered by a special committee appointed by the Minister of Finance to deal with these anomalies, many of which have been raised by us from time to time. I do not need to go into detail on the question of the bulge, the inequities in so far as married women are concerned, the necessity for having a more realistic approach with regard to allowances for children and allowances for women who work. These and many other matters which have been raised by members on this side of the House, have been brought to the attention of the Minister over the last two or three years. We hope that before the next session the Commission’s report will be available to this House and that it will have given consideration to many of the matters raised by us. Subject to these remarks we support the second reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the basic provisions of our stamp duties law have, through the medium of the Stamp Duties and Fees Act of 1911 and the Stamp Duties Act of 1962, been in existence for many years. The need for modernization has been apparent for some time, not only in regard to the provisions of the present Act, but also in regard to the rates of duty, many of which have been unaltered since 1911.

The Bill was drawn up after various bodies, such as professional associations, had been invited to submit their views as to the improvements that should be made, and was published in the Government Gazette on the 10th April this year, so as to enable members of the general public to comment thereon. The comments and representations received have been very carefully considered and a number of changes have been made. Hon. members will recollect the changes in the rates applicable to various instruments which have already been considered by the House in Committee of Ways and Means, I will, therefore, confine my remarks to some of the general features of the Bill.

Although the Bill is based on the present Stamp Duties Act, a number of the provisions of that Act which have become superfluous or unnecessary, have been omitted from the Bill, and many of the provisions that have been retained have been considerably modified. In addition the various provisions have been rearranged in a more convenient and logical order.

Stamp duties will, with some exceptions, continue to be denoted by means of revenue stamps. Careful consideration has, however, been given to representations that the duty on various instruments be collected on declaration rather than by means of stamps. It will be appreciated that one of the chief virtues of a stamp duty is the fact that the amount due on each instrument is easily ascertainable by the parties concerned and does not require the complicated administrative machinery that is necessary as, for instance, in the case of income tax. Where an exception is made and the duty is collected on declaration, this adds to the administrative burden of the Department. The exceptions that have been made have been confined to cases where the persons liable for the duty are few in number and the duty itself is simply calculated and easily verified. In this regard I would like to draw attention to clause 24 of the Bill, in terms of which the duty on certain insurance policies, including, inter alia, accident, householders and comprehensive motor policies, will be payable on declaration and not by means of stamps.

The general rules for stamping instruments and defacing the stamps thereon are in many respects similar to those in the present Act. A number of important changes have, however, been made. For instance, under the present Act, an instrument which is not stamped within seven days after its execution must be stamped in the presence of an authorized revenue officer. In terms of clause 8 of the Bill this period is extended to 21 days.

Particular mention may be made of promissory notes. The time allowed under the present Act for stamping a promissory note is 42 days, failing which a penalty is incurred. In terms of the Bill promissory notes must be stamped within the time allowed for stamping other instruments, namely 21 days, failing which the ordinary penalty applicable to instruments in general, is incurred. It must, however, be emphasized that in terms of the Bill the stamps on a promissory note may be defaced only by an authorized revenue officer or a banker to whom the note is presented in the ordinary course of business.

I may mention that, in terms of clause 4, an exemption has been provided in the case of instruments executed by local authorities or by ecclesiastical, charitable or educational institutions of a public character and also that, in terms of clause 32, the Secretary for Inland Revenue will have wider powers to make refunds than is at present the case.

I trust that hon. members will agree that the Bill is an improvement on the present Act. I have given a few examples, but it will be seen from the Bill that many more changes have been made. These are dealt with in the explanatory memorandum that has been tabled.

Sir, there is little doubt that the Stamp Duties Act was due for revision. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has told the House, we have been working on an original Act dated 1911 and subsequently amended in 1962. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that he has modernized the Bill and this is quite true, but at the same time, as we pointed out when the House was in Committee of Ways and Means, in modernizing it, he has made it more expensive for everybody. But as the House has accepted these provisions in Committee of Ways and Means there is little point in discussing the matter further at this stage. We will, therefore, support the Bill, and I think we should place on record our appreciation of the fact, first of all, that the Minister published the Bill for general information and, secondly, provided us with an explanatory memorandum. I think it does only good when Bills of this nature are published beforehand so that the public has an opportunity of presenting their views. Of course, I am not at all certain that the views of the public are represented in the Bill in this case. As there is a general all-round increase in stamp duties, I think one can go so far as to say that the Bill represents the exact opposite of the views of those who made representations.

When we come to the Bill itself, the Deputy Minister has correctly pointed out that there has been a change in the periods within which documents must be stamped without incurring a penalty. What used to be seven days has been increased to 21 days, and in the case of promissory notes, what used to be 42 days has been brought down to 21 days. We have no objection to this, but I do hope that the Press, which has been so helpful in so many things as far as the public is concerned, will give publicity to the fact that bills of exchange or promissory notes will, as from the 1st October, have to be stamped within 21 days otherwise a penalty will be incurred. Then we come to the penalty clause and here again we are not at one with the hon. the Deputy Minister. Here again he has raised his rates. In terms of the 1962 Act, if a document was not correctly stamped within three months, you paid by way of penalty a sum equal to half the unpaid duty; if more than three months but within six months after the date laid down, then a penalty equal to the unpaid duty; if it was unstamped for more than six months but within 12 months after the requisite date then a penalty equal to twice the unpaid duty, and where more than 12 months, a sum equal to three times the unpaid duty. The hon. the Minister seems to be taking short-cuts all over the place, but the ultimate result is that the public pays more. He has now eliminated the three months’ period and has six months as his first period, and instead of the penalty being, for three months, a sum equal to half the unpaid duty and for six months, a sum equal to the unpaid duty, he now provides for a penalty equivalent to twice the unpaid duty. Previously where the stamping of a document was in arrear for 12 months, the penalty was three times the unpaid duty and that position is maintained. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister owes the House an explanation as to why has has increased these rates of penalties.

Sir, there is another new facet to this Bill, and that is in respect of agreements of lease and receipts in the case of fixed deposits. Where a definite period is not known, the Act specifies a definite period. I have no objection to this except for one point. In the case of a fixed deposit, if the deposit is fixed for 12 months and continues indefinitely unless notice is given, in terms of the Bill stamp duty has to be paid for an additional 12 months. This can mean that if I deposit for 12 months and give notice, at the end of 12 months I still have to pay for two years. In other words, if the deposit is only there for a period of 12 months, I have to pay stamp duty on the basis of 24 months.

The same provision applies in regard to leases where an indefinite lease, for example, is construed as a lease for two years. But there is one very important difference in the rules for these two classes of transactions, because in the case of a lease you can obtain a refund of duty provided you can show that your lease terminated prior to the date that you had paid stamp duty in respect of. You can get a refund in terms of clause 22 (8), but there is no similar provision regarding fixed deposits and I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would perhaps give consideration to that aspect, and whether the same procedure should not apply to fixed deposits. In other words, if you are forced, as you are in terms of the law now, to pay stamp duties on a fixed deposit which requires notice on the basis of 24 months and you in fact call up that deposit before the expiry of the 24 months, you should be entitled to a refund in exactly the same way as in the case of a lease.

We are glad to see that the hon. the Minister has extended the provisions whereby refunds of duty are made available. I think this will be helpful to a great number of people and we welcome it. With those comments, having lost the battle in the Committee of Ways and Means, we will support the Bill.

The hon. member for Parktown raised a few points to which I should like to reply. He referred, in the first place, to promissory notes which in the past had to be stamped within 42 days, while a shorter period was allowed in respect of other documents. This is not a question that he asked, but I think it is an interesting point. One wonders why 42 days were allowed for promissory notes and not for other documents. I asked myself this question and tried to obtain information. It would appear as though it was the idea at the time that a promissory note might be signed at some remote place in a rural area and that the farmer could not come to town within a particular period of time because of the slow methods of transport. Therefore it was necessary to allow as long a period as 42 days within which it had to be stamped. Now, under modern circumstances, we are putting it on a par with all other documents.

The hon. member said that while modernizing the Act, we were at the same time taking more, and he referred to the penalties in particular. He said he expected me to explain why I had divided the penalty into two portions, making the penalty equal to twice the stamp duty for a period within six months, and thrice that amount after six months. Then he used the argument that it had only been once the stamp duty. We are in fact making a concession in regard to the stamping of documents. In the first place this concession consists of allowing more time for the stamping of documents, but in the second place, while we are modernizing, and whereas we had four columns in the penalty provisions in the past, we only have two now, and it goes without saying that we must meet one another somewhere in between. Therefore we felt it would be fair and just that in cases where the document is stamped within six months, which the hon. member will agree is a very long time, the penalty will be twice the amount and after that only thrice the amount.

The hon. member also referred to leases and fixed deposits. He did not comment very much on the stamp duties on contracts of lease, but I think we have in fact introduced a very great improvement in this regard. As matters were, the question of stamp duty on contracts of lease was extremely complicated and it was very difficult to determine exactly what the stamp duty had to be. We have really modernized the matter now, as the hon. member will agree. As regards fixed deposits, the hon. member asked us to look into the matter. We can discuss that again during the Committee stage. We shall not take the Committee stage to-day, and in the meantime I can pay attention to the matter and decide subsequently whether I agree with the hon. member or not.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

In line 21, after “and” where it occurs for the first time, to insert “whether or not any such demand is made,”.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill, as it comes from a Select Committee of this House, breaks new ground. Formerly we had the Usury Act which fixed the rate of interest and over many years there have been efforts on the part of those who wished to circumvent the provisions of the Usury Act in order to introduce other charges. Now, this Bill covers all charges and it breaks new ground, as I said, in that it is an experiment. The Minister appointed a responsible committee to go into the matter, which did good work and gave an exhaustive report, which was a useful basis for discussion. It shows the advisability of sending a Bill of this kind to a Select Committee. We made representations to the Minister and suggested to him that the Bill should go to a Select Committee after Second Reading so that we could hear further representations. I think the Minister will agree with us that our representations were based on good grounds and were fully justified. I should like to take this opportunity of complimenting the Chairman of the Select Committee for the way he handled the evidence and handled the Committee as a whole. It was obvious that in certain of the discussions of the Committee there were very strong opinions one way or another, but the Chairman of the Committee by his handling of the matter was successful in getting a unanimous report, and it is an agreed measure which came back to this House. I think we cannot say that this is the final word. There are certain pressure groups who want a higher rate of interest or higher finance charges, and on the other hand there are certain pressure groups who want lower rates of interest, and it was a difficult task for the Select Committee to reconcile these differences.

We must remember that we are essentially here to protect the ordinary man who cannot protect himself. The businessman and the highly qualified professional man can look after themselves, but the ordinary man cannot protect himself and we have to protect him. We also realize that if we made the interest too low, then the very funds which could become available to the ordinary man to help him in his difficulties would not become available. On the other hand, if we made the finance charges too high, the ordinary man would be faced by charges which he could not reasonably bear. We also appreciate that there were certain bodies of opinion who wanted us to protect certain classes of industry, and we realized that it was inadvisable to, shall we say, protect the second-hand motor-car dealers or the second-hand furniture dealers for various reasons I need not go into now. But I have no doubt that when this Act comes into operation there will be certain pressure groups who would like certain alterations, and the Minister over the next year or two will find by experience that it may be necessary to amend it. If such amendments have to be made and they are justified, we shall support them, but they should not be argued across the floor of the House, but preferably before a Select Committee because I think matters of this kind are better dealt with by a Select Committee. I think we have learnt by experience that if more matters were sent to a Select Committee after Second Reading it would save the time of all members of this House. We would get down to the real issue of our differences, and if we have a good Chairman on the Select Committee, like the one we had on the last Committee, who can reconcile our differences, we can come forward with an agreed measure.

We commend this Bill which is now at its Third Reading Stage, but at the same time we make the reservation that it may be subject to further amendment in the light of further experience. But we have done the best we can in the light of the evidence before us.

I should just like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Pinetown for the friendly words he uttered. I also want to say that I have appreciation for the actions of the other members of the Select Committee and particularly for the attitude adopted by the Opposition. Without that attitude it would not have been possible for us to reach unanimity, and I want to thank hon. members, as well as the Opposition, for their contribution. As a result I honestly think we have a good piece of legislation before the House to-day. As the hon. member for Pinetown said, this is now ground we are breaking. We have remarked from the evidence we received in the report of the Franszen Committee that most countries in the world to-day are giving attention to this problem, i.e. the problem of protecting consumers where they make use of credit. But it has only been during the past year or so that all these countries have turned their attention to similar legislation. I am thinking for example of a country like America which passed legislation which will only come into operation in July of next year. The Franszen Committee, and our committee as well, had no well-tried piece of legislation from any part of the world before us, and consequently the hon. member is correct when he states that we are breaking entirely new ground. We shall have to find our own way, and personally I agree with him when he states that we will probably find that we will have to amend this legislation once or twice. Nevertheless I am absolutely convinced that we are on the right road. The aim of the legislation in the first instance is, as he said and as we have also said, to protect the public when they avail themselves of credit. The old Usury Act of 1926 protected the public in respect of the charging of interest on financial loans. In any case there was a good deal of doubt as to whether the provisions of the old Usury Act also included protection in respect of additional levies and charges which can be made but which do not comprise interest. But in practice it turned out that additional levies and charges were in fact being made, and in this way the provisions of the old Usury Act were being in all good faith, circumvented. This legislation does not confine itself to financial loans only, not only to credit which arises as a result of financial loans; it also deals with credit which arises as a result of business transactions for the purchase of movable property for personal, domestic and farming purposes. This Bill now stipulates that a maximum percentage can be charged by persons who provide credit, whether they are money lenders or other credit grantors.

I should like to say that this rate of interest are all inclusive. I want hon. members, when they return to their constituencies, to tell their voters: “Look, these rates include everything, except a few items which are mentioned in the Act, such as stamp duties, certain payments which can be made, tax charges and other fiscal levies, licence fees, and that sort of thing. All levies which can be made and which formerly were additional charges, can, under this legislation, no longer be made to-day.” The rates of finance charges which we are discussing here, are all-inclusive rates, and what is more, they are maximum rates.

In addition I should like to state this matter to hon. member as follows. These are not fixed rates; as we say in English, they are not a “flat rate”. This is a rate which will be converted according to tables which will be supplied, and if one adds a percentage according to the addition method, or subtracts a percentage according to the discount method, it will still not be 18, 15 or 12 per cent. The rates indicated here are the maximum nominal, or call it effective rates, the total remuneration which the credit grantor will obtain for his money or for his goods. When one speaks of a rate of 18 per cent, therefore, it will mean that if one borrows R100 from a person, he will be able to add R9.75 in accordance with the addition method; and R 109.75 divided by 12, will comprise the monthly payments. One will not add R18. When one has a single payment, then the creditor, at the end of the period, will be able to add R18, but when he receives regular payments, as the measure states here over a period of, say, 12 months, then the actual addition rate will be approximately a half of that. The effective rate in the long run will be R18, and that will include all charges which he can levy.

I should just like to point out that in regard to business transactions, which for our purposes are specifically hire purchase transactions, we have not drawn a distinction between a large and a small transaction. We have drawn no distinction between a person who buys on a large scale, so that he can buy at a cheaper rate, and the person who buys for smaller amounts, so that he must buy at a more expensive rate. We have recommended one rate only, namely 18 per cent. Our argument was of course that the profits on trade articles are reasonably large, and that the trader will in any case see to it that he gets his money and his income. It is not the same with money loans. A money loan is a fixed amount. There we have in fact recommended higher rates for small amounts and lower rates for large amounts, because the expenses of the loan, from the collection of the loan, and from the provision of guarantors and everything else, is of course larger per unit in regard to a smaller loan than it is in regard to a larger one.

Another point I should just like to mention before I resume my seat is that we want to protect the public, and for this purpose the rates must be published. When someone negotiates a money loan or the purchase of movable property with a view to, as I have said, personal domestic or farming purposes, then in terms of this measure he has the right to request that all costs regarding the transaction be disclosed and explained to him fully. He has the right to request this. The Bill does not impose the obligation upon the credit grantor to disclose these costs during a negotiation, but we can inform the people and tell them that they have the right to request a full statement of the costs of a transaction, whether it is a money transaction or a purchase transaction such as a hire purchase agreement. When the instrument of debt is in fact entered into, then this measure provides, and it is one of the amendments in which the hon. Minister has inserted by means of clause 3, that it will be incumbent upon the financial institution or upon the dealer to disclose these costs of the transaction to the purchaser or to the money-lender on the instrument of debt. Another safeguard for the public, is that for the first time now this entire matter is being placed in charge of the office of the Director of Financial Institutions. There is a clause here which provides that he is granted powers of inspection over the whole field covered by this Bill, and consequently I think we can accept that the financial institutions and the business world will abide by the provisions of this Bill.

If there have been any black sheep amongst them, and where in the world does one not find black sheep, there will in any case be a curb on their activities in future. I want to state therefore that I think this is a very good piece of legislation; I think it is a step in the right direction; and I think that to a large extent it is going to protect the ordinary man in South Africa. I think that if we go and calculate the rates laid down here, we will find that the utilizer of credit will be much better off in future than has been the case in the past. That is why I am pleased that we have been able to achieve this so unanimously, and convey it to the people outside.

Mr. Chairman, there are two very pleasing features in this Bill from the point of view of the ordinary man. The first is that it embodies, as was said by the hon. member who has just sat down and also by the hon. member for Pinetown, the principle of truth in lending, because the lender must now tell the whole truth to the borrower, and nothing but the truth. The second is it eliminates from all agreements under this measure all small print, that little note in small print which you suddenly find when you have a claim or when you are in difficulty. Such small print is not permitted under this Bill. Everything that is printed must be printed in full size, the same as the rest of the document. This is a great improvement for the borrower who may not be highly skilled in legal documents. I think this is a first-class Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, which has now been approved in its third stage, has a rather long history. There is a whole history attached to it, particularly in this House. On various occasions here in this House the need for the introduction of legislation of this nature has been expressed, and in particular it has been stated that there should also be control over rates of interest which are being charged in respect of credit transactions. After the Bill was published and submitted to the House, it became apparent that quite a number of problems could possibly still arise out of it, because it was not so easy to arrive at a conclusion as to precisely what these rates should be, and that many diverging opinions could exist in regard to what they should in fact be, and what the different intervals should be. As a result of representations from this side of the House, and as the hon. member for Pinetown said, from that side of the House as well, we then referred it to a Select Committee. I must admit to-day that I think we did a very good and sensible thing.

At the Second Reading, when I announced that I would refer it to a Select Committee, I made an appeal to the Select Committee to the effect that it should be finalized this session, and that they should make a special effort in regard to the Bill. They have done so, and I should like to express my personal thanks and appreciation to the chairman, and to the members of the Select Committee, not only for the valuable work which they have done, but also for having concentrated on completing this work so that we could pass this Bill during the present session. At the same time we also had an opportunity of roping in younger members of this House for committee work. According to reports I have received, there was a great deal of fruitful co-operation, and in point of fact we have results of what they have accomplished here before us to-day.

But there are two matters I should like to emphasize in this Third Reading debate. The first is that these rates of interest, as they appear there: 12, 15 and 18 per cent in the case of loans, and 18 per cent alone in the case of credit transactions, may seem to be high rates, but I think it cannot be emphasized enough, particularly to the people outside who have perhaps not made an intensive study of this matter, that those rates of interest are the ceiling. That is not to say that those are the rates of interest we are laying down in respect of financial loans and credit transactions. All that we are stipulating is that those rates of interest may not be exceeded.

The second matter I want to emphasize is the following. In the Second Reading debate we argued the question of credit transactions. I made a personal analysis of these, and stated that since we are now fixing rates of interest in respect of credit transactions, and since we are aware that in many cases the rates of interest have previously been higher, the tendency may now arise that a possible price increase could take place in the case of credit sales. This was a real danger which we had to take into account. I stated that we had come to the conclusion that we should rather run that risk than to create the danger of innocent people being caught by excessive finance charges. For this reason I stated that the people were price-conscious. There is free competition amongst dealers and the people are price-conscious. They are prepared to compare the prices of the one business undertaking with those of another, but they are not finance-conscious. In other words, the people outside were not acquainted with the situation and they did not make a careful calculation of what the rates of interest and the finance charges ought in fact to have been. Because they were price-conscious therefore, but had no knowledge of finance charges, we felt that we should rather run this risk. But I should like to make an appeal to the public to keep their eyes open in cases where prices are perhaps increased as a result of the introduction of finance control in the case of credit transactions. From the nature of the case the Government cannot do everything to protect these people, but we must realize what the prevailing circumstances in the trade are. Where malpractices are perhaps taking place, and the prices are increasing as a result of a restricted finance charge which is being levied, I think the general public must compare the prices of other businesses and must be wary of businesses which increase prices as a result of this measure. With a view to the normal free competition, I am afraid that we cannot do anything about the price increases. I want to join with other hon. members in expressing the hope that this measure will be to the benefit of many people, and I want to express my thanks and appreciation to all who gave their co-operation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

For the most part the text of the Bill consists of amendments which have become imperative as a result of loopholes in the principal Act which have up to this stage come to light during the investigation in regard to the malpractices in respect of certain textile imports. As hon. members know, these investigations have not yet been completed, but attention has nevertheless been focussed to a sufficient extent on the circumstances which gave rise to the additional statutory amendments to make provision for taking steps against those persons who contravene the existing provisions, and to afford all importers, but specifically the honest importer, the opportunity of getting his goods released from customs control more rapidly. Before these amendments could be drafted it was essential to determine and investigate further the modus operandi of the guilty parties, and obviously this took up a great deal of time. During the investigation it also came to light that many careless mistakes were being made in regard to clearance documents, especially on the prescribed invoices, and such mistakes resulted in the consignments in question having to be impounded by the Department until such time as the case in regard to each separate consignment had been cleared up.

The provisions of the principal Act are such that, to protect income, security of some form or another has to be obtained before seized consignments can be released from the control of the Department. Representations received in this regard were also taken into consideration, and many of the amendments are intended to eliminate delays of this nature by releasing consignments immediately, without insisting upon an admission of guilt, but in such a way that the Department can, in cases where crimes are subsequently proved to have been committed, take the necessary step to implement the provisions of the Act. The Schedules, which comprise the greatest part of the Bill, also contain, apart from the tax proposals in regard to base oil and the concessions in respect of the customs duty on certain kinds of unfortified wine and on Bantu beer, amendments of the Schedules to Act No. 91 of 1964, as amended, which have been introduced since 23rd March, 1963, by means of a notice in the Government Gazette and which are now being ratified in terms of the provisions of that Act. The amendments are explained in a memorandum which has been made available to hon. members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we do not propose to oppose this Bill, but we must protest about being given this explanatory memorandum of 77 pages yesterday afternoon. The Minister will be surprised to hear how late we sat here reading it. I must say that one of the Minister’s main difficulties in connection with this Bill is not the Bill itself, but the administration of the Bill. I think that we should make it quite clear that all in commerce and industry are not rogues. We have no case for the people who dodge taxation or dodge customs. We have no sympathy for them at all. It is, however, unfortunate, that the public have been given the impression that the Commissioner for Customs and Excise and organized commerce and industry are at arms length. This country is going to develop with an inflow of imports, whether they are imports for resale or more particularly imports for industry. Every time imports are held up, capital is held up, man hours are lost, production declines and costs increase. The sooner all parties concerned, both in organized commerce and industry and in the department, realize that until such time as they get together and ensure that the administration of this legislation and the handling of imports are carried out in a speedy manner, consistent with efficiency, the better it will be for all concerned. It is unfortunate that there has perhaps been over-exaggerated publicity with regard to the dodging of customs duty. No increase of penalties will affect law abiding persons. The increase of penalties will scare off the person who is prepared to take a chance, or who is considering doing so, but the legitimate businessman who carries on his business in the ordinary way will not be scared by these penalties, because he is carrying on an innocent business. Such businessmen, however, like the Minister and his department, are suffering from a shortage of staff. Not all businesses have a full-time, efficient and qualified staff. Not all Government departments have a full-time staff. There is a tendency on the part of Government departments not to accept responsibility, and I refer here particularly to the lower officials. If such an official can refer the matter to Pretoria and let somebody else take the responsibility, it is the easiest way out. The result is that goods are impounded and deposits are demanded. The official does this in the course of his duties and he is fully entitled to do so. In that way he evades having to take the responsibilty of making a decision. In this way the goods are held up, the increased deposit is exacted and commerce and industry are held up. In some cases factories go on short time, all because a local official—and perhaps even a more senior official—who is not prepared to make a decision, refers the matter to Pretoria. When we go through these 77 pages of the explanatory memorandum, and when we go through the schedules attached to this Bill—there are nearly 100 of them—we realize how intricate the various items under customs headings are. The meaning of the technical classifications can only really be appreciated by people working in that particular industry. The textile industry is continually bringing in new descriptions as new techniques are discovered and new ways are found for producing new fabrics. It is then in the interests of the person producing the fabric to create a new fabric which will fall within the scope of one of these particular definitions. If an industry finds that a particular item attracts a certain amount of duty, then it is in the interests of that particular industry to carry out research in order to create a new fabric which will fall under the definition of another item, the duty on which is more advantageous to the firm concerned. One can appreciate that, in a transition stage, there are difficulties which will be experienced not only by the manufacturers themselves, who are quite legitimately trying to introduce an item including amongst the customs classifications, but also by the officials, who realize that it is a new item, and are doubtful as to whether it falls within the scope of the item on the schedule. Where there is doubt, there is a conflict of opinion. If the conflict of opinion is going to be based upon suspicion of criminal intent, the whole system of imports is going to break down. If the question of doubt is, however, going to be based upon a difference of opinion, and a person is given an opportunity to give an explanation, and he is not going to be classed as a criminal automatically, there is a better chance of this Bill being implemented successfully. We do feel that it is essential that both the Commissioner of Customs and Excise—I refer to his office and not to the person himself—and commerce and industry should get together to see if they cannot reconcile their differences and make this system work more smoothly. In the explanatory memorandum there is an item dealing with clause 1, which reads as follows:

Particularly during the last two or three sessions, whenever we come across a difficulty, we are told either that a computer will put the matter right, or that the difficulty arose because a computer was wrong. We now have this new electronic instrument, namely the computer, and we are inclined to think that it can do everything. A computer is only as good as the operator behind it. If a proper check is not made of the work done by the operator of the computer, and especially the person who does the initial programming, one finds that if the punched tape which is fed into the computer is not correct, the computer cannot correct that fault. The error is then carried right through all the calculations. The Minister hopes that the amendment to this clause will help as regards the computer. The items which are recorded on the punched tape will be taken from documents which will in many cases be handwritten. When documents are handwritten, some of them are not quite as legible as doctors’ prescriptions, with all due defference to the hon. member on my left. When written documents are used, errors can be made, because of the human element. But typing errors can also be made on such documents. When a document is thrown back by the customs authorities because of an obvious error, it may be that the action is taken because of an obvious error, it may be that the action is taken because of the mistake, or it may be because there is a definite attempt to get around the provisions of the Act. One then has to sort the matter out. I illustrate these matters for the simple reason that I feel that it is essential to point out to the Minister that the administration of this Act will probably be more important than the Act itself. In cases where the Minister has tightened up the penalties, the Act will act as a deterrent for wrongdoers. It will probably put the ordinary importer on his guard, when he realizes that the penalties are so harsh, and ensure that, as far as possible, documents which are written out by clerks, are checked by their superiors. We know from experience, however, that when documents are cleared through the customs, one is always working in a hurry. Documents frequently arrive by airmail shortly before the ship arrives, and there is then an opportunity of checking the documents, but when air freight has to be cleared, the possibility of error is even greater. When documents arrive by airmail, and the goods themselves come by ship, quite often there is ample time to get the documents put in order or alternatively to write back to the supplier and obtain another set of documents, or rectify, the errors before the shipment arrives. But in cases of air freight, it is frequently not possible to rectify errors. The goods are wanted in a hurry, and that is the very reason why they are sent by air freight. For these reasons I think it is essential that the Minister gives attention to the administration of this Act, and aims as far as possible at reconciling the differences between organized commerce and industry and his department. Unless there is goodwill between organized commerce and industry and the Minister’s department, imports will be slowed up, goods will be held up, there will be additional interest charges, and it will not be in the interest of the country. It will not be in the interests of the working people, nor of lower costs, nor of the efficiency of the country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the protest of the hon. member for Pinetown with regard to the manner in which this measure—which in the normal course is introduced at the end of the session and which is normally a simple confirmatory measure—has been introduced in this session. We first had an opportunity to study it late yesterday afternoon. We had the Bill in the morning and the explanatory memorandum in the afternoon. The hon. the Minister indicated in his brief introductory speech that this was merely a measure which could deal with the problems of rackets and abuses which were taking place. With that we agree. But we feel that this measure has far reaching implications which I believe those concerned should have had an opportunity to study and make representations. The hon. member for Pinetown referred for instance to the question of administration. Earlier in this session the hon. the Deputy Minister said that there was no question of a person who merely made a mistake being penalized. He said it was those who are committing rackets, illegal actions, and who are trying to escape the duties, who are the people who were penalized, whilst the honest importer in fact was not penalized. He saw fit to raise a particular case which I had taken to him privately. He said the following…

You raised it in the first instance, did you not?

I said there were examples of error. I did not refer to this specific case.

No, you did.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said this—

He repeated it later. He said—

That was on the 17th May, 1968. My information, according to a photostatic copy which I have here before me is that on the 28th March, in this letter from the suppliers—the exporter to the importer—the error is set out, admitted and corrected. Therewith was enclosed a complete new set of certified corrected standardized invoices which was handed to the Department of Customs. The letter states that this was an omission and not an error. There was no mistake and there was no attempt to mislead or to evade duty. The bill of entry was correctly made out, the correct duty was paid but two words were left off the certified invoice. The letter from the supplier admits that the words were omitted, gives the correct tariff item, supplements the fact that these two words were omitted and that they do apply to the consignment. It further states that it also applies to the other consignments which were involved. It goes on—

Now. Mr. Speaker, what more can an importer do? The exporter left out two words. The goods were frozen and the importer was penalized to the extent of hundreds and hundreds of rand. But the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the innocent person was not penalized. Here to my mind is a case where an innocent person, through a clerical error and because of the omission of two words, was penalized. I submit that the importance of the fact that people are suffering through clerical errors, has been glossed over in our consideration of this problem, and I join with the hon. member for Pinetown in appealing to the hon. the Minister to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen and to apply the provisions, which are welcomed in this measure, and which will ease the treatment of frozen or questionable imports, in such a way that it will be less possible for the innocent importer to suffer. Sir, I raise this now because I think it should be on record that this is the situation and I hope the Deputy Minister can confirm it.

When we look at the Bill we find that clause 1 sets out various documents which are required. I raise it at this stage in case the Minister wishes to go into it and then in the Committee Stage we can discuss it further. Therefore I will not go into detail now but simply raise the points that I wish to query. The additional provision demands the shipper’s statement of expenses. I hope the hon. the Minister can tell us why the shipper’s statement of expenses is required because it does not effect the duty once the goods are bought. This is additional information which must be provided. What is also required in addition is a copy of the confirmation of sale or other contract of purchase and sale. Here again this is a new requirement and I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us why, in addition to the invoice, confirmation of sale is required. The procedure followed by many exporters, when they receive an order, is to send a pro forma invoice which in fact is a confirmation of the order but which then forms the basis on which application is made for an import permit where that is required, and that is usually regarded in fact as confirmation of the order. I hope the Deputy Minister can tell us whether that will be accepted as confirmation of the order or whether you are now going to have three documents, i.e. the order, the confirmation of the order and the pro forma invoice at the time of sale and then, when the goods are shipped, a certified invoice and various other documents as required. We are multiplying the amount of work and making it easier for clerical errors to take place, and unless there is an absolute need for it, unless this will contribute towards preventing evasions of the Act. I hope that we can avoid any unnecessary documentation.

Then there is the question of the importer’s written clearing instructions. I can see the point of that, but I submit to the Deputy Minister that this can create a great deal of hardship. I am not thinking now of the normal shipment coming in by boat—a major shipment of materials or whatever it may be—but I am thinking particularly of air freight consignments. In many cases the importer in fact does not even know that goods have arrived for him. I do not know if the Deputy Minister is aware of it and I have never quite fathomed how this came about, but when an air freight consignment comes in, the documents are sent automatically by Customs to a clearing agent. The importer, the person to whom the consignment is addressed, is not notified. The goods go direct to a clearing agent. When the customer, the importer, has his own clearing agent, then they go to the clearing agent. It happened to me myself where I had one clearing agent, that the documents were sent to another agent until eventually by usage that person became my clearing agent. I did not know until the goods arrived at my office that they were in the country. According to these provisions, there will have to be a written clearing instruction to the agent. When goods are air freighted, they are obviously required urgently. Let me give the example, for instance, of spate parts for machinery. When a machine breaks down, you cable or telephone for the required spare part if you do not have it; it is air freighted out and in the meantime the machine is usually standing still holding up production, and therefore even hours count in getting a spare part out to this country. Any delay such as this in notifying the importer, getting written instructions to his clearing agent and in getting all the additional documents, can create hardship in cases like that. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider whether he is not prepared to alter this; to apply these provisions to normal imports in bulk but to have a special provision particularly in the case of air freight or urgent imports.

In terms of the same clause there is the additional provision that a sample may have to be produced of the goods which are imported. I accept the need for that. All I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is to ensure that the sample will be of a reasonable size and not more than is required for essential testing and comparative purposes. Some of the materials imported are very expensive, and if you start asking for half-yard samples or even six-inch full width samples, it runs into a lot of money before you are finished, and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to give us some assurance in that regard.

Then there is a new provision in regard to elementary forms. I would like to know whether those forms will in future be available from the Department. When I have asked for forms I have been told: “You can buy them from stationers.” Stationers often do not have the correct forms. They do not know what is required and quite often they supply the wrong forms. This applies to import permits and it applies in other departments. I feel that where we lay down by law that a specific form shall be used, the Government should provide that form to meet the specifications or that it should make it easy for the importer to get hold of them. I am not talking of the regular clearing agent who naturally, as part of his business, has the required stationery, but I am talking about the person who has to import just one single item, which he may never have to import again, but who is forced, because of the documentation procedure and the problems connected with it, to go to an agent and spend money unnecessarily.

Under the next clause I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister for an explanation of the new demands in terms of the proposed new section 41 (4) (a). The provisions with regard to free on board prices and demestic value are straight forward, but then the clause goes on to provide—

As I read the clause this is not optional. This information must be provided with every shipment. Take the question of commission, for instance. There seems to be no reason why a customer should know what commission the agent is receiving on a particular shipment. If it is a commission, a cut-back, to the importer, then I can see the point, but the questions of commission between agent and exporter is surely a private business matter, and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to assure us that the use of the word “commission” here does not cover that sort of commission where it is purely a sales commission which the exporter has to pay. The same applies to royalties. Quite often there are royalties which are paid as part of the domestic organization of a firm. The firm pays the royalty to some other firm, and I would like an assurance that this information is required only where it affects the price charged by and the payment made to an exporter by an importer and that this does not apply to royalties, commissions and other payments which, although they form part of the cost of manufacture, in fact do not form part of the deal between exporter and importer. I am sure that there are only two issues which affect the Minister, namely, the actual value of the goods and the documented price, not the internal make-up of that price to the manufacturer himself.

With regard to clause 3 I have a personal little complaint. This refers to cigarette labels. I want to ask the Deputy Minister why he has taken the amount of the tax off the label which is put on cigarette boxes. Is this because he does not want the public to realize, every time they smoke a cigarette, what they are paying the Government in tax? We used to have on it the amount payable in tax; now the label simply1 says “50 cigarettes” or “ten ounces of tobacco”. This is just one of those little ways of bluffing the public, of keeping things away from them and I suggest that the public should know how much the hon. the Minister and the Government are taxing them on cigarettes. I would like to take it further and suggest that when a person buys a bottle of beer he should be able to see on the label on the bottle: “You are paying the Government more for the beer than you are paying the brewer”, so that the public will know how they are being taxed. When you pay income tax you get an assessment; you are told what you are paying on, but here we are amending…

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

Sir, I have finished what I wanted to say, but, with respect, this deals specifically with the stamps which are to be affixed to cigarette boxes, indicating that tax has been paid. That is the purpose of this clause; it deals specifically with that subject, and therefore I felt that I would like to raise it.

They do it in the United States.

I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister too to explain in greater detail the application of the proposed new section 67. The old provision was that an importer, when certifying the current domestic value of the items, had to certify that this was the price at which he normally sold the goods in his own country. Now it is being amended to read: “The price at which such or similar goods would be sold by exporters of such or similar goods.” That means that the exporter now has to certify that the current domestic value is not what he is charging but is equivalent to the price which other exporters in the same line are charging in the country of export. Sir, the explanatory memorandum says the same. It is now the price at which such or similar goods are being sold by exporters; it used to be the price at which the seller sold them. This is an impossible clause to carry out in practice. Let us assume that an exporter sells a particular machine, a machine which does a particular job, and that he has a price for that particular machine. His price in the country of manufacture is, say, R 10,000. Another manufacturer makes a machine to do exactly the same job and his price is R 15,000 because he may use better material; he may have better methods; there may be reasons for the increased price, but the machines are the same; they do the same job. How can an exporter say that his price is the average current domestic value of the machines of all exporters? There are some people who use branded names and they charge for the prestige value of that name. There are others who use patents, who have patents attached to their machinery for instance, and they have to pay a royalty for the use of that patent. That machine therefore costs more than another similar machine which does not employ the patent. So I could go on giving dozens of cases where you cannot get an average price for many things which are imported, particularly in the field of machinery and branded lines. Even in textiles one person will sell a printed poplin at 33 cents and another will sell the identical weight of poplin, the identical thread count, also printed, at 43 cents because he has found a good design; his designer has designed something which is catchy and which is selling well, so you pay the extra to get the benefit of the good design. How are you going to say what is the average price at which a manufacturer of similar material exports? I can see many problems in the application of this, although I can realize what the Minister is geting at. I hope he can explain that to us in his reply or in the Committee Stage.

Clause 8 has a provision which I again realize the need for, but which I think will give some difficulty, the fact that any goods under rebated duty must be used within five years. A person is making up a line of, say, 5,000 shirts and he imports 12,000 yards of material to cover it, but only uses 11,000 yards. There are 1,000 yards left over and that goes into the store awaiting some opportunity to use it. I think the Minister should consider some provision for either releasing from rebate stores oddments left over from a consignment, say where it is not more than R500 in value or it is not more than 1 per cent or 2 per cent of the total consignment. Those goods could then be released from the rebate store to prevent the keeping of documents for oddments which go on year after year. With textiles you may be able to use the balance, but with other things you often use them up within five years, like components for machinery and things of that nature. I feel there should be some provision to deal with a special case. The clause as it stands is an absolute one.

There are other provisions here which I will leave till the Committee Stage. Clause 12 is an excellent one, which I think will saye a great deal of difficulty, as well as clause 15, but one which concerns me is clause 17, dealing with agents’ liability. In a previous clause the Minister imposes upon the exporter the responsibilty for documentation and in clause 17 he transfers that responsibility from the exporter to his South African agent. So the responsibility is placed first on the exporter and then it is transfered to the agent, and the agent is then held liable, which can run into many hundreds of thousands of rands, for any mistake that the exporter makes. The Minister or the importer can then hold the agent liable. I recognize that the agent must have some responsibility and I would go so far as to say that the proposal here to register agents is perhaps necessary. But the question of agents providing security is one which concerns me. A vast number of agents are single-man firms, one-man businesses. They are small and they live on the commission made on a sale. Now the goods which are imported and have been sold by them may run into millions of rands, but the commission they get is a very small amount. If the security asked for has to cover the value of the goods, or possible duty on the value of the goods they sold, it will be impossible for the agents to furnish that security. You would break, I would say without any question of doubt, 95 per cent, if not 99 per cent, of all indent agents in South Africa. They simply will not be able to find the money to lodge security in ratio to the value of the imports sold by them, and I suggest that the Minister should reconsider this.

In clauses 12 and 15 he makes provision for the release of goods and a reclaim later against the responsible person. I feel that in this case, too, the liability could be there, but it can always be recovered after the event rather than taken in the form of security, because this places a tremendous weapon in the hands of the Department which can be used to break a large number of firms in this country.

The last point I want to raise is the provision in clause 20 that the State shall under no circumstances pay the cost of the examination or the analysis of goods done by the S.A.B.S. The old procedure was that if the Department demanded an analysis and it was found that the goods were in fact what they were claimed to be, then the Department paid. If they were found not to be what they were claimed to be, the importer paid. But what happened in practice—and the Deputy Minister and I had quite a discussion across the floor of the House about it—was that in order to release goods where there was an argument and where the Department had jiot demanded an analysis, or where the Department had determined a duty and the customer was not satisfied, he sent the goods for analysis, and in those cases he had to pay the R40. Now the Minister is protecting the Department in cases where the Department has arbitrarily placed a duty on an item, a duty which the customer has queried, and the analysis proves that the Department was wrong. Yet this provides that in such a case where the customer asks for the analysis the Department has no liability to pay. I suggest that where the Department is shown to be wrong, it should pay in the case of the customer requesting the analysis, in the same way as when the collector himself asks for it. These are matters which I suggest indicate the very far-reaching implications of this measure, which we have had less than 24 hours to study.

The schedules, of course, are far worse. Textiles alone cover over 14 pages involving over 150 items contained in the first schedule. In the rebates there are another 10 or 12 pages, and these are just the amendments. The original provisions consist of some 60-odd pages, and with the rebates it runs to over 100 pages. Of that, 14 pages and 150 items are being amended here, and it was quite impossible to study these. I know there have been Board of Trade reports in most cases, but not in all of them, but one would like to have the opportunity to study them, which is of course quite impossible when you have only a few hours in which to do it. So, I join with the hon. member for Pinetown in hoping that we will not have this sort of rushed attempt to push through major legislation at the end of next session.

First of all I want to deal with the protests. The hon. members for Pinetown and Durban (Point) have protested that they did not have sufficient time in which to study this Bill. If one had listened to the eloquence, particularly of the hon. member for Durban (Point), and the knowledge he has of the subject, then I do not think that one comes to the conclusion that such capable people as they are would not have been able to make proper study of this matter in the time they had at their disposal.

I was unable to consult one single person.

I admit it is complicated legislation, and that the schedule is also exceptionally complicated, but I still want to mention that we experienced considerable problems in having it made available sooner, and the hon. members will agree that it was not placed at their disposal at an unreasonably late stage. The hon. members will realize that this Bill cannot be sent to the legal advisers for examination before we have terminated the Committee of Ways and Means. This year there have in fact been few amendments in the Committee of Ways and Means. It was in fact only the tax on lubrication oil which was before the Committee of Ways and Means where there was an increase. But nevertheless we must first wait until the Committee of Ways and Means has been finalized before the draft Bill can be sent to the law advisers. You can understand that it takes a long time to investigate the Bill, and then to have it available within a reasonable time. These are the problems I am experiencing, but although I want to compliment hon. members on the knowledge they have of this matter—and it is the hon. member for Durban (Point) in particular who apparently has a great deal of practical knowledge of this matter—I realize that there are difficulties in the way of hon. members making a study of this matter. All I can say is that we will in future try to have this Bill available as soon as possible, although hon. members must also realize our problems.

The hon. member for Pinetown said that it was the administration of this Act which could in fact cause difficulties. The hon. member also referred to delays and I should like to inform him that the Department has already made a remarkable effort. In the Committee of Ways and Means we discussed the problems which were being encountered, and an exceptional effort has been made by the Department, and I can say that the Department is in fact up to date as a result of this effort which it made. But hon. members will agree with me that this legislation is also aimed at facilitating the work, which can also be achieved if the documentation is done properly. I think that everyone will agree with me that documentation, particularly in regard to the importation of textile goods, is of the utmost importance. If we can obtain the necessary co-operation from the exporters and importers, then things will be much easier.

In addition I just want to deal with the reference made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) to the case which we discussed in the Committee of Ways and Means. It was a case which he dealt with, and which he was good enough to inform me he was going to raise again here to-day, with the result that I have been able to prepare myself to discuss the matter with him to much better effect. The hon. member stated that he hoped I would agree that the version he presented here was the correct one. Unfortunately I cannot do so. First of all I should like to state that the Department cannot allow documents to be half completed and then simply allow these to be sent back for completion. We cannot allow this practice to continue. You will realize, Sir, that in order to ensure that this matter functions smoothly, the Department finds itself in a position where it has to force the people concerned, as it were, to do their documentation correctly, with the result that if something is omitted—as happened in the present case which the hon. member for Durban (Point) and I discussed in the Committee Stage, in the Committee of Ways and Means, and again now—if something is omitted from the invoice it will be of no use trying to teach these people a lesson if one merely refers it back to them and asks them what particulars should have been filled in there. To a large extent the Department has to teach these people by saying to them that they must furnish an explanation as to why the documents were not properly completed. That is what they are doing. In many cases the documents are not completed because they were trying to make misrepresentations. I agree with the hon. member for Pinetown that we must not proceed from the assumption that all these people are rogues. Far from it. But there are some of them who are in fact rogues, and because we must bring them to book, it is unfortunate that we may in that process place heavier burdens on the shoulders of the honest persons than would otherwise have been the case. That is why it was my standpoint, as I told the hon. member, that we would release the goods if they could give us the assurance that the importers would in due course furnish us with an explanation as to why the documents have not been completed properly. Arising from this I should like to read out to the hon. member the last paragraph of my letter to him—

He must furnish an explanation as to why the information was false. He must not state the goods were yellow or red or white or green; he must explain why the form was not filled in correctly. That is what he wanted.

There were two words left out and they said, “We left out these words which should have been in.”

That is where the fault lies. That is not what we wanted.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon. member must not be unreasonable. If we want to rectify this situation we shall have to stop being satisfied with running to these people each time and saying to them that they must complete the documents, because there would in that case be no end to our difficulties. No, the people must be taught to do their documentation properly, and that is why we are not asking them simply to complete the documents, but are asking them to explain why the documents were not completed properly. That is all we are asking them to do. We must remember that I wrote that letter to the hon. member on 3rd April. On 3rd April I told him that I would release the goods. Now the hon. member states that the people did in fact give an explanation, according to a letter which had been written earlier, on the 28th March. He stated that that letter contained an explanation. For the information of this House, I want to read out a telex message I received to-day, in order to have clarity in regard to this matter; otherwise we would be unfair as regards the actions of the Department in this case. I received this report after I asked for further details (translation)—

What was the date of the reply?

No, I cannot say. I am reading further—

—that is the date which the hon. member quoted—

That is not what we asked for. We wanted an explanation of why the people had not done the documentation properly. The message reads further—

These are precisely the facts I quoted before. The only point in dispute now is whether we must merely return to the people every time and ask them to complete the incomplete document, and whether we must spur them on, encourage or compel them in some other way to complete their documents properly. We feel the correct procedure is not simply to return to them every time and say to them, “Furnish an explanation why the forms were not properly completed”. If this had been done in that case, we would not have imposed the fines. They did not give us an explanation, and ultimately they themselves decided to pay a fine. That is what happened here.

Their machines were standing still. It is victimization.

No, I think the hon. member is going too far now. The hon. member raised certain points here, and I am pleased that he raised them because it enables me to deal more effectively with this matter in the Committee Stage. Actually I do not want to deal with many of the points raised here now. However, I can deal with a few. As regards clause 17, he agreed with me that the registration of agents was a good idea. In clause 17 we are providing that agents must be registered. It is a very good thing, for previously there was no check on these agents. He also spoke about the heavy responsibility which now rests on them. Perhaps we can exchange a few ideas in this regard in the Committee Stage. The hon. member referred particularly to the conclusion of clause 20 which provides that the importer himself must pay when he makes an application for repayment of an amount overpaid, and where an investigation has to be instituted by the S.A.B.S. as a result. Our attitude is as follows, and I should like to hear from the hon. member if he differs with me in that regard. In cases where goods are referred in advance to the S.A.B.S. for investigation, the arrangement which applies is that the one which is in the right does not pay. In other words, whether it is the Department or whether it is the importer, the one who is in the wrong must pay for the investigation. That is the general arrangement.

In other words, when the Department requests the examination?

Yes. Now it may perhaps happen that an importer pays taxes on the basis of particulars contained in the documents. He pays the amount; it is not the Department who levies this tax, it is done according to the particulars he supplied himself. On those particular he pays the amount. Now it is subsequently found that those particulars were incorrect, and the excess amount must be paid back. When an examination is not necessary we pay back the money when the application is done, but we say it is the importer and the people with whom he is associated which are the cause of that repayment. If an examination is required by the S.A.B.S., then it is the responsibility of that party in any case to pay the expenses. I concede that a case can be made out to the effect that we should follow the same arrangement which we follow in all other cases, i.e. that the one who is in the wrong must pay, but here we feel otherwise. For the information of the hon. member I would like to say that the basis of the argument is that either the importer or the exporter, i.e. the people who are responsible for furnishing the correct information, are responsible for a repayment having to take place, and not the Department. Consequently we say that if an examination takes place, that party must pay.

In this measure an attempt is being made to improve the activities and the administration. I was delighted to read in this monings paper that “Fiddlers face double penalties—Mr. McCleod, secretary of the Cape Chamber of Commerce, said yesterday—‘I think the introduction of this Bill is a reasonable and fair effort to prevent the evasion of customs duties and I hope there will be a general agreement on its interpretation’ ”, I want to agree with him. We are making an attempt here to put a stop to those irregularities from taking place. I am quite prepared to furnish the information to the hon. member for Durban (Point) during the Committee Stage, when it can be done to better effect than now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

For many years now there has been a heartfelt need for a measure such as this one. In contrast with the architects and quantity surveyors, the legal practitioners and the accountants, whose professions have been organized for a considerable time, there is still, as far as the engineers are concerned, a deficiency which is not in the interests of the country in general or conducive to the engineering profession in particular.

In a rapidly developing country such as South Africa, the engineering profession in particular plays a key role in virtually every facet of our economic and technological activities, and its knowledge, skill and work in these spheres have had far-reaching consequences and implications. The integrity, ingenuity, sense of responsibility and competence of the professional engineer are very closely intertwined with our welfare, our material progress and our development. Since the economy of the country as well as the interests and safety of the public are therefore at stake, it can no longer be tolerated that a professional group which has such an important task to fulfil, should be left to its own devices to work out its own salvation, without the necessary regulative measures.

In order to pull its weight in this age of technology, it is imperative for the engineering profession not only to keep pace at all times with new thinking, trends and developments, but also to set the pace in a determined and unambiguous manner. To meet this challenge, necessitates the maintenance of the highest possible standards of training and continuous adjustment of training requirements. To these considerations those of the safeguarding and organization of the profession itself should be added; no professional group can act in a purposeful way if it lacks entrenchments and direction.

Considerations in regard to the requirements I have just mentioned, namely public interests and safety, training standards and professional organization, form the basis of this measure. In order to see this matter in the right perspective, it would be advisable for us to look back on the events which culminated in the drafting of this measure as well as the attendant circumstances and considerations.

Several attempts have been made in the past to obtain legislation for the registration of professional engineers. However, all these attempts have failed, mostly because unanimity could not be found in the ranks of the engineers.

It was only in 1967, seven years after the establishment of the Professional Engineers’ Joint Council, that unanimity could be reached. Incidentally, this council consists of representatives of nine engineering institutes which set admission requirements for corporate and voting membership which are mutually acceptable. After years of studying similar legislation here and abroad, the council framed a draft Bill, and in May, 1967, it was submitted, by way of referendum, to engineers who were members of its constituent societies. An absolute majority of voting members, i.e. 95 percent of the 55 per cent who voted, came out in favour of the principle contained in the Bill.

Immediately after this, it was decided to entrust this Bill to the Department of Public Works for carrying it through further. Having regard to the principles contained in the original draft Bill, and in consultation with representatives of the Professional Engineers’ Joint Council, my Department framed a draft Bill which gained its Inal form in the measure which after its First Reading here was referred to a Select Committee of this House.

The Bill before the House envisages the establishment of a Council for Professional Engineers, which will be a statutory, autonomous body similar to those of other professions in respect of which statutory provision for similar controlling bodies already exists. Apart from the customary provision for arranging its own internal affairs, the council’s functions in terms of this measure will briefly be to advise the Minister in regard to—

1. (a) the making of regulations to give effect to the Act, regulations in which, inter alia, the examinations recognized for registration as a professional engineer will be prescribed;
2. (b) the kinds of work that may only be performed by a professional engineer;
3. (c) the requirements with which an engineering society has to comply for recognition in terms of the Act; and
4. (d) the fees to which a professional engineer, in the absence of a special agreement, is entitled for his services.

As regards the profession itself, the council will fulfil the extremely important function of registration, i.e. the council will be called upon to consider and decide about individual applications, lodged by engineers with the necessary qualifications, for registration as professional engineers. In this respect I must mention that the following principle was adopted in this measure, i.e. that nobody would be deprived of his means of making a living. Provision is therefore being made for registering, with certain reservations, those persons who are at present practising as engineers but do not have the envisaged qualifications. It is also the intention that the council should keep a watchful eye on the engineering profession and that it should also be invested with the necessary powers to take disciplinary steps in cases of improper conduct on the part of professional engineers. I must also call attention to the provision which is being made for the council to take such steps as it may consider expedient for the protection of the public in their dealings with professional engineers.

It is not being envisaged in the Bill that it will be a function of the council to look after the professional interests as such of professional engineers. For that purpose there is the Professional Engineers’ Joint Council, which is an autonomous body. Similarly it is not a function of the council to promote engineering science and the various branches of engineering. This aspect of engineering will still remain the principal task of the various engineering institutes and societies which have been established for each branch of engineering.

The Bill makes provision for a council, the members of which will be appointed by the Minister. It will consist of one representative of, and nominated by, each of the nine recognized engineering institutes or societies which, for voting or corporate membership, require qualifications which are equivalent to those which are being envisaged in the Bill for professional engineers. They will in fact represent all the established branches of engineering in the country. The Professional Engineers’ Joint Council will in addition nominate three persons. It is being proposed to grant each university in the country which has a faculty of engineering, a representative who has to be a professor or lecturer in engineering and has to be nominated by the respective senates of such universities. It is also being provided that the Minister may select from the ranks of the engineers in the service of the State, two persons for appointment to the council, as well as a further two members whom I can select by virtue of their knowledge of public affairs and the industrial requirements of the country—one of the latter two must be selected by reason of his special knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of professional engineering. Having heard the evidence, the Select Committee thought it advisable that provision should also be made on the council for persons who could look after the interests of holders of certificates of competency issued in terms of existing legislation, as well as those persons charged with the training of. inter alia, engineering technicians. These persons will also be selected by me for appointment. In this regard I may mention that I have just received objections from a certain engineering society which expressed the fear that in terms of this power it would now be possible for me to appoint simply any person who performed some technical service or other, such as a lift attendant. I want to make it very clear that this is, of course, not the intention at all. When it comes to the submission of names, my Department will ensure that the names submitted to me are those of persons who really look after the interests of these particular groups. In making the selection, I shall make sure for myself whether those who are appointed are persons of proper standing.

That means that this council will consist of 23 members. The ideal we pursued throughout was to keep the membership of this council as small as possible. On the other hand, the basis on which the council is to be constituted must nevertheless be a sufficiently broad one so as to ensure representation of the diversified profession as such, as well as educational, State and public interests.

Since the educational aspect and training standards are of vital importance, provision is also being made for an Education Advisory Committee, appointed by the Minister, consisting of one representative of each university which has a faculty of engineering—and such representatives will ibe professors or lecturers in engineering and be nominated by their respective senates—two persons nominated by my colleague the Minister of National Education, and three persons whom I shall choose from a list of nominated persons submitted by the Professional Engineers’ Joint Council.

To look after the various established branches of engineering, i.e. in an advisory capacity to the council in regard to matters relating specifically to such a branch, a Professional Advisory Committee is being envisaged for each of them. The committees will consist of five members each, who will be appointed by me. In each individual case they will consist of a professor or lecturer in the branch of engineering concerned who will represent the universities jointly, one person from the ranks of the engineers in the service of the State, and three persons who will be selected by the Minister from a list of nominated persons submitted by the appropriate professional engineers’ institute.

The revenue of the council will for the most part be derived from registration and annual fees. However, it is being provided that the Minister may, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, advance monies to the council out of public funds if it is deemed necessary in order to enable the council to carry out its functions. The council will control its own funds. In addition, the council will in each year submit to me a report, copies of which will be laid upon the Table in this House.

The Bill contains a provision which prohibits any person who has not been registered as an engineer from either pretending to be such or performing any kind of work reserved for professional engineers, except in those cases where specific exemption has been granted in terms of the Act or regulations. Penal sanctions are being laid down for such offences. Engineers engaged in private practice will be expected to register as professional engineers, if they perform work reserved for professional engineers, within six months after a date to be fixed by notice in the Gazette subsequent to the commencement of this Act. It is the intention that this provision will not be made applicable to other engineers on a date earlier than a date five years after the date of commencement of this Act.

Most of the major employers of engineers, such as Government Departments, provincial administrations, local authorities and large industries, are already making use of the services of engineers who will qualify for registration in terms of the provisions of this measure. It would be to the benefit of all interested parties and of the country as a whole if all employers of engineers throughout the country would follow the example and see to it that in future their posts for engineers will only be filled by persons who qualify for registration or have already been registered as professional engineers.

To ensure that engineers who have just completed their studies, gain the necessary practical experience for rounding off their training properly, the Bill makes provision for their being registered as engineers in training. Subsequent to that they have to work under the control and supervision of professional engineers for a period of three years after graduation before they can be registered as professional engineers. Full-fledged registration as professional engineers will therefore imply that the person concerned has not only received proper training in the theory of his profession, but has also been equipped for his task as far as the practical side of his activities is concerned.

The Straszacker Commission, supported by the Scientific Advisory Council, has recommended that the appellation “engineer” be reserved for a person who has been registered as a professional engineer. However, a decision was taken in favour of the appellation “professional engineer” being used in the Bill, since long-continued practice, particularly in the English terminology, has permitted people who can in fact not be regarded as professional engineers, to refer to themselves as “engineers” and to be known as such.

It is imperative that the public image of the engineers should be improved. One way in which this can be done, is to draw in the engineering profession a clear distinction between the professional engineers on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the technicians and the artisans. And I say this without detracting in any way from the important contribution technicians and artisans do in fact have to make.

The position in the engineering profession is that there is work of a highly sophisticated nature which can quite obviously be performed by professional engineers only. As against that there is work of an exclusively routine nature which does in fact fall into the province of technicians or even into that of the lower officials. Between these two there is an overlapping sphere, which can be described as a no man’s land, where the work does not fall exclusively into the province of the professional engineer or into that of the technician.

It is essential, and it will become all the more essential in the future, to reserve certain engineering work specifically for professional engineers. Self-evident examples in this regard are the planning and designing of a nuclear reactor, the Hertzog Tower, the arched bridge across the Umtamyuna River and the J. G. Strijdom Dam.

The functions which ought to be reserved for professional engineers will be defined by way of regulations. However, I want to state frankly that it is the intention that when those functions are defined, they will be defined in such a way that the established rights of other recognized professions will not be affected or restricted in any way whatsoever. By these means, therefore, a distinct professional sphere will in the course of years be developed for each of the various disciplines in the engineering profession. In the envisaged regulations provision will, amongst other things, be made for an ethical rule of conduct for professional engineers. The standards of the profession and the public welfare require professional engineers to conduct themselves in an irreproachable manner in practising their profession. The maintenance of integrity and the enhancement of the status and prestige of the professional engineers as a professional group, will form the basis of this rule of conduct. The establishment of a Council for Professional Engineers and everything that is connected with it, will undoubtedly ensure that the interests of the country in general, and those of the clients of engineers in particular, will be safeguarded property and that engineering services will be placed on a sounder basis than has been the case up to now. It is hoped that this will have the effect that competent young men will from now on feel more and more attracted to engineering and choose it as a profession.

In conclusion I should like to say that those persons who have an interest in this Bill, have been afforded every opportunity by the Select Committee to state their views by way of representations, memorandums or oral evidence. After all the documents and evidence had been considered carefully, the chairman reported that the Select Committee had lent its unanimous support to the Bill as it reads at present. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to the chairman and the members of the Select Committee for the exceptionally thorough task they performed in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House not only support this Bill, but we also welcome it as a long overdue measure. The importance of the engineering profession in this country cannot be overstressed. The hon. the Minister has mentioned that they play a key role in our development. Our development depends to a large extent on the profession, on highly professional and trained engineers. The standard of training will have to become higher and higher in future. The Straszacker Commission to which the hon. the Minister referred, was appointed in 1957 and after a very thorough study and investigation parts 1 and 2 of its report were published in 1964. The report emphasizes the grave shortage of engineers in this country. It quotes figures from other countries as a comparison and goes on to say—

It stresses the fact that we are very short of engineers and that attempts must be made to see that we have the necessary supply. It would appear that the annual production of engineers per 100,000 of the population, including the non-White population, in South Africa should be increased by at least from 50 to 75 per cent. This emphasizes the shortage that we have in this country. We are very far behind and the need of engineers is so great that a determined attempt must be made in order to boost the number of engineers in this country. I am hoping that this Bill will play some part in providing more engineers. The report especially mentions the Afrikaans-medium universities and says that they should produce more engineers than they did in the past, and a special appeal has been made to them in this regard. In order to meet the demand for more engineers the commission suggests that enrolments for engineering degrees should be increased, that some plan must be made to increase the retention rate, that is between the freshmen and ultimate graduate. The commission also recommends that engineers must be made use of far more effectively than they are at the present time. We must also try to keep our engineers in South Africa, because there are far too many of them who are lost to South Africa after they have graduated.

The commission also reports that engineering facilities are far too inadequately staffed to meet the existing demands and that they will not be able to handle a considerably increased number of graduate students in addition to undergraduate students satisfactorily. The commission emphasizes the necessity of higher training for research work and that more facilities for this should be created, e.g. that assistances for such students by way of bursaries, etc., for higher education should be given. It also states the drastic need for an increase in the number of chairs at our universities. Without it the engineering faculties will not be able to meet the demands made upon them satisfactorily. The commission goes so far as to say that each university should have an engineering faculty. It also makes a very strong plea for a chair of hydrology. The hon. the Deputy Minister when he spoke about this two weeks ago, informed us what the position in this country was going to be in regard to water conservation. He said that unless a determined effort was made to conserve our water and use it to the best advantage, this country would run short of water before the end of the century. This report very strongly advocates a chair of hydrology in this country to make a proper study of our water needs, how to conserve it and how to use it in the best possible manner.

The hon the Minister has already said that he hoped that this Bill will improve the image of the engineering profession and I am sure that it will. It will give it a beter image and will consequently encourage more young men to take up this profession, a profession which is of vital importance to us. As was stated, the Bill was approved by most of the engineering institutions in this country and I think that they all look forward to seeing this Bill on the Statute Book. There have been some misgivings on the part of some people, particularly those who thought that it might interfere with the sphere of their practice, because of the provision made for the reservation of work. The hon. the Minister has stated, however, that where there is an overlapping of work, those who did the work in the past, those from other sections of the professions, will be protected provided that they are qualified to do that work. We fully agree on this point and I think they will be happy with the position.

The Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineers was not satisfied with the Bill, mainly because they had no representation on the Council for Professional Engineers. They have, however, been met on this point and according to our information they are now happy on this point. I think the hon. the Minister mentioned that they would also like to make their own nominations for the hon. the Minister to appoint. I am quite prepared to accept the position as it is. I think the Select Committee felt that the hon. the Minister should, in this case, appoint his own nominee without giving them the right to nominate, as they are a hybrid institute. I am, therefore, fully in agreement with the position as it is to-day. With these few words I want to say that we support this Bill and we are very pleased that it is now before the House, even at this late stage.

Mr. Speaker, this is a red-letter day for the engineering profession. It is an historical day, because attempts have been made in the course of many years to place a Bill of this nature on the Statute Book. As long ago as 1890 Sir Gordon Sprigg tried to pilot legislation with the same objects as the present Bill through the Cape Parliament. That Bill was not passed, however, largely as a result of the fact that engineers were imported from overseas at that time, and that that was regarded as competition for the local young men. Subsequently further attempts were made, inter alia, the appointment of a one-man commission in the person of Dr. F. J. de Villiers during the early fifties. I want to pay tribute to Dr. De Villiers because he proved to be a great champion of legislation such as we now have before Parliament. The Joint Council for Professional Engineers submitted a draft Bill in 1960 which gave added impetus to this matter. In this connection we have to make special mention of the names of Mr. Mike Gericke and Professor De Vos who played an enormous part in providing for legislation of this nature. While accolades are being awarded, allow me, as a member of the Select Committee, to express my gratitude and appreciation to the hon. member for Parow, for it is attributable to his special guidance that it was possible for us to introduce a unanimous Bill.

It is common knowledge that there is a large shortage of engineers in this country. It is also common knowledge that the university course in enginering is of the most difficult in the academic world, and consequently it is necessary to pass legislation for protecting and promoting this profession. On that account the Bill is directly in line with the advice of two important bodies. Paragraph 235 of the report of the Straszacker Commission reads as follows (translation)—

The Scientific Advisory Board of the Prime Minister recommended as follows in 1966: “This will ensure a higher quality of engineering services and place the prestige of the profession on a more satisfactory basis.” I should like to deal briefly with only one or two other aspects. It is a known fact that most university courses in engineering are four-year courses at the moment, and it is also a known fact that the rate of failure is high in these four-year courses at universities. Now the question is whether all universities should not be encouraged to convert their courses, as the University of Stellenbosch has done, into five-year courses with the emphasis on practical work in the fifth year. I want to put it to you as my personal opinion that if the three years practical experience which is a requirement which a person has to satisfy in order to become a professional engineer, should be reduced to two years in the case of a person who has followed a five-year course at a university, it would serve as an incentive to universities to convert their courses into five-year courses. Finally I want to say that the hon. the Minister and the hon. member on Opposition side addressed themselves to the young men in the Republic. I. on the other hand, want to address myself to the young women in the Republic. Dr. H. M. Stoker found that only one-third of our women who could participate actively in our economy were in fact doing so. For this reason I want to conclude by addressing an appeal to the young women in our country in the same words as the Straszacker Commission. This commission appealed to them in the following words—

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Gardens said, we on this side of the House support this Bill. At the outset I should also like to extend my congratulations to the Chairman of the Select Committee for his handling of the Committee. I should also like to thank the officials who were in attendance and acted as advisers to the Committee. I think that an outstanding job of work was done by this Committee.

I agree wholeheartedly that a measure such as this is overdue. We have had the report of the Straszacker Commission but over the years in the absence of any presented standards, the various societies representing other Engineering Professions that exist in this country and which are offshoots of overseas societies, aimed at a high standard of admission to membership. For the protection of the public the Government under the Factories and Works Act had to prescribe a standard of engineering for those in charge of works of a certain size. They prescribed an examination for the certificate of competency under the Factories Act. Over the years these certificated engineers have really been the backbone of the engineering profession in this country. As a matter of fact, what they lack in proper theoretical training, they have in experience. Some of these men are in the highest positions in the engineering profession in this country. We have now reached the stage where examinations to become a professional engineer will be prescribed by regulation. I agree with the hon. member for Gardens that it is very necessary that we should encourage our young men to take up the engineering profession and to become qualified at a higher standard than we have at present. With the advance of technology in this country, and all over the world, it is necessary for us to aim at a very high standard. At the same time I want to make a plea for those young men of this country who are not in the financial position to go to university to take a degree but who serve their apprenticeships in the engineering trade, attend technical colleges and obtain the highest qualifications obtainable there. These young men are then to a certain extent debarred from going further and reaching the standard that will be prescribed for a professional engineer. I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of what is called the link between the technical college and the university. I would not like to think that a young fellow who had passed the highest standards in the advanced technical colleges should find that he could not go on to obtain his degree without first having his matriculation exemption. I feel, and the Straszacker Commission supported this to a certain extent, that there should be some link between the two institutions so that the youth can study further. History has shown that the background of our whole engineering profession has been the certificated engineer, a man who has no degree. Evidence given before the Select Committee proved this. I would not like to see those promising young men who have not had the opportunity to go to university not being able to carry on and reach the highest standards in this profession. I think that they should receive every encouragement. The Straszacker Commission suggested that the universities could have part-time courses or evening classes as is the case with the commerce degree. The stage may be reached when the student has to attend classes full-time to do his laboratory work, but the basics of his profession could be mastered properly by part-time studies. I think we can build up our engineering profession in this country in this way. There were many misgivings about the reservation of work for professional engineers in terms of clause 7 (1) (1). We were given the assurance that the regulations that will be prescribed will take care of this position.

I think that this is a measure which is overdue as far as this country is concerned. I think that it is going to assist the engineering profession to reach a very high standard. One would eventually like to see provision being made for the aviation engineers in this Act. Strange as it may seem, one of the largest industries in this country, the motor industry, is not represented in this Bill. But this can be overcome because the industry is growing and the motor engineer of the future will reach such a standard that he will fit in with the requirements for professional engineers. In conclusion I should like to say once again that we on this side of the House support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to detain the House for long. I rise merely to deal with the two points raised by the hon. member for Kroonstad. He has urged the hon. the Minister to do two things and I regret that I cannot agree with either of them. For this reason I think that it is necessary that I should express my views in this regard briefly. As I understood him, he asked the hon. the Minister to use his influence to urge the universities to change the period of their engineering courses to five years, i.e. in the case of universities that now have four year courses.

It was only a personal view.

Yes, I have said that is only the hon. member’s personal view. I cannot, however, agree with that view and that is why I wish to express my views. The whole object of this Bill is to place in the hands of the council, consisting of a large number of very responsible people and covering a wide field, the operation of the engineering profession in the future. I think it is essential that the council should decide whether or not the universities should be urged to increase the length of their courses, and other such matters, without any prompting or influence from the hon. the Minister. I would therefore urge the hon. the Minister as far as the length of courses is concerned to leave this matter to the council. If there is a need for an increase in the length of the course I am sure that such recommendations will come from them without any prompting from the hon. the Minister.

An important point raised by the hon. member for Kroonstad, concerns the length of the practical period after the attainment of a degree. At present this period lasts for three years. The hon. member for Kroonstad has suggested that consideration be given to shortening this period to two years in the event of a five year degree course being taken. This very point was considered by the Select Committee and it did not support the views of the hon. member, as I am sure he will readily concede. He indicated that he wished to express his views to the House, as he is perfectly entitled to do. The important point is that at present the practical period which engineers have to serve is a three year period. The evidence from the practising engineers certainly was that this period was necessary because it was felt that even with a lengthy degree course a man was not sufficiently qualified to practise his profession properly without this practical experience of three years. I would, therefore, once again urge the hon. the Minister not to interfere in this matter. No doubt, if it is felt that the practical period of three years could be shortened in the case of a five year degree, the members of the council will put forward this point of view and will urge the council to make the necessary changes. If it comes from the council, all is well. I do believe that it would be quite wrong for the hon. the Minister to initiate such a move. It would certainly be quite wrong for the hon. the Minister to try to put any sort of pressure on the council to achieve this object.

On behalf of this side of the House I should also like to express my support for this Bill. It has been considered very carefully by the Select Committee and I think it is the best possible measure which the Select Committee was able to put before this House.

Mr. Speaker, there is very little for me to say. There are only two aspects of the Bill which I should like to discuss. Firstly, I want to say that in this regard I agree with the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) that it is not my duty as the Minister in charge to interfere with the training of engineers. The Bill explicitly provides that the council with its committee may take steps as far as training is concerned. That body has to take cognizance of all possible suggestions and all possible representations in this respect and has to give proper consideration to them. Therefore I shall not influence them to take one course or another. I doubt whether I am, or whether any government department, which, in fact, is not a department of education, is in a position to do so.

The other matter on which I want to touch, is the shortage of engineers in this country, a matter to which all the speakers referred. We are concerned about this. I believe that this Bill can make a contribution towards solving this problem. In this connection I also want to express myself strongly in favour of the idea advanced here by the hon. member for Salt River, namely that we should see whether ways and means could not be found to link the technical training of engineering assistants or engineering technicians to university training at a later stage. This will enable an engineering assistant or an engineering technician who have been trained at a technical college, to attend a university after a few years’ experience, in order to receive proper training as an engineer, perhaps for a shorter period of time than the usual. To my way of thinking it will certainly be possible to consider this matter and one to which attention may be given, as it is my firm conviction that not only in engineering, but also in many other professions, we in South Africa let the professional people do too much work which can in fact be done by assistants under their supervision. While the training of engineers is essential, I think the training of technicians who can assist these engineers, is equally important and that we shall have to look into that at the same time. In this respect, I may mention that the Government has already decided to have a special investigation into the necessity of taking urgent steps to extend the facilities for training engineers. My colleague, the Minister of Planning, is dealing with the matter at present. Special action will be taken in this respect even before this matter has been placed on the Statute Book finally and before a proper opportunity will have arisen to constitute the various councils and committees, because we feel that the creation of additional training facilities has become a matter of such urgent necessity that we cannot await the full implementation of this Act and the establishment of a council in terms of this Act. It is urgent and imperative that drastic steps be taken in this respect and I can therefore reassure hon. members as far as this is concerned. When the report of the hon. the Minister of Planning is available it will naturally be submitted to the engineering profession for its comments and information. I do not think that I have anything else to say on the Bill at this stage.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has had the results or an analysis of the results of what is called a sandwich course. At the technical college in Durban…

Order! That is not a question. The hon. member is making a speech now. The hon. Minister has already replied to the debate.

With respect, Sir, this is a very important question because it ties up with what the Minister has told us.

Order! The hon. the Minister has already replied to the debate.

He has not dealt with this issue.

Order! The hon. member could have raised this matter in the course of the debate. He can raise it at the Third Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Committee stage disposed of without debate.

(Third Reading)

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sir, I rise to raise just one aspect of this Bill and the inquiry that might well go with it. Obviously in this Bill an attempt is being made not only to provide adequate training facilities but I think we are all searching for a means of speeding up the training and, shall I say, the production of engineers to meet the requirements of South Africa. This question of sandwich courses was raised some time ago and it is referred to in the Straszacker Report in paragraph R31. The hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading Debate, has referred to the link between some sort of technical training and a university training. I think this sandwich course experiment has been carried out on a sufficient scale now for us to be able to assess its value. I do not know what assessment has been placed on it because I have not seen the results, but obviously the object of a sandwich course was to try to combine the benefits of the practical aspect connected with the technical training course with the theoretical aspect of a university degree course; to bring these together and to produce an individual or engineer who would be of the utmost use in the particular sphere in which he operated. From my practical experience—I have a son who went through this sandwich course—I rather felt that we lost the benefit of this course because nothing further seemed to be done about it. I believe that if young people, whose parents perhaps could not afford to put them through a university for a degree, started off as apprentices where they received the practical end of their training first and then took a sandwich course, linked with a university degree, a sandwich course could be used to test their ability, we would produce more engineers in all the various spheres of engineering operations—mechanical, electrical, civil and the like. I believe that the trouble is that with a degree course you can only filter off the top level of young people at school. To-day, as we know—and I suppose it has been the same throughout the ages—young people tend perhaps to play the fool at school although they may be most able, with the result that they do not get a university pass to take a degree course. What happens to those people? They go to banks or they go into commerce and industry and perhaps they never get the opportunity of coming back to the thing which they wanted to do and which might well be to enter one of the branches of engineering. Here is a sandwich course, which might well set them again on the course which will bring them back to the thing that they wanted to do, be it civil engineering, electrical engineering or mechanical engineering. I believe that we are not making sufficient use of the sandwich course, which combines the best of both worlds and which will find more suitable candidates for training in engineering than we could find by means of the ordinary degree course. The hon. the Minister talks of technicians. Very few of these young people who just go straight to technical college because there is no spur for them to go further, get beyond the N.T.C. qualifications—N.T.C. I, II or III. Some of them go to A.T.C. I and A.T.C. II. I believe that those young people who do the A.T.C. I and A.T.C. II are eminently suited to qualify for continuation, with perhaps quite a number of exemptions, into university degree courses. I sincerely put it to the hon. the Minister that he should consider this aspect as a new source of supply of candidates for the various engineering degree courses. These people could then augment our source of engineers.

I just want to make it very clear that the Bill does not empower me to prescribe how the training of engineers ought to be regulated. The Bill very clearly provides that it is one of the tasks of the council to advise me in this connection as well as to co-operate with the universities. The training itself is in fact the task of the universities. It is a matter which has to be considered by the senates of the universities in consultation with the Department of Higher Education. Therefore this is a matter which does not fall under my authority, but I am sure that the Council will take the suggestions of the hon. member into consideration. I believe that they will study the discussion which has taken place here to-day at the first opportunity. I can assure the hon. member that his ideas will be brought to their attention.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

This measure is an attempt at finding a solution for the reign of terror of the knife which has particularly taken root in the Coloured and Bantu residential areas of the Peninsula and has even reared its head on the streets of our mother city. This phenomenon has of late caused considerable concern in many quarters, and I think that the time has come for us to take cognizance of it and give the matter our active attention. As hon. members know this matter has recently been the subject of general discussion in newspapers, etc. Newspaper headlines such the “The Knife—background to alarming terror in Cape Flats townships; Ten stabbed to death in Cape; The Knife: Loopholes in the law; Revise the laws on stabbing; M.P. stabbed in night attack” and so on, are still fresh in our minds. Stirring tales of how the inhabitants of the Coloured areas live in constant fear and anxiety beoause the knife can strike at any time to snuff out the life of a breadwinner, daughter or other close relative, have appeared with disconcerning regularity in the daily press. Statistics, which I do not want to go into here, were funished to paint a sombre picture of the conditions in our midst, and speculations about what steps ought to be taken to exterminate this abominable evil, were the order of the day. All of us are probably conversant with the disconcerting experiences recorded in The Star of 2nd May by the hon. member for Yeoville who quite recently had the gruesome experience of being the victim of a knife attack by unscrupulous hoodlums.

But, Sir, one does not want to dramatize these things. It would in any case not be advisable to fan the flames. Permit me nevertheless to finish a few particulars here about conditions in the Wynberg district, where the evil is at its worst. In that district with its approximately 291,200 Coloureds and 97,500 Bantu, 98 murders were committed last year, most of which were committed with knives and daggers. In addition, during the same year, no less than 1,886 cases of serious assault were reported to the Athlone Police Station alone. In all those cases objects such as knives and daggers were used as weapons of assault. You can thus see that the position in certain areas has assumed very serious proportions.

Now, whenever a disturbing phenomenon has made its appearance, it is only human to look for the causes which may have given rise to it. Let me say at once that I have made it my task to look into the matter. I now know that one of the first questions which occurs to the uninformed is: “Are the Police and the courts not doing their duty, because surely we have legislation at our disposal which is specially aimed at eliminating this situation?” In this connection I hasten to add that I am satisfied that the course of events cannot be attributed to laxity on the part of the Police or the courts. On the contrary, the considerable number of stabbers who have been arrested and the phenomenal increase in the number of penalties subject to revision which were imposed by the Wynberg courts, eliminates such a possibility entirely. As a matter of fact, the increase of 60 per cent in the number of penalties subject to revision, i.e. from 1,244 in 1966 to 2,002 in 1967—imposed by the courts in Wynberg during the latter year, is clear proof that serious crime in that area is being regarded with the necessary gravity. However, the fact is that the situation cannot be allowed to continue or to develop further, and the inescapable question remains “What must be done to combat the problem?”

Now, as hon. members know, this question has been fairly general speculation in regard to this matter in the Press. Certain persons are of the opinion that heavier punishments are the answer to the question; others on the other hand feel that the answer must be sought in the direction of education or social upliftment; and there are those who believe that our legislation in the present connection falls very short of the mark. I do not lay claim to being an anthropologist or that I hold the key to the innermost workings of the human mind which determine human behaviour. But where it is stated or the reproach is made that our legislation to combat this evil, falls short of the mark, I, as the responsible Minister, am called upon to go into the matter. In this connection I may, just briefly perhaps for the information of hon. members, quote from an article which appeared in the local Press—

Let us glance briefly at the legislation in question, which is contained in sections 10 and lObis of the General Law Amendment Act of 1949. That legislation does in fact contain a reasonably long list of objects described as dangerous weapons. But unfortunately it is also true that that list has on occasion appeared to be inadequate. In the case of S. v. Majosi (1963, 3, S.A.L.R. 248) the Natal courts, for example, found that a sabre was not a dangerous weapon for the purposes of the Act under review, because it was not included expressly or by implication in the list of dangerous weapons. Now, Sir, it is hardly conceivable that there is anyone sitting in this hon. House who will for one moment want to suggest that a sabre is not in fact a dangerous weapon or that it cannot be used to deadly effect. But the court was quite right in finding that in the application of the legal provisions concerned a sabre was not a dangerous weapon. This simply goes to show how easy it is to make a mistake when one tries to specify. The example of the sabre is an obvious one but there are other cases in which apparently harmless objects can, with the greatest of ease, be converted into murderous weapons or used for violent purposes. Just think of the case with which an ordinary liquor bottle can be converted into an instrument of murder by simply knocking the bottom off. The most appalling injuries imaginable can be caused by such an object, but the weapon is not a dangerous weapon in terms of the legal provisions in question. You therefore see that we can do nothing else but acknowledge that our critics are in the right when they find fault with our legislation in this respect. But, Sir, we have no intention of reconciling ourselves to that. As hon. members will notice, we are now avoiding the pitfalls which we previously found in our way by means of this definition of a dangerous weapon which is being suggested in clause 1 of the Bill before the hon. House. Now I know in advance that there will be some among us who will say that we are going too far now, but as I shall indicate later, we need not concern ourselves about it and those persons with good intentions need not fear the provisions under review.

Hon. members will concede that when one is dealing with objects which can be applied for dangerous as well as non-dangerous purposes, it serves no purpose whatsoever to provide that the possessor can get away with it by merely proving that he needs it for a lawful purpose. If. apart from such a lawful purpose, he still intends to use the object for an unlawful purpose, he need only suppress the latter intention to ensure his freedom. It would appear to me that a far better arrangement would be if we were to require that the person who has a dangerous weapon in his possession had to prove that he had no unlawful object in view in respect of the weapon. By doing so we are not placing an unequitable onus of proof upon him, but he will at least have to furnish an acceptable explanation and in cases where there is evidence to indicate that the purpose was an unlawful one, he will not be able to escape responsibility as easily as is at present the case. I believe that this subtle change that we envisage with clause 2, places the emphasis where it belongs, namely upon the possessors’ intentions, and that at the same time we succeed in laying down a reasonably and fair requirement with which everyone does not harbour harmful intentions can comply.

As far as the provisions of clause 2 are concerned, which relate to objects which resemble firearms so closely as to be mistaken for the actual product, I want to mention that those provisions are actually aimed at so-called toy pistols which, as hon. members probably know, are often employed with particular success in daring robberies. However, this does not mean that children are now going to be deprived of their fun and pleasure. In fact, the provisions under discussion are largely a reformulation of existing provisions in this connection, and they therefore do not need to cause any concern among the sceptical.

And now, Sir, I hesitate to say what must be said. To us seems only yesterday that the hand of an insane person wielded the dagger which plunged South Africa into mourning and deprived us of that man whose strong hand rested on the helm of this nation at a time when the storms of the world were bursting loose upon us. You, who were eyewitnesses, know that those impressions remain indelibly imprinted upon our minds, and I believe that since that time the question has occurred to you many times, as it has to me: How is it possible that in a civilized world such as ours the existence of such a useless thing as a dagger is still tolerated in any way? What use, I ask you, can it have other than to kill and why must we allow the weapon of the jungle to exist in a civilized country such as South Africa? As far as I am concerned, it has no right to exist and therefore I do not hesitate to request the powers which will make it possible for me to remove this instrument of murder from our midst as far as this is practicable. But you must not misunderstand me now. I realize only too well that there are objects, such as knives, which can be put to good use as well as to bad, but that they are also often employed for the latter purpose. You will concede that there are times and occasions when knives in the hands of unscrupulous thugs are only intended to shed blood and to leave a trail of human suffering and anguish in their wake. In the dark of night it is the furtive companion of many a person walking in the streets of our Coloured residential areas in particular. I need legislation to protect those people against their own flesh and blood and if I should thereby inconvenience individuals, I do so without qualms of conscience because here it is simply a case where the rights of the individual will have to give way to the interests of the community. I think that the judicious application of the provisions of clause 2 (3), for example, by prohibiting the possession of knives at set times and in public in our Coloured areas in the Peninsula, will more than anything else perhaps, enable us to make the streets of those areas the safe thoroughfares they once were and which every decent person is entitled to.

Now all that remains for us to look at is clause 4 of the Bill. The sting of this measure is contained in that clause, and it is possible that we may differ about it somewhat. But the provisions concerned need not necessarily be as terrifying as other provisions concerning compulsory punishment have been made out to be in the past. I know that the old hackney horse will most probably be saddled up again, and that we may as well prepare ourselves to hear once again the old reproach that we lack confidence in our courts. But, Sir, nothing is further from the truth than that we do not have confidence in our courts. On the contrary, I have the greatest respect for the integrity of our courts and for the impartial way in which they wield their authority. However, what we want to do here is to make it quite clear the potential stabber and rough neck that we have now had enough of his bloody trade and that he must have no doubt about what is in store for him if he sets upon his neighbour with a dangerous weapon in his hand. He must, as it were, be instructed by the statutory provisions themselves and restrain himself in time or else suffer the consequences which will most certainly befall him if he sheds the blood of his fellow-man.

Perhaps I should just mention in passing that the offences with which clause 4 deals is mainly that of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, but that offences such as theft, attempted murder or attempted theft and culpable homicide are not excluded from those provisions. In addition hon. members could probably ask whether the compulsory punishment, such as imprisonment for corrective training (two to four years) imprisonment for the prevention of crime (four to eight years) and being declared an habitual criminal (at least nine years), is not sufficient to ensure that adequate steps can be taken against people who commit acts of violence. As you know, however, the imposition of those penalties is only compulsory in cases where the accused has previously been sentenced three times for specific offences and certain prescribed terms of imprisonment have been imposed. However, this punishment cannot be imposed for first, second, or even third offences and perhaps do not act as a deterrent for the man who argues that he can take more than one bite out of the apple before those provisions prove a threat to him. Those punishments are in any case intended for the hardened criminal and as such are not aimed at underscoring the affliction which acts of violence entail for the offender.

However that may be, as you see, we are nevertheless making provision for an exception in those cases where circumstances may exist which justify a lighter sentence than the compulsory sentence, and youths under 18 years of age are not affected by the said provisions at all. But, Sir, there is one thing we must get clear, our patience with persons who have no respect for the lives of their fellowmen has reached the end of its tether. We want to say unequivocally to stabbers that we shall hit them with everything we have got, and that, if necessary, we shall not hesitate to request further powers to deal with them, who are described by their own people as the hunters with the knife. We believe that, psychologically speaking, it is important that the type of man with whom we are dealing here should be brought before the court with the least delay so that the connection between his deed and his punishment will not be lost to him, but will in fact be underscored. Therefore we are empowering all magistrate’s courts to deal with him. And, Sir, what is more, what we envisage here is not based on a desire for revenge. On the contrary, these are all measures which are intended to prevent a serious disaster. We must not delude ourselves into thinking that knifing can be dismissed as a game which has become the national pastime of the Coloured and the Bantu. It is a deadly attack on the lives of people which more often than not is only prevented by the dexterity and dedication of a surgeon or other doctor or by the ablity of the victim to ward off the attack. There is no place for knife artists in our community and we must now make an end to the cult of the knife and make do so before it becomes an established cancer. It is our objective to make the streets of the most beautiful Cape once more the safe thoroughfares they formerly were where even the representatives of the nation can come and go without being exposed to the dangers of a knife.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to start by saying that we welcome this Bill and indicate that there is not one word in this Bill which we wish to change. There is not one word in it in respect of which we will propose any change at all in the Committee Stage. The hon. the Minister read out many headlines from newspapers indicating the prevalence of violence. I want to say that this is not something new. It is worse this year than it was last year, it was worse last year than the year before and it was worse that year than it was in the year preceding that. It is getting worse and worse. The problem we are dealing with is not a new problem. It has been going on for years but it is reaching a stage where it is getting almost out of hand. What perturbs me is that nothing has been done about this. This is the first sign that we have seen from this Government that it is prepared to do something about it. I say this in all seriousness. As the hon. the Minister has rightly said the courts are trying to do what they can. If one reads what is reported in the Press by the Judge President of the Cape Provincial Division, the courts have certainly taken a strong line, even though Parliament has not taken as strong a line as the Judge President suggested it had in this Bill, namely compulsory imprisonment for the possession of a dangerous weapon. The fact of the matter is that the courts have tried their best in the circumstances.

What are the circumstances? The circumstances that we find ourselves in to-day are that a citizen cannot walk in the streets with confidence that he will not be robbed or assaulted, whether it be day or night, and whether he is a poor Bantu labourer or whether he is a member of this House. There are those who say that one out of every five white persons can expect to be assaulted seriously during his lifetime. This is not good enough. We look on this Bill as a sign at any rate, a first sign, of a doing of something which shows a thinking in the right direction. Whether it goes far enough is another question. This Bill is not necessarily going to cure everything. This Bill must not induce in the citizens a state of mind that all is well once it is passed. The Bill itself will achieve nothing unless it is implemented. This is the really important part of the Bill, not whether it goes on the Statute Book, but, when it goes on the Statute Book—and we hope it will be on the Statute Book very soon—how it will be implemented. The Bill does not add, as the hon. the Minister indicated, any new principles to the existing law. The present onslaught on the safety of the individual has developed despite the existing legislation. I was very interested in what the hon. the Minister said, namely that a “sabel”—which I take is a sword—was not a dangerous instrument in terms of a court decision.

The Natal court.

It does not matter. It is a decision by a court. But I want to say that it was in the hands of the Minister of Justice to say that it was a dangerous instrument or a dangerous weapon in terms of the existing legislation. In terms of section 10 of the General Law Amendment Act, No. 54 of 1949, the possession of a dangerous weapon is made unlawful. Here a dangerous weapon is defined inter alia as handles with wire, chains, metal rods, daggers, knives, spears, assegais, knuckle dusters, sand bags, jumpers, crowbars, axes or pick axes, etc. Then it says:

It has not been done. I do not know whether any proclamation has been made under this section. The hon. the Minister says: “No.” Why not? What has the Government been doing all this time? No proclamation has been issued under this section, the hon. the Minister says. I am most surprised.

Not to cover a sword.

The hon. the Minister is igoing to see whether in fact any proclamation has been issued, and we would be pleased to hear whether that is the case. But what this Bill does do is to make the application of the law very much more flexible. The hon. the Minister may now do more than he had the power to do before. He can now do more to act against the use of these various articles, such as a sword, a sharpened bicycle spoke, a sharpened screwdriver and all the various other instruments that one finds appearing from day to day in court. The Minister can apply this measure in different areas to different parts and in respect of different people. So we welcome this Bill, because it gives the Minister a much more flexible power.

Indeed, it goes further than the old legislation with regard to fire-arms. Before, a firearm which looked like a real fire-arm could only be prohibited and it was only an offence to carry one around if it made a banging noise. But now such a toy fire-arm need not do that. I think we are all very much aware of the sort of toy fire-arms that are being sold freely which look very much like a particular German make of pistol. It looks so> much like the real thing that that is all one needs if one wishes to perpetrate a robbery and hold up any one. Even as it is now, there are many places in every single city of South Africa where one can buy dangerous weapons as defined in the Act at this moment. One can do it to-day. One can go to one of the various sports shops in Cape Town and one will find those weapons readily available, as the hon. the Minister is aware. He is tightening up the process of selling them. We welcome that as well.

One wonders why people carry knives around with them at all. One wonders why it is necessary to carry a knife at all. One needs it to sharpen pencils or perhaps to cut some biltong. But some need these knives for their jobs. Some people do not need them for their jobs. The fishermen do, the herdboy does, and so on. The hon. the Minister can decide who needs them and who does not, and what type of knife, in fact, can be carried.

Every one in this country is entitled as of right to walk the streets in safety. He is entitled to go to bed at night without a gun under his pillow. I do not know how many people do that. I may say that I do not. I do not have it under my pillow, but I do not go to bed at night happy if I do not have a gun in the house.

You will have it in your ribs instead.

Yes, as my hon. friend says, I will have it in my ribs instead, if I did not. I most certainly would hate to be away and leave my family at home at night, the situation being as it is in this country to-day, without my wife having a means to shoot whatever appears in the house at night with the intention of killing. This is not a pleasant stage to have arrived at, but this is the stage we are in. The Government is expected to do something about it. The doing of that it not just the passing of legislation. This is not enough. This Bill will help very much in the eradication by the Minister of this evil that we all live with, of a spectre that is there before everyone, namely that he may be assaulted, whether at home or whether he walks in the street, whether by day or whether by night. The Government must make it work. One practices in the courts, and one is aware of the sort of thing that happens. If they break into your house at night, these people will kill anything that moves. Anyone they see will be stabbed or shot at. One has cases in the Bantu townships where the situation is as bad as this that a wife whose husband is murdered in the house by someone who broke in does not go and report the murder until the morning, because she dare not go to the police station and she dare not walk through the township streets, because she might not get there alive. The position is as bad as this and something has got to be done. We support this Bill one hundred per cent and, as I have indicated, we do not wish to change one word of it. Something must be done, but not only by this hon. Minister. This hon. Minister deals with the Department of Justice, the courts and with this legislation. This is the first step in the right direction that the hon. the Minister has taken, but everyone looks to the Government now, and not only to this hon. Minister, to do something about the situation that we now plan to implement this Bill. This means that not only this hon. Minister has got to do something, but also his colleagues who are responsible, namely the whole Cabinet. Unless this is done, this Bill will mean nothing whatsoever and I hope that the hon. the Minister appreciates this and will do what he can, having at his disposal all the figures and the facts, to persuade his colleagues and this Government to do something about this before it gets completely out of hand.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we are all in a hurry to have this Bill passed, but I just want to make a few observations in connection with it. After having listened to the hon. the Minister’s speech, and also to that of the hon. member for Durban (North), there is not a single member in this House who would dare to do anything to delay this measure. I think we sympathize most sincerely with the hon. the Minister in this almost inhuman problem with which he is faced. I do not want to say anything in connection with dangerous weapons, because I think the hon. the Minister dealt with this aspect in full. I just want to lay a little emphasis on and say a few words in connection with the question of prescribed penalties. To a large extent, and I say this with respect, the work of the Police is frustrated in cases where evil-doers commit these offences which we are trying to combat, are caught at a great personal risk and brought to book, and are then whipped with a silk handkerchief instead of being properly punished. I think that this work is greatly frustrated by that. I want to make an appeal to the gentlemen of the courts of law, the Chief Justice, judges and magistrates, and I want to say that it is all very well to speak of leniency and mercy, but that the public is paying for this leniency and mercy. The meekest man, according to the Book of Numbers in the Bible, was Moses. You must go and read what his punishments were, Sir. According to the Book of Numbers he was the meekest man on earth in his time, but yet he laid down very heavy punishments for this kind of criminal. He laid down an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth as his criterion.

Order! Is the hon. member not going back a little too far now?

No, Mr. Speaker, far from it. We could solve many of our problems, also in this regard, if we went back as far as those days. Those laws are still sound to-day. One is here dealing with a class of evil-doer who will not appreciate the language of meekness or mercy, and who will never appreciate it. The hon. the Minister rightly referred to the two greatest crimes, and I am now thinking especially of house-breaking and stabbing, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister very respectfully that if this measure does not prove to be very effective, he should come forward next year with a prescribed penalty which will put this kind of evil-doer away for good. For my part I want to say, and I do not believe that there is anyone here who will gainsay me, that if these two classes of evil-doers are taken away for the rest of their lives and made to do forced labour, we will see a tremendous improvement within a year. We shall then achieve what we are all aiming at, i.e. that we can once more lead a civilized and an orderly life and go to and return from our houses in safety.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everybody in South Africa realizes how enormous this problem is that we have to deal with as far as stabbings, violence and crime is concerned. This does not take place only in the white areas, but also particularly in the townships like Soweto where the number of stabbings over weekends have reached horrifying proportions. The same, of course, applies to Bonteheuwel and other non-white areas in South Africa. I am prepared to assist with anything that I hope will reduce the incidence of violence and, therefore, I am not going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I must say, however, that I am doubtful whether this Bill is in fact going to help. I do not place the reliance on its efficacy as the hon. member for Durban (North) has done and the hon. the Minister evidently does. We have had measures to prevent the possession of dangerous weapons before. The only real difference was that “dangerous weapon” was defined and, of course, there were not these minimum sentences that have to be imposed. I think that the hon. the Minister has introduced something to which I, personally, take exception, namely clause 2. In this clause the onus of proof is placed upon the person found to be in possession of a dangerous weapon.

That is the difference.

Yes, I know that. I must admit that I am worried about this, and I will tell the hon. the Minister why. I hope he realizes, of course, that it is not because I want to prevent the operation of this law in any way from being effective. I doubt, for instance, whether the hon. the Minister could produce statistics to prove that since the death penalty has been made applicable to crimes of robbery with violence, that we have had fewer robberies with violence in South Africa. If anything, I imagine that the numbers are going up. I therefore say that for anyone just to rely on punishment in order to reduce crime of this kind is optimistic beyond words. All our experience has been to the contrary. Unless this law is supplemented, in addition to being properly implemented, with other measures, I cannot see it having any effect at all. It may be a deterrent. I do not know. Because I am not 100 per cent sure, I am quite prepared to support the principle of this Bill. I am, however, perfectly convinced from everything that I know about sociology, and everything that I have read on criminology, for instance, the comments that I have read of Judge Steyn, that the beginning and the end of the cure do not lie in the Bill which the House is considering to-day. The implementation of this Bill is one thing, but unless it is supplemented by really effective long-term measures to try and cure the causes of the increase of violence in South Africa, we are going to be faced with an increase year after year, no matter what laws are on the Statute Book. The police are certainly not going to be able to cope with the situation, and already they are not able to cope. The situation in the townships, as described by the hon. member for Durban (North), is perfectly correct. There are not enough police in the townships to whom the woman he referred to could appeal to for help. There is no way of getting any help, because people are frightened of going out of doors at night. Simply saying that the thugs are going to have heavier sentences imposed on them is not going to be the answer. The answer lies in long-term measures, namely employment opportunities, schooling, keeping children off the streets…

That is nonsense.

All these things will have an effect. Does that hon. member not realize this? The herding together of the entire Coloured community in Bonteheuwel, for instance, from the scattered suburbs in which they lived, has simply put them in a position where they are victims of the thugs that roam around that area, which is badly policed, which has not enough street lighting and which is infested with unemployed and lawless youths. This puts them in the position of being victims. All these factors contribute to the stabbing and the violence encountered in the townships. Exactly the same applies in Soweto.

What about the United States of America?

I, as an “extreme liberal”, am not quoting myself; I am quoting Judge Steyn. He is a man who constantly hears evidence of stabbings before his court. In his capacity as the president of the Social Services Association in South Africa, which is, of course, the associaion which looks after prisoners, he says “punishing the offender is not the solution to this social problem. The conditions of society determine the frequency and the motives of violent crime”. Surely that is accepted by every reasonable person. Therefore the hon. the Minister is not going to be able to rely on himself, his Police Force and this law. He is going to have to rely on the efforts of the Government in attempting to change the sociological conditions which lead to violence. That means the broken families, the unemployment, the lack of schooling and the lack of proper parental control. These are all factors that play their part because a child does not start off as a delinquent and with a knife in his hand. But a child who is given no training or schooling or parental control and no employment turns to violence and crime. We have seen this in the townships of Johannesburg and I am sure that the same applies to every big city in South Africa. We have the formation of gangs who in the end turn to crime because they find it an easier and quicker way of making money. These people had no parental control or restraint whatever and no discipline and therefore turned to crime. We must consider this whole Bill against a sociological background because we are dealing with a sociological problem, which is exactly what crime is. I know that the hon. member for Krugersdorp is a great believer in punishment. He feels that you can cure everything with punishment. He thinks the heavier the punishment the easier the cure. I do not think that there is a trained sociologist or criminologist in this country who would agree with his point of view.

The parents of these youths are also migratory labourers.

Of course migratory labour comes into this question because it breaks up families and leads to illegitimacy. I am glad that the hon. member for Heilbron has reminded me of this. Migratory labour leads to illegitimacy and that in turn leads to lack of parental control of the younger generation, particularly among the non-white people. I hope I have made my point clear. I believe that unless this measure is supplemented by a real attack on the sociological basis of crime and violence, it will not mean anything as far as a curative process is concerned. I am absolutely certain of this. The hon. member for Durban (North) will come back to the House next year and tell us that the figures have gone up, and not down.

I should now like to discuss with the hon. the Minister two clauses in this Bill which worry me. The first is clause 2. I am very worried about the onus of proof in so far as it might affect an innocent person. It is very difficult to prove that you are carrying something for an innocent purpose. If you are caught in the act of using such an object unlawfully, there is naturally no problem. But how do you prove that you do not have the intention of using a dangerous weapon, which is not defined here. It can be anything from a bottle to a penknife. It can even be this penknife which I am holding up to the House now. This looks a very dangerous instrument. It has a pair of scissors, a saw-edge and something perhaps for taking things out of horses’ hooves. It also has a knife with quite a long blade. Where did I get this penknife from? I got this penknife from an hon. member who shall be nameless. I would like hon. members in this House who are carrying penknives to put up their hands if they have the courage to do so. I am sure that every second hon. member in this House is carrying a penknife. I see that even the hon. the Minister has one. I am quite sure that I am probably the only hon. member in this House who is not carrying a dangerous weapon, unless my handbag can be considered as a dangerous weapon. These things are carried by citizens of all colours. [Interjections.] I am not going to name the gentleman concerned, but he is an hon. member in this House. He gave me this object a moment ago. What worries me is how one is to prove that one is not carrying this for a dangerous purpose. A member of Parliament would not be stopped by a policeman anyway, unless he is in control of a motor car and he does not appear to be managing it very well. It is, however, unlikely that a member of Parliament will be stopped in the street by a policeman. This does not, however, apply to an African who can be stopped at every street corner by a policeman who in terms of the laws of the country can demand to see his pass and registration book to see whether he is in town legally or not. Then if this person is arrested for being in the town illegally, which is the sort of crime which can carry a penalty of 10 days’ imprisonment or RIO fine, and he is found in possession of a penknife or an ordinary knife, a knobkerrie or any other instrument or object which Africans happen to carry like any other people, possibly not for an unlawful purpose, he can be charged with being in possession of an unlawful weapon. How does he prove his innocence? He is never defended in a court of law. He does not know even how to begin defending himself, and yet we have these heavy sentences being imposed on people who may in fact not be able to prove their innocence.

I appreciate the point you have made.

Then I need not labour it any further.

I come now to clause 4 which lays down the minimum sentence with a certain proviso, namely that the court can find extenuating circumstances. Would it not be better merely to impose a higher maximum sentence and then leave it to the discretion of the court? Is that not a better way of doing this? Why are we limiting the discretion of the courts? Does the hon. the Minister feel that the courts are being too lenient in these cases where persons above the age of 18 have actually been found guilty of an offence involving violence? I thought the sentences were fairly heavy anyway. Those are the points that are worrying me about this Bill. I am not going to oppose the principle of the Bill, but unless this Bill is backed up by sociological measures I do not think it will really have the effect the hon. the Minister hopes it will have. I hope that the hon. the Minister will explain clause 2 (2) to me.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to detain the House but as far as I am concerned this is far too important a matter, especially as a result of the experience I have had recently in my own constituency as well, just to let the matter pass by voting for it. I agree with the hon. member for Durban North, who said that we do not want a single word in the Bill to be changed. One of the problems we are now facing with crimes of violence, and this Bill deals with one of the aspects of this matter, in my opinion arises partly from the fact that so often malefactors are not apprehended. When once there is a disregard for law and order and lesser crimes of violence take place, and the malefactor escapes unapprehended, we have a snowballing effect and those people are involved in more and more violent crimes. So the position gets worse and worse. The Police have a very difficult job indeed. With the assistance of the auxiliary Police and so forth, they will no doubt be able to deal more effectively with the problem before us now. That is however a matter for the authorities, especially when it comes to recruiting more policemen, when the time comes that they have the powers in the measure before us. The time has come now, particularly in our isolated areas, that the lesser malefactors, who are guilty of lesser crimes of violence, should be apprehended. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will agree with me that one of the difficulties on the platteland is that when a crime of violence takes place you should be able to contact the Police at once. It is hopeless going to the Police hours afterwards. The sooner you can notify the Police and give them the chance to apprehend the wrongdoer, the better. Telephones are vital for this purpose. Without a telephone a whole day or even more may go by before action can be taken. We want the police to have the power, we want to have the power of punishment, and we want to be able to get the information to the police at the earliest possible moment.

There is something else I should like to mention. I am glad the hon. member for Houghton is supporting this because I want it to be said in the country that this was a unanimous decision of Parliament and that there were no political or other considerations which caused anyone here to oppose this Bill. This is the absolute, complete and 100 per cent voice of Parliament and we are determined to deal with this type of crime. But I do differ from the hon. member in this respect. The hon. member and other people have said that there must be a satisfactory social background to reduce the incidence of this type of crime. The people must have education, a good upbringing, amenities, this and that and the next thing. I will return to the social aspect in a moment. I wish to say that lack of education, lack of a good upbringing, hunger, poverty and need, and things of that nature do not form the background for crimes of violence to be committed. Do we not read our newspapers to-day? Are the people who go in for the most violent types of crimes of violence, perhaps in the history of the world, at the present time, outside of actual war, needy, starving people with no education? Or are they people who have had the best of education, who should be the very people who should behave themselves? If education, upbringing, care and attention, the expenditure of public money on them for their education and other services, things they have enjoyed almost from the day they were in the cradle mean anything, then tens of thousands of young men are giving the lie to the story that ignorant people without a social background or education are the people who commit crimes of violence. That cock will not fight any longer.

They are anti-social.

Yes, we have antisocial people irrespective of their education, and we have to bear that in mind. Some of the best-educated people were involved in some of the greatest crimes of violence in the world. Some of the most shocking cases of torture in the history of mankind were perpetrated by very highly educated people. Therefore I say we can forget that story. I agree there should be pressure from all sides to create a better social background and better social conditions. As some hon. members have pointed out, crimes of violence do not only occur between Black and White. The Bantu in their townships, the Indians and the Coloured people are in many cases absolutely fear-stricken because they fear violent attacks upon them by people of their own colour. The fact that a person is a Bantu does not mean another Bantu will not attack him. At the present time many Bantu are terror-stricken to the extent that they are afraid to take their pay-packets home. They either leave their pay-packets behind or they arrange to be paid on days of the week when the thugs do not know they are going to be paid. They resort to all types of subterfuges to avoid being marked as a man carrying money because they know once it is known a man is carrying money, he will not get home that night. That is how bad it is. This sort of approach to the problem is necessary. Of course, the social approach must also have its place in the order of things. I quite agree with that. I say the man who goes out with a dangerous weapon has it for a purpose. Many of us can in all innocence contravene many of the laws we pass because so many laws are passed and many of them are very involved. Therefore many a man who is not a criminal can transgress, and I feel very sorry for them. But the man with a dangerous weapon in his hand must be made short shrift of. I have a pen-knife here in my hand and under certain circumstances that could be a dangerous weapon. Let me tell hon. members that a plain hatpin can be a dangerous weapon.

You will never Ibe arrested for possessing that pen-knife.

Quite, because it has a very short blade. As I say, a hatpin can be a very dangerous weapon, and I know where they have been used with telling effect in defence of a person. I accept the difficulties the Minister is in, and he can say he has the whole of Parliament behind him in his efforts to overcome this problem. So we say to him we give him our blessing, we say to him we know he has difficulties, he may have to come back for amendments. The police realize the position has been reached where the Government, not the Minister as the hon. member said, must apply their joint minds to how to deal with this problem which is getting completely out of hand.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the time is so short, because this could have resulted in a very interesting debate, although sufficient has already been said. It is sufficient for me to know that I have the full support of both sides of the House, and I believe I even have the support of the hon. member for Houghton. She rightly pointed out that there are certain persons who approach the problem differently. I know that Mr. Justice Steyn holds the view that there must be another approach as well. I mentioned that in my Second Reading speech, which I made as quickly as possible because there was so little time. We realize this. But I said that this was an attempt to do something in this connection. I referred to the shortcomings of the previous legislation. As the newspaper reports indicated, not even the most thorough legal draftsman can specify all the weapons. Would hon. members include an ordinary spade? What about an ordinary pitchfork?

What about a good fist?

No, that is not a problem. One simply cannot do it in the old way. Our Act did not meet the position. I was quite right when I said that we did not add anything by notice. What could we do? We could only add certain things to the list of dangerous weapons by way of notice as a result of court decisions. Thus we had to learn and supplement the list. This is a much better method, a much better approach. Now everything which can cause serious bodily injury is a dangerous weapon. Let us now take a hypothetical case. I carry a penknife in my pocket, but I have not the slightest fear of being arrested because I am allegedly carrying a dangerous weapon. If it so happens that I am arrested—and this answers the hon. member for Houghton’s question—the court will not find me guilty simply because the knife was found in my pocket. The State will have to prove something more definite than that.

But the onus is on the accused according to the clause.

Yes, unless I was found in an area and during a time such as is determined in clause 2 (2). The subclause refers to certain places, certain times and certain classes of persons, and if I have issued the necessary notice, it will be an absolute prohibition.

Can you give us an example?

If the hon. member reads this clause properly, she will find that I can make the clause applicable to a certain area for certain hours of the day or night.

How are you going to decide when and where to apply it?

It will depend on where it is needed most. I shall for example receive requests from communities to make the clause applicable to them. I am certain that the first such request will come from the Coloured communities.

What about the man who carries such an object in the area and time to be defined, for the purpose of self-defence, for instance?

No, then he may not possess any such object. He shall have to prove that he has it in his possession for a lawful purpose. As far as the matter of this thuggery and these stabbings is concerned, as the hon. member for South Coast also said, it is a wave of violence which we are experiencing. The violence goes hand in hand with robbery and murder. In cases of capital offences which I examine, I see every day how dangerous weapons are used for murderous assaults. We must make a concerted effort to try to put a stop to this. I do not say that it will succeed, but I think that this is a very wise piece of legislation. It is not my brainchild. After discussions with my Department and the law advisers and after consultation with the courts, I am coming forward with this legislation. I hope and trust that this measure will make a considerable contribution to combating this state of affairs.

The hon. member asked me whether we had no faith in our courts and whether we should not simply increase the punishment. I stated specifically in my Second Reading speech that I had the greatest faith in our courts. Hon. members must remember that this kind of case is usually dealt with by ordinary magistrates’ courts and that in the normal course of events the magistrate can only impose a sentence of six months. If we make provision for a higher maximum penalty and we leave it to the discretion of the courts, we shall undo what we have thus far wanted to do. Then we would be whipping with the silk handkerchief which the hon. member for Krugersdorp spoke about. We would not be driving home the fact of how serious the legislature regards this offence as being. We rather want to prescribe a minimum sentence and then say to the courts that if they find that exceptional circumstances apply, they must enter the fact in the record and impose a lighter sentence. We are rather inclining in the opposite direction.

I just want to say that this measure is the product of the composite wisdom of my whole Department and that it is the best which we could do under the present circumstances. I am glad that I have the support of the whole House for it and I hope and trust that it will bear the fruit which we hope it will.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister did not answer my main objection to this particular clause, and that is how is an innocent man going to prove he is innocent? I have mentioned the case of an African who gets arrested for a pass offence and he is found with a knife or an instrument of his trade on him. He might be a carpenter, a stone-mason, or anything: he might have an instrument of his trade with him. He might be a man who is not used to appearing in court, he does not know how to defend himself, and he will not have the benefit of legal advice. I really see the danger of more innocent people being arrested under this clause than real criminals, because at the first sign of any limb of the law appearing on the scene, the ordinary criminal knows how to dispose of his weapon. But the innocent man who does not realize he may be found guilty if he cannot prove his innocence under clause 2, will not bother to dispose of his pen-knife or his stick or chisel or whatever he may have on him. Is the Minister going to pass regulations immediately protecting artisans who are carrying their tools? These are factors which he has not discussed.

Mr. Chairman, I have said that such a person will not be found guilty by the courts. The State will have to prove something more than that.

The clause does not say that.

Yes, you are right, the clause does not say it, but he will not be found guilty merely on that. Evidence will have to be presented that he was in possession of a dangerous weapon. Then he can simply say that he did not have an unlawful purpose in mind. The clause merely provides that he may not have an unlawful purpose in mind and then the State will have to prove that he had done something or other which creates the impression that he had not been in possession of the weapon for a lawful purpose. That is what it amounts to.

May I then move an amendment to this clause? I should like to have the clause provide that this provision shall apply if he has such an object in his possession “in suspicious circumstances”. I see nothing in this clause which says he has to show or the prosecution has to show that he was in possession of a dangerous weapon under suspicious circumstances. This is not in the clause at all. The policeman simply has to say in court, “I found the accused with a pen-knife on him, and it is a dangerous weapon.” How does he prove he did not have it for an innocent purpose?

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member be satisfied if I promise to go into the matter and then to give further attention to it in the Other Place?

I would like to move this amendment and then…

We shall only negative the hon. member’s amendment.

Will you consider it in the Other Place?

Yes.

Very well, then I shall not move it.

Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I wish to indicate that we have considered this question of the onus very closely and in our view the onus which is placed on the accused under this Bill is less onerous than it is under the existing legislation.

That is so.

Clause put and agreed to.

In the second reading debate I raised the question as to why there should be a differentiation between stamp duties on fixed deposits which were deemed to be for 24 months, and leases which fell into very much the same category. I pointed out that whereas in the case of leases a refund could be obtained if the lease ended prior to the period, there was not the same provision in regard to fixed deposits. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister wlil be able to enlighten us in this regard.

As the hon. member rightly said, in the case of leases provision is being made for refunds, and in the case of fixed deposits no provision is being made for refunds. There are certain reasons why it is deemed fit that provision should be made for refunds in the case of leases, but the same circumstances do not quite apply in respect of fixed deposits. I should like to give a few reasons why I am not prepared to make provision for refunds in respect of fixed deposits as well. The hon. member will know, of course, that in cases where provision for refunds is made, it causes the Department a good deal of extra work. The reasons I should like to submit to the hon. member and the Committee are the following: In the first instance, financial institutions receiving money on fixed deposit can easily arrange that the deposits are not automatically renewable and in this way avoid the extra stamp duties. Therefore it is much easier to avoid the extra stamp duties in the case of fixed deposits than it is in the case of leases, which, as the hon. member knows, may be terminated on account of circumstances. In the second instance, the stamp duty on fixed deposit receipts is considerably less than the stamp duty on leases. The rate in respect of fixed deposit receipts is 5c per R100 for every period of 12 months, or part thereof, in the term of the deposit. Where, for example, the period is 24 months, the rate is therefore 10c per R100. The lowest rate of stamp duties in respect of leases is 25c per R100, and this can increase to 70c per R100. In view of the higher rate in the case of leases, provision has to be made for refunds. Of course, this does not apply in the case of fixed deposit receipts. A third reason is that the termination oi a lease is in fact not the same as the withdrawal of a fixed deposit. In the case of the lease the stamp duty is eventually paid on the total rent paid for the actual period for which the property was occupied by the lessee. I should like to emphasize this fact to the hon. member, namely that in the case of a lease the stamp duty is payable on the total amount payable for the period concerned. In the case of a fixed deposit the stamp duty is paid on the amount deposited, and not on the total amount such as when the one year is added to the other. This amount is not affected by the termination of the period of the deposit. In the fourth place, the period for which provision is being made in subsection (1), namely 12 months, was originally, i.e. in the Bill which was published on 10th April, 24 months, but as a result of representations received the period was reduced to 12 months. Finally, the fixed deposit receipt can rather be compared with a share certificate, and I think the hon. member is sure to agree with me, because investments are proposed in both cases. The stamp, duty on a share certificate is of course considerably higher, and just as in the case of a fixed deposit receipt such stamp duty is calculated on the value of the shares on the date of issue. Therefore there is a variety of reasons why those two are not really comparable and why I think that provision should not be made for refunds in the case of fixed deposit receipts as well.

Mr. Chairman, after listening to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation I have no doubt that the building societies will be able to adjust the position so that one will not have to pay the additional stamp duty. For the record, however, I want to get one thing clear. From time to time we get an explanation from the Government for an action and they tell us that one set of circumstances will cost only a small amount and another set of circumstances a large amount.

That is only a minor argument.

Yes, I know, but I want to get this right for the record. We are not concerned with the amounts involved, but with the principle involved. I hope we will not get the explanation that in some cases the cost will be small, and that therefore there is no necessity for adjustment, whereas in other cases Ihe cost will be large and adjustment is therefore necessary.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 23:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about this clause. I did not take part in the discussion in Committee of Ways and Means or during the second reading of this Bill. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is on the right lines. It is an anomalous position that if a man trades in marketable securities in one kind of market he is taxed quite differently than if he traded in another market. There are three well-known methods by which people can trade. One method is to deal through recognized stock exchanges. The second method is what is called “over the counter” dealings, where new shares are issued and are sold to the public at a stated price. The third method, often referred to as the third market, is a method whereby one company can deal with another company and does not pay this tax. For many years I have advocated that this anomalous position should be dealt with by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor discussed it on one occasion, but he did not take any action. When he introduced the marketable securities tax I told him he should not do it, but that he should find a method that was equitable for all dealers in these marketable securities. Now that the hon. the Deputy Minister has introduced this clause, I can only say that he is on the right lines. He has gone half-way and, because half a loaf is better than no bread, I want to say that he is moving in the right direction. I think that consequently, on another occasion, he will be able to remove this anomaly altogether. I cannot go so far as to congratulate him heartily, but I can say that he is on the right lines to remove an anomaly which has existed for many years in our dealings in South Africa in marketable securities.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, during the second-reading debate I put certain questions to the hon. the Minister. I would be glad if he would answer them at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raised certain matters under this clause during the second-reading debate, and I should like to repeat them and then reply to them as far as I am able to do so.

The first question he asked was: Why must the shipper’s statement of expenses and the contract of purchase of goods be produced? The intensive audit instituted by the Department revealed that considerable underpayments are made as a result of failure on the part of importers to produce the shipper’s statement and the contract of purchase in respect of the goods. Certain costs that are not indicated on the standardized invoice, but that do have an influence on the value of the goods, are often indicated in the shipper’s statement. This is of great importance in the case of textiles. I should like to emphasize that the invoice does not in all cases comply with the essential requirements which the Department must have in order to draw up a proper statement. Detailed particulars of the goods as well as their price are indicated in the contract of purchase. These two documents together give an indication as to what rate of exchange was applied. This is also an important factor. Considerable underpayments were discovered in this connection as well. Furthermore, I want to emphasize that the rate of exchange which was applicable on the day on which the purchase was made, is the rate of exchange which should be applied. From that point of view it is essential that the confirmation of the purchase be produced. I would not say that it will be required in all cases, but we must have the right to obtain the particulars in this way when circumstances necessitate it.

The second matter raised by the hon. member is the question as to whether the commercial or pro forma invoices will be accepted as contracts of purchase. As has already been stated, the object of the provision in respect of the contract of purchase is that the contract of purchase must be produced in order to ensure that all particulars which may influence the value of the consignments for duty purposes, will come to notice. If commercial invoices contain all the particulars, they will be acceptable as contracts of purchase. But it is not always the case that such invoices contain all the particulars. This is really a repetition of what I said a while ago. If the invoice contains all the particulars, then it will be in order, but we must have the right to obtain the particulars when it is not in order.

The third point raised by the hon. member was: How would the production of written clearing instructions affect air-freight clearances, for example? We realize that speed is a very important factor in the case of airfreight. Many importers who must be regarded as experts in their respective and limited fields, fail to provide their clearing agents with explicit clearance documents and this results in many unnecessary mistakes and underpayments, particularly in those cases where large consignments are involved. In the case of goods which are imported by air-freight and in respect of which speedy delivery is a requirement, the value of the consignments is usually relatively low, compared with the value of consignments imported by ship. In certain cases, such as air-freight consignments, it is not the intention to apply the provision concerning the production of clearing instructions strictly. I just want to say to the hon. member that we realize, in the case of airfreight consignments, that the circumstances are different and that speed in all probability plays a very important part; if this were not so, the goods would not be transported by air. Consequently this provision will not necessarily be applied so strictly and so fully.

The next question raised by the hon. member was whether an assurance would be given that the samples taken of. for example, very costly material, would not be too large. The hon. member will probably recall that I had certain samples here with me in the House during the discussion in Committee of Ways and Means. If I remember correctly, they were approximately six inches by four inches, or eight inches by six inches, in size. These samples are generally known as “snippets”. I am not quite sure whether these are the samples to which the hon. member referred.

I am talking of a fullwidth sample.

The samples to which we are referring now and which have to be attached to the invoice, are only snippets, that is, they are only small pieces, but in addition provision is made elsewhere for a sample for analysis, for example by the S.A.B.S. The hon. member will understand that in this case the sample will naturally have to be larger, and the general idea is that the sample has to be a yard of material in such cases. But I must agree with the hon. member that a yard of material may be very expensive in some cases; it may cost a great deal of money. I do not want to go into detail as to which cases, but this is so. I acknowledge that he is right as far as this is concerned. All I can say to him in this connection is that the Department will not take more than is required for the analysis. We appreciate the importer’s problem, of course, in that he does not want to make more material available in the case of an analysis than is necessary. The Department will see to it that the minimum is used for the necessary examination which must be carried out.

In the last place the hon. member asked under this clause whether the departmental forms would be supplied to the public free of charge. All I can say in this connection is that the forms are of course kept in stock. They are printed by the Government Printer. If a person approaches the offices of the Department of Customs and Excise for the necessary forms for clearance purposes, then these forms are placed at his disposal. The hon. member can also appreciate that thousands of these forms may be used on one day in cities such as Cape Town and Durban and it is really the responsibility of the importers and particularly the “indent agents” to see to it that they have supplies of these forms. Sensible and responsible people even go further and have their names printed on the forms. This is also in order and we have no objection to it. It forms part of their advertising. Consequently the Department cannot undertake to supply large numbers of forms to businessmen free of charge. It is reasonable and fair to expect businessmen to supply their own forms.

That is what I said.

But the position is different in regard to the general public. If an individual applies for these forms, they will always be made available. As a matter of fact, the Department will go so far as to assist them in completing the forms and clearing the goods.

Under this clause I want to say, with reference to the entire Bill, that hon. members should realize that these are new provisions which have become essential in the light of present circumstances. I am referring to the irregularities which have been brought to light and of which hon. members are aware. Furthermore I want to say that no amendment has been suggested so far which is acceptable to me. I realize only too well that these new provisions may create problems for commerce and industry. As a matter of fact, some of those problems may even be insurmountable to commerce and industry. But I want to give the assurance here that if such problems arise, we shall act administratively. Hon. members need not think that such problems will bring things to a standstill in the Department. On the contrary. The necessary administrative adjustment will be made to ensure that things run smoothly. I want to ask commerce and industry to contact the Department, or me if necessary, immediately if they come up against problems, so that we may try to solve such problems administratively. This then is the assurance I give to the hon. member for Durban (Point), who I know to be very interested in this matter. We shall try to eliminate any problem administratively as it arises. In view of the complicated nature of this legislation it is not possible for me to make any adjustments at this stage. We will first have to test this Bill in practice to see how it functions. If problems then arise which cannot be eliminated administratively and which require amendment of the legislation, we shall effect the necessary amendments next year.

Mr. Chairman, here we have the amazing situation that we are being asked to legislate by trial and error; we are being asked to accept legislation which the hon. the Deputy Minister admits may cause difficulty, but these difficulties he says will be dealt with administratively. But that cannot be done because section 39 as it reads now and as it will read after this amendment goes through contains no permissive power. Section 39 (1) (a) says that the person who enters any imported goods for any purpose in terms of that Act “shall” deliver … In the clause we are now discussing, i.e. clause 1, certain additions are proposed to what that person “shall deliver”. Here, therefore, there is no permissive right in terms of which the Minister may act administratively. The person concerned “shall” produce the documents set out here. The hon. the Deputy Minister in his explanation says that if these documents are not needed the department will not call for them, or only call for those which are essential. But he cannot do so, because if this amendment is accepted, the law will read that every person entering imported goods “shall” produce a shipper’s statement of expenses incurred by him and “shall” have a copy of the confirmation of sale or other contract of purchase and sale, and he “shall” have an importer’s written clearing instructions.

Let me deal with these three documents in turn. There is, firstly, the shipper’s statement of expenses. My query to the hon. the Minister was that duty was based on f.o.b. value. F.o.b. value is the value of the goods before the shipper puts them onto a ship or an aircraft, i.e. before he has incurred any expenses. F.o.b. value of goods is the value of the goods plus the packing charges plus transport costs to the docks. This is the value that must be declared on the certified invoices and on the bill of lading. The cost of the shipment out to South Africa does not affect the dutiable value which must be declared. Consequently, my query was why costs which did not affect the dutiable value should have to be declared. It is not that I have any objection to their being declared, but to do this entails additional documentation, additional work, additional costs and additional opportunities for errors. If the Minister can satisfy us that there is a need for this, e.g. that it can affect the duty and that it can otherwise lead to evasion, then it would be a different matter. But I cannot see how duty can be evaded by costs incurred subsequent to the dutiable value having been determined. The value of the goods must be the value of the goods when priced, packed and delivered f.o.b. That is the price which can affect duty.

Consequently, I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us a clearer explanation of why a shipper’s statement of expenses has to be furnished.

Then we come to the copy of the confirmation of sale or other contract of purchase and sale. The Deputy Minister says that if a pro forma invoice gives all the information it would be acceptable. But I do not interpret this provision in that light because this does not say “or other document indicating conditions of purchase” but only says “contract of purchase”. I cannot see how this can be interpreted as being anything other than a confirmation of sale. Here, again, my objection is that this entails only additional clerical work, because to obtain an import permit, you have to have a pro forma invoice. Many firms supply a contract as well, but many simply furnish a confirmation of order in the form of a pro forma invoice. So here, again, additional work is being created and with that more opportunities for delays and errors. Surely, all the department requires is that all the information should be furnished. I think the Deputy Minister should look into this matter to see whetner the wording of this provision entitles him to accept such a pro forma invoice.

The third document required is the importer’s written clearing instructions to the agent. The Deputy Minister said that he realized that with air freight there was urgency and that things would be simplified as far as this was concerned. But this cannot be done because the law lays down that there must be written instructions to the clearing agent. As I read it, it shall have to be a written instruction in regard to every item of import separately. Let us now look at the position of a firm inland, a firm who has complied with the Government’s policy in relation to border industries, a firm which is 150 miles from Durban. It has moved away from the point of entry in complying with the Government’s policy. If this firm finds that a small part of a machine has broken down and wants it flown out, it first has to get the documents and send written instructions to his clearing agent before the goods can be cleared. I regret to say the Deputy Minister’s assurance here is worthless as he would be acting illegally if he waived these provisions because after this amendment has been passed the law will lay down that a written clearing instruction “shall” be given. I feel that we cannot be asked to pass legislation which in terms of the Minister’s own explanation given here this morning he recognizes cannot be applied, or cannot be applied without hardship. He admitted that in regard to air freight consignments he would waive the provision, but there is no discretion allowed for that in terms of this clause. The very least he can do is to incorporate, before this Bill is passed—he cannot do it administratively—a provision that these documents, if required by the Controller or by the Secretary, shall be called for, and then it can be prescribed which ones are required. But to lay it down as the law that they must be required and then to say, “But we are not going to apply it”, means that we are legislating here for crime; we are legislating for the Department to act illegally, if the Minister’s undertakings are going to be carried out. I cannot see how it can be otherwise, because this clause, after laying down these provisions, goes on to say “and such other documents relating to such goods as the Controller may require in each case”. In other words, these are compulsory, and then such other documents shall be supplied as required. I ask the Minister to consider moving the words “as the Controller may require in each case”, in order to include these items which are being laid down here, so that unnecessary documentation will not be required and unnecessary delay will not occur. I see the hon. the Minister shakes his head. I hope he can show that I am wrong, because I am concerned that if I am right this will create great hardship for importers.

In regard to the sample size again, the hon. the Minister said it will only be as big as is necessary, but that is not the position. The position is that by regulation a full width yard sample must be provided. In many cases that is far more than is required for analysis, so again the undertaking of the hon. the Minister does not in practice apply. It is no good just fobbing us off with an undertaking when the regulations lay this down. The Minister says they will not ask for more than they need, but I am sure that with many of these samples that width is not required. I ask him to allow importers, if they are dealing with expensive goods where this is a material factor involving many rands, to apply to be informed what is the minimum that shall be required and to provide only that particular size. [Time expired.]

I want to support the hon. member for Durban (Point). I submit that this clause as it is now drafted gives the Department no flexibility whatever. If the Minister will refer to pages 63 and 65 of the Most electronic equipment to-day is imported, Schedule, he will find items on that Schedule which are frequently imported by air freight, in many cases, at the last minute. In cases like that you will not find a shipper’s statement with details of expenses, and you will not find the confirmation of the sale. All the evidence for the Department will be a wire from the importer asking that this particular part must be put on the next plane.

It is often a telephone call.

Yes, often it is a telephone call, because expensive machinery is standing idle waiting for a spare part. When a spare part arrives, all that will accompany that spare part will be the invoice with the f.o.b. value, and no shippers’ statements. The importer will frequently telephone instructions to his clearing agent to clear these goods. Here we are asking for a shipper’s statement of expenses and there will be no statement of expenses accompanying the invoice. There will be no copy of the confirmation of sale if it was done by a telephone call, and there will be no contract of purchase and sale other than the evidence that there has been a telephone call and the importers’ written clearing instructions will not appear. The whole of the goods can be held up because this clause as now drafted is mandatory. I suggest that this clause is making more red tape, and making the red tape work very effectively indeed. It can hold up the whole of the factory organization because there is no elasticity at all. I suggest that the Minister should think again on this clause. I admit that the Minister has the background of people fiddling with imports and he is trying to close the gap, but might I suggest that he is using a sledgehammer to close the gap, and I do not think it is necessary. There should be elasticity in that the matter could be referred to the Secretary of the Department, so that he can waive these instructions. But this clause gives him no such power and the Department will be compelled in terms of this clause as now drafted to comply with all these details. The details may not be available and goods can be held up and valuable machinery can be standing idle and people will have to be put on short time, because the letter of the law comes before its practical implementation in regard to the ordinary requirements for importing goods. I suggest that the Minister should think again and allow further elasticity in drafting this clause.

I want to support the two previous speakers. This whole issue gives one a feeling of panic from the very commencement, starting with the statement of the hon. the Minister of Finance in the Press and followed up by what is now in this clause. Suddenly there is a panic. Suddenly every door must be locked; every avenue must be closed, and obviously not enough thinking has gone into it. The hon. the Deputy Minister has been the first to admit that there are going to be problems. He has said so.

There will always be.

That is right, but do you put legislation on the Statute Book knowing that there are going to be problems in terms of that legislation? How responsible is an action like that? The hon. members who have spoken already, have pinpointed the issue. The hon. the Deputy Minister says he will pass a law and if it does not work, he will alter it administratively. What kind of legislation are we startine to get in this country when a Deputy Minister gets up in this House and tells us that he will pass a law which if it does not work he will allow everybody to break? Parliament is the sovereign authority. Not Ministers or Deputy Ministers and their Departments. This is what is happening to-day. The Deputy Minister, as was rightly pointed out by the hon. member for Point, will have exactly the same powers if he simply says: “The said person shall further produce the bill of lading or other document of title, invoices in the prescribed form and such other documents relating to such goods as the Controller may require in each case.”

If the clause is passed in that form, the hon. the Deputy Minister as soon as the Bill becomes an Act, can issue an instruction that the documents he requires are those set out in detail in the clause, but then he has the legal right to say at any stage, if he finds that problems arise, that he no longer requires these documents. The hon. the Deputy Minister, however much he would like us to help him to stop the loopholes that have been in the Act up to now, must not come and ask us to support a clause where he tells us at the same time that, if it cannot work, he will change it without the authority of Parliament.

I do not know what the hon. members on that side of the House are after. They are aware that a tremendous amount of irregularities are taking place, but apparently they want these to continue. All the hon. member for Durban (Point) did was to stand up here and advocate that the people who were breaking the law must be afforded a greater opportunity of breaking the law in future, and that the Government must lose its legitimate income which it ought to receive. That is all it amounted to. The hon. members have now stated that I want to change the legislation administratively. That was never the intention. I know that I cannot change the letter of the law administratively. But let us now take the case of the imports per air freight.

If there is something wrong with imports per air freight, I shall not bring the machinery of the country to a halt, as the hon. members for Pinetown and Parktown and even the hon. member for Durban (Point) have suggested. Naturally, if one sees that the matter is in order but that there is one document missing, one can after all, as I gave the hon. member for Durban (Point) in another case the undertaking that I would do, say: Give me the undertaking that you will do this or the other, and then the article can be released. That is the administrative part I spoke about, and the intention was not to change the law.

The fact of the matter is that we need certain particulars in order to be able to determine departmentally that everything is in order and to make sure that this cheating which went on in the past cannot continue to take place. I need those documents. Hon. members are now suggesting that I should insert the words “if it may be necessary” here. All that would happen then, at least initially, is that an instruction would be issued on an administrative level that this was in fact necessary, and then the hon. member is back where he was. We will deal with these people as well as we are able to on an administrative level, but the fact of the matter is that these irregularities which have taken place, must be curbed. I want to say to the hon. member for Durban (Point) that the shipping statement furnishes us in many cases with information which we cannot obtain from any other source. There are certain expenses which appear on the shipping document which we cannot obtain by means of the invoice.

The hon. member was quite right in saying that customs duties are based on the highest of one of two things, i.e. either the free on board price or the domestic price. Sir, the hon. member has had experience of this business, and he will agree with me that in the past large-scale cheating was carried on by means of this manipulation of costs, and consequently it is essential that we should take a firm line of action in regard to this position. I hope that hon. members on the opposite side will co-operate with me instead of trying to prevent me from taking a firm line in regard to this position. We do not want to burden the trade and the industry unnecessarily; we should like to facilitate the position for them. Unfortunately it is the case that many innocent people, who never had any intention of cheating, have to be saddled with greater burdens than before so that we can take a firm line of action in regard to those other people.

This is unfortunately the case, but we will not cause unnecessary delays. If we want certain information and that information is not available we will say to the importer: “If you give us a proper undertaking, then we will release the goods,” as has already been done in the past. We will not bring the machinery of the country to a standstill. I want to emphasize that these irregularities, which have not only taken place here, but which are taking place throughout the world, particularly in the textile industry, must be curbed, and that is why I insist that this clause should be left as it is so that we can put a stop to these irregularities once and for all.

Sir, nobody wants to stop the hon. the Deputy Minister closing loopholes. I made that clear at the beginning and we made it clear in the Second Reading debate. Where irregularities take place we want to see that they are stopped. Sir, right at the end of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech he said quite clearly that these irregularities took place particularly in textiles. As far as I know there are two fields in which the Minister has a problem, that is, in textile valuation and the import of textiles, and secondly, in respect of rebate stores.

In order to deal with two specific problems, textiles and rebate stores, the Minister is now applying to the whole import industry of South Africa, machinery designed to make it as difficult as possible to import anything into the country without its being examined microscopically. Where there is evasion nobody is going to argue about the necessity to call for these documents. Where the Minister has a problem let him deal with it, but why must this procedure be followed in the case of thousands upon thousands of items and types of items, which are not involved in any way in rackets and which are imported every year? Why should this whole procedure be followed in the casee of duty-free items where there is no problem and no evasion and no difficulty?

Let the Minister use his power where he needs it, in cases of suspected rackets; all we ask is that he must not make it a mandatory power applying to every import in South Africa. Let him give himself the permissive power to call for these documents in the textile field. These documents do not apply to rebate stores, so it is not necessary there. Let him take the power to apply these provisions to textiles or to any other item in connection with which there are evasions. But why apply it to the hundreds of pages of items which appear in the schedule to this Act, even to duty-free items, which are now going to have to fall under the sledgehammer, to which the hon. member for Pinetown referred, and which are going to be bashed around when in fact there is no problem? Is this not a case where the innocent are being punished because of the actions of guilty parties; people who are not even in the business, people in different fields altogether, are going to be affected? People who import in fields where there is no problem are now going to be subjected to all these inconveniences. It would be very simple for the hon. the Deputy Minister simply to alter the wording to read, “such documents as the Controller may determine may be called for”, and then he can apply it to all those fields where he has a problem. Instead of saying “and such other documents”, let him say, “the said person shall produce these documents if the Controller so requires” and then the Controller can simply by regulation apply them to the fields in which there are difficulties. I do plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister not to create this inconvenience for everyone simply because of the difficulties experienced in the case of a handful. I think the hon. the Minister said in the debate on his Vote that this position was not as widespread as the public had been led to believe. There was talk of R350,000,000 in rebates and afterwards the hon. the Minister admitted that of that only some R34,000,000 represented textiles. Sir, we are tending to exaggerate here. There are problems and there are evasions, but we are tending to exaggerate them and I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister not to allow himself to get into a panic but to give himself some discretion to apply these powers when and where they are necessary.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

This is another clause where a whole section of commerce is being placed in a straitjacket because of the difficulties which are occurring in a small section. There are three points which I want to raise specifically in connection with this clause. One is that we in the South African Parliament are now legislating as to what an exporter in another country shall do. I do not know what the international implications are and whether we in fact have the power in the South African Parliament to make laws which we say shall be deemed to apply to foreign nationals.

Not only this Parliament; U.N. has done so.

Yes, U.N. tries to do it but we regard it as being unconstitutional. Are we going to follow U.N.’s example? Because U.N. applies illegal provisions to South Africa, are we now going to pass a law and say that this applies to foreign nationals? I do not think that we are competent to do so. But, Sir, that is only a first step, because clause 17, which we come to later, transfers the onus which we are placing on an exporter to the South African agent. I will deal with that aspect in greater detail when we come to that clause; I do not think this is the time to do it. I do not believe that this is practical. I do not see how we are going to apply regulations to foreign countries and say, “We, the South African Parliament, say that you shall do this, you shall do that, you may do this and you may not do that.” We have no power to enforce it, and I think the hon. the Minister is going to find that he is going to be faced with litigation as to our competency to pass legislation of this kind. When somebody buys something from another country we can say that in order to import that into the country it shall be accompanied by this, that and the other documents. Then it is up to the person importing it to ensure that he has the necessary documents. He can then by negotiation with the supplier ensure that he gets what is required. But we cannot say to the exporter, “You will provide these.” If he does not provide them, we can refuse to let the goods concerned into the country, but we cannot punish him for not providing the documents. We are creating an artificial offence which cannot be handled in our courts, and later in the Bill we try to use that as the basis for dealing with South African citizens. I believe we are skating on very thin ice legally. That is the advice I have on this matter. I am not a constitutional lawyer and I do not pretend to know myself, but the advice I have is this would not be acceptable and could not be applied in practice.

The information which is asked here again goes far beyond what I believe is necessary. Some of the information may be necessary. I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister during the second reading debate to deal for instance with the question of agents’ commission and and other costs, for instance royalties and so on, which are purely germane to the costs of the manufacturer. They are taken into account in fixing his selling price but they are not public information. I think here of royalties he may have to pay for patent usages and commissions which he may have to pay to a sales agent. I ask the Minister to clarify whether that is what is meant by “commission” and “royalty”, or whether that only applies when something over and above the selling price is involved.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member agrees with me on one point, and that is that owing to the manipulation of prices, irregularities are taking place on a very large scale. It is also in regard to these very items which we are now dealing with here that deceptions are being practised owing to the manipulation of prices. In terms of the provision of this clause the importer must declare on the prescribed invoice all necessary particulars for making a valid entry and certain specific particulars which have a bearing on the value and price. Such particulars must refer to the final amounts and particulars. Although this is obvious it has nevertheless become necessary to include this provision owing to the arguments advanced by importers when they were caught with incorrect entry. Large underpayments were for example discovered, because final particulars relating to rates of exchange, especially after devaluation of sterling, were not furnished. The provision to the effect that any commission, surcharge, expenses and so on which could otherwise have a bearing on the final value for duty purposes, must be taken into consideration, is already contained in the Act, namely in section 84, in respect of contraventions in connection with false documents and declarations. Although there can be a commission in a private transaction between an exporter and an agent, the possibility nevertheless exists that it can have a bearing on the final value. The hon. member was quite right in saying that the final value of the property is important to us for the collection of customs duty, and since it is our experience that this manipulation of commission, surcharge and related matters, can have an effect on the final value upon which the customs duty must be based, we regard it as essential that these requirements be complied with.

Does this include the local commission which the agent receives?

No, I do not believe that it includes the local commission.

The hon. member also raised another point, and he is quite right in what he said in that connection. We cannot touch the exporter: he does not come under the jurisdiction of our courts and we cannot get at him. That is why we are compelled in these cases to hold the man in South Africa responsible for that. Whether it is the importer or his agent, we will take steps against the importer through his agent, because in these proposals we also hold the importer responsible for the actions of his agents. Therefore it is necessary that the importer, or his agent must ensure that the requirements are complied with. I do not see why they cannot obtain the information. We regard the information as essential. If they cannot furnish the information, then they should rather not import. But I think that for the purposes of import and sale there will be no problem in obtaining this information.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Why do we hold the exporter responsible if the Deputy Minister himself admits that we have no power over him? Is this provision not altogether impracticable? Does this clause have any value?

This is a technical point which the hon. member is raising and I shall go into the matter in detail. The importer is responsible for the actions, the activities and the obligations resting upon the exporter. I therefore do not see a problem in this connection, but since it is a technical point, I shall investigate it more thoroughly.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to the question I asked him about why the amount of tax had been removed from cigarette wrappings?

The reason for that is briefly as follows. The stamp labels affixed to cigarette boxes are printed in very large quantities at a time. From time to time there are changes in the stamp duty payable. If the hon. member would look at his cigarette box, he would see that the amount of the duty does not appear on the stamp. All he would see, is the quantity of tobacco to which the duty is applicable. It is possible that the duty may be changed while there are still enormous quantities of stamp labels on hand. Therefore, in cases where changes were effected in the duty on tobacco in the past, the changed amount of money was not shown, but only the quantity of tobacco that was subject to that particular duty. As far as the administrative functioning of the Department is concerned, this is a very simple procedure. This is the reason.

You do not want people to know how much tax they are paying.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, this is another clause where I believe the hon. the Minister is applying a quite impracticable and unrealistic provision. He is amending the procedure for determining the current domestic value, the C.D.V., of an item to make it not the price charged by the exporter but the price charged by exporters of such or similar goods. Where previously an exporter could be expected and had to state the price at which he sold an item in his own country, this provision now places quite an impossible load upon the exporter. Firstly, the Deputy Minister is now asking that the exporter who has to sign the document and who has to provide the information, must ascertain what all his competitors are charging for identical or similar goods. Secondly, it is being assumed that goods are similar when there is often no similarity at all other than their basic content. I gave an example during the second reading debate of a textile which may be the same weight and which has the same thread count and the same weave. However, one manufacturer for instance has a good designer and his product contains attractive prints whilst another designer has not hit the jackpot with his designs. You have two identical cloths, but because one had the right design that manufacturer will obviously charge more for his product and the one who has missed the boat has to charge less to sell his products. Now this clause says the C.D.V. shall be the price at which such or similar goods are sold. I do not see how this provision can be carried out in practice. I gave the example of two machines which do the same job and which may look the same. One might say that one can buy a Ford or a Rolls-Royce, because both are motor cars, they are both five-seaters and both of them can take one from a point A to a point B. They are therefore similar goods. They are not the same, however, and one cannot compare their price. The hon. the Deputy Minister, for instance, would not say that Ministers should travel in Mini Minors, because they are the same as Cadillacs, having four wheels and an engine and that he would, therefore, not travel in a Cadillac, but a Mini Minor.

I do not know what will happen to you when you become a Minister.

I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister said “when” I become a Minister. I am glad he is confident about that, because so am I. The secondary effect of this amendment is that it does not state “the price in the same market”. It merely says “exporters of such or similar goods”. Now let us assume that a man is importing a particular item from the United Kingdom or from Germany. He has to give the price of similar goods coming from Japan, for instance. One cannot compare these prices however, because there is no comparison. Certain markets are cheaper and some are more expensive than others. As this amendment is worded here it means that an exporter must now get prices of goods from all markets in the world, because it says “the normal free on board price”. What is the normal price? I suggest again that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have to introduce an amendment here in order to make it clearer what an average price is, and also to confine that average price to the country from which the goods are being exported. One cannot, as I say, compare the price in Hong-Kong with prices in the United Kingdom, but this is, according to my legal information, the effect of this clause. It is a quite impossible clause to carry out, and one which can create tremendous difficulty in its practical application.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has consulted the Board of Trade in regard to this matter and whether he obtained the Board of Trade’s point of view. Has he consulted with organized commerce and industry? Since this Bill was tabled, and since we received the explanatory memorandum, we have been getting telephone calls as late as this morning protesting about this Bill coming at this late stage of the session, the public not having had sufficient notice. Commerce and industry are complaining that some of these clauses are impractical, and this one in particular. I do not propose to repeat the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Durban (Point), but in view of the fact that the suggestion was made that the Board of Trade has not been adequately consulted, I would like to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has consulted the Board of Trade and also whether he has consulted with organized commerce and industry. These new powers are very far-reaching and it appears once again that the hon. the Deputy Minister is taking drastic powers in order to try and close the gap and is making this Bill impractical as far as the ordinary public is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the objection raised here, is in fact against a minor change in the clause, but as you have just heard, there is a reasonable objection to it. Up to now the section has made provision for the determination of the value by the exporter, but provision as now being made not only for these particular exports, but also for the export of those or similar goods. I do not have any doubts as regards the problem raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point). It is by no means my intention that an English exporter would now have to determine what the value is of an identical article manufactured in Japan. That is not what I want.

That is what you are saying.

It does not provide that specifically, and I think that the position is being left open. The deduction one ought to make here, is that what is required, is the value of similar goods in the country from which those goods are being exported. To my mind this is the normal deduction one can make from that. If it is possible to make a different deduction from that, then I have no objection to our setting the position right. I do not expect the exporter in England to determine exactly what the selling price of the same goods is in Japan. From the nature of the case these prices will in all probability not correspond. I do not think that the various examples mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Point) in that regard, are valid ones. There is only one which could perhaps constitute an argument, i.e. that in one case the material can be exactly the same as in another, but that it may have a more attractive floral design than the other one has. I assume that the material with the more attractive floral design will be more expensive and popular than the material with the less attractive floral design. But in that regard the hon. member drew a comparison between a Cadillac and a Mini Minor, and he said that both of them were motor cars. But I think that any sensible person would after all admit that a Mini Minor and a Cadillac are not, as the section reads, “such or similar goods”. If the hon. member cannot see the difference between a Cadillac and a Mini Minor, then I do not know. I want to emphasize once again that we regard this provision as essential for this major problem which has arisen as a result of price manipulation. The hon. member can appreciate that, as it used to be, the price indicated as the selling price of the exporter, need not necessarily be the selling price of similar goods in that country. I just want to emphasize here that the object I see in this clause, is not that it has to be applicable to world prices, but that it must in fact be applicable to the prices of the country in which the exporter finds himself.

Now I should like to add the following. Genuine competition does, however, tend to bring down prices and to even them out, and any argument such as those that were advanced, would not really have good grounds. In any case, it would only be possible to use this argument if the Department’s good faith were called into question. The intention is that this provision will only be applied in cases where offences have taken place. As far as we could ascertain, the existing provision has only been applied once since it was introduced in 1965. In this case I do not foresee any difficulties. If the exporter is a sincere and honest person and if there is no intention of manipulation, the price charged by that exporter will in all probability be the same as the popular price in that country. I cannot see any difficulties if the price is indicated and if it is not only taken into account that that price is not necessarily the price charged by that factory only, but also that it must at least be on a par with the general price applicable in that country. If we do not do that, we shall be opening the door to a certain measure of price manipulation, which has been the cause of the difficulties we have been experiencing up to now. I have emphasized the way I view the application of this clause, i.e. clause 10, and I honestly think that it will not entail problems for us.

The hon. member for Pinetown wanted to know whether we had consulted with the Board of Trade and Industries in this regard. My reply is that we have not done so. These are fiscal measures over which the Board has no say and control. In the light of these circumstances we did, of course, not consult the Board.

Nor commerce or industry?

We did in fact have no talks with commerce and industry in regard to this specific case either.

Mr. Chairman, just to deal with the last point the hon. the Deputy Minister has made, I think it is an incredible state of affairs that we have here a far-reaching measure, and the Minister admits quite blatantly that commerce and industry have not had an opportunity to see the Bill. I airmailed a copy of the Bill to Johannesburg immediately after it had been printed on Thursday. I have had three phone calls over the week-end from Johannesburg from people tearing their hair out saying that they do not have time to deal with this question before Monday morning. The last call I had, was this morning. They said “Can you not hold it over? Can you not just give us time to consult our people.” The initial reaction was one of absolute horror. Some of the problems might fall away. But nobody has had the opportunity to study this Bill except those of us concerned here in Parliament. There has been no time for commerce and industry as a whole to study it. I can understand that the Chamber of Commerce at first…

The hon. member is not speaking on the clause itself. The hon. member is now making a second-reading speech.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I was reacting to the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister said it was not the intention of this clause to have comparisons of prices made with different countries.

I therefore wish to move the following amendment—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister please reply to the question I asked about the disposal of remnants at the end of a five-year period and the question of the rebate.

Mr. Chairman, the matter with which this objection deals, is that it is being provided that in cases where material which is subject to rebate, is being purchased, duty has to be paid on the remnants of such material after five years have elapsed. In other words, after five years the rebate falls away. This happens in cases where a manufacturer of shirts, for instance, may have imported material from which he makes a certain number of shirts. A certain quantity of this material is left over, and then it has to lie in the rebate store for years and years. We say that after five years have elapsed, that material must be removed from the rebate store and duty has to be paid on it. If that material is sold on the ordinary market and not used for the manufacture of shirts and goes back into commerce, it is no longer subject to rebate. The hon. member is now objecting to that provision.

I shall explain. That is not precisely what I mean.

I want the hon. member to realize that the keeping of records in respect of these cases entails an enormous amount of administrative work for the Department. Proper records have to be kept of these cases. It is the Department’s task and duty to see to it that the material to which rebate is applicable, is used for the purpose for which it was intended. If it is used for another purpose, rebate is no longer applicable and duty has to be paid. Consequently that door cannot be left wide open, i.e. by allowing material to lie in rebate stores for ever. And then we also have the additional problem that these tariffs change from time to time. Eventually one can, therefore, no longer keep track of what the actual position is. That is why it is being provided that after five years the material has to be removed from the rebate store and that duty has to be paid on it. It has also been our experience that this material which is purchased and subject to rebate, very easily finds its way through other channels where rebate is not applicable. It is simply for reasons of implementing proper control and administration that we have laid down this period of five years. I think that it is fair.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman…

This is something which you have not raised before.

No. Mr. Chairman, I raised on clause 11 the question of incomplete documents. The hon. the Deputy Minister may not have recognized the clause I was speaking under. I do not blame him but I dealt with this specific case. This provision makes it an offence to submit a document which is incorrect or incomplete or misleading in any respect. The hon. the Deputy Minister will remember that I raised the case of a document from which two words were missing and on which a penalty of 5 per cent was laid by the hon. the Minister. Here I feel that a provision that a document which is incorrect or incomplete or misleading in any “material” respect would be nearer to the point. This makes it an offence if a comma is left out of a document. If a single word is left out of a document it makes a criminal of a person. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to add the word “material” before “respect” in line 10 on page 13 so that only an omission material to the document, material to the duty paid and material to the description of the goods should become an offence. But as it reads now it is an offence, as I say, to leave out a comma. I come back to the case which I quoted. It is a case where goods were held up and the factory had machines standing idle. These goods were impounded because on the invoice the words “undyed” and “not for resale” were not inserted. But on the certified invoice the word “texturized” appeared which was a type of finish as well as the words “on cheese”. which made it quite clear to anyone who knows anything about textiles that it could not be for resale. Cheeses are big hunks of yarn which you cannot possibly resell over the counter for retail use. It can only be used by a manufacturer. Therefore there were words which indicated this but they were not the words which the Department wanted. Because of that a penalty of hundreds of rands was placed on the importer. They supplied an explanation that this was an omission and they hastened to send amended certified invoices giving the correct words. But the Minister did not accept that as an explanation. He said that it was not an explanation to say that “these words were omitted and we now send an amended document with the correct words”. There was no attempt to evade duty. The correct duty was paid. The correct bill of entry was made out and the exporter sent a letter correcting the mistake. But the Minister did not accept that as an explanation. I do not know what he wanted. I do not know whether he wanted somebody to come on their hands and knees and say: “Please, Sir. I am sorry I was a naughty boy.” Is that what the hon. the Minister wanted? He had an amended document and he had a letter stating that this error was now corrected. It was an error in terminology. That was all. It was a difference in wording. I quoted that as an example of what this clause was going to mean to the importer.

I heard of a case only this morning. As I was coming down from my office the phone rang and it was an agent who had a consignment held up because one of the certified invoices had not stated the name and address of the local agent. And so the whole consignment was held up. In terms of this amendment not only will the consignment be held up but an exporter will commit a criminal offence if, perhaps because he is not completely au fait with the language, he uses the wrong term, e.g. “texturized” instead of “undyed”. These two terms may be synonymous for this importer. But by doing that he has committed a criminal offence; it also makes a criminal of the local agent. I have not prepared an amendment but should like to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister to amend this provision so as to make it an offence only if there has been an error or omission which indicates an attempt to defraud or which is material to the dutiable value of the goods.

I regret that I will not be able to accept such an amendment, because if I did so, I would be throwing the doors wide open again to an argument about what is material and what is not. Honestly, the hon. member can sometimes put forward nonsensical arguments. He referred once again to the case in which he is involved, and because it applies to this clause I want to give a brief sketch of this case again. On 28th March the importers concerned wrote a letter to the Department. After that the hon. member came to see me, and on 4th April I wrote to him and stated that all the firm concerned had to do was to tell us that they had not omitted information. You see, we must teach these people to complete the documents correctly. The hon. member must not think that there is no co-operation or leniency on the part of the Department in the application of measures such as this. On the contrary. In any case, on 4th April I wrote to the hon. member and informed him that we would provisionally release the goods in question, on condition that the importers in question furnished us with an acceptable explanation as to why they had omitted the information; we wanted to know what the reason behind it was—for example whether it happened as a result of the fact that their employees were not receiving adequate training. I want to emphasize once gain that if these people gave their employees sufficient training to enable them to do this work properly, it would make matters a great deal easier both for us and for them. But to come back to the hon. member’s case, he accepted that condition, but since then I have heard nothing either from him or from the importers concerned. All the importers did was to state subsequently that they were prepared to pay 5 per cent. That is what happened; so the fault does not lie with the Department. All that we wanted from them was a logical and acceptable explanation; then they would not have had to pay the 5 per cent. But, as I have said, they chose to pay that 5 per cent. From that I must deduce that they did not want to furnish us with an explanation—they were prepared to pay a fine of 5 per cent instead of furnishing an explanation. The excuse which the hon. member referred to, is dated before the 4th April, when I imposed this condition, a condition which the hon. member accepted. Therefore I cannot accept it. But, as I said, if I were to incorporate the hon. member’s proposal here, I would be nullifying this penalty, because we would have to begin arguing from scratch again in regard to what is material and what is not. What we are doing here, is to state certain requirements which have to be complied with, and it is not as complicated as the hon. member is trying to pretend.

I am sorry but I cannot leave this matter where the Minister left it. He claims that I gave an undertaking that an explanation would be furnished.

We agreed on that.

Yes, we agreed that I would see to it that the omission was satisfactorily explained. He then wrote to me on the 3rd April, a Wednesday. I immediately contacted the people concerned but they informed me that they had already done it on the 28th March and that it would by then be in the hands of the department. In other words, they had anticipated the request because when I saw the Minister in Cape Town on 1st or 2nd April he could not have known about the explanation which had been sent. Having sent that explanation they naturally assumed that it was enough. At any rate, they never received an acknowledgement or an intimation that their explanation was not acceptable.

Yet they paid particularly willingly.

They paid because their machines were standing still.

But we handed the goods over to them long before they paid the 5 per cent.

They paid that because their machines were standing still, and they had to have the goods. This, if anything, is a strong argument in favour of us not having these arbitrary powers, powers which can be abused as they were, I believe, in this case. To want an explanation for a mistake when that mistake is immaterial as far as the duty is concerned, is to my mind being petty. The Deputy Minister is here making criminals of people where it is not necessary at all to do so.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 16:

This clause places on an agent the responsibility for any act or omission on the part of an exporter. I believe this is the reason why the Minister received no objections from importers to this clause, because it suits their book perfectly to shift their responsibility onto an agent. In point of fact the imDorter is virtually being cleared of any responsibility by this responsibility now being shifted onto the agent. The making out of all the documents which are material to an import is the responsibility of the exporter. The entry of the goods concerned into South Africa is the responsibility of the importer concerned, and it was he who suffered if anything went wrong. But now this onus is being placed on the exporter, who is a foreigner, but because it cannot be applied to him it is being transferred to the agents. Consequently, the agent is now going to be the person liable for anything that goes wrong—for every mistake, for every comma that is left out, for every word wrongly spelt. It is as stupid as all this, but nevertheless that is what the law now says—any error of whatever sort, any omission of whatever sort is now going to be the agent’s liability.

What do you expect me to do?

I say where there is an attempt to defraud, or where there is a material omission, this is fair enough, but where it is not material or does not constitute an attempt to defraud I believe it is wrong to create an artificial offence as we are doing here. Instead of the importer sharing the responsibility, this responsibility is now shifted entirely onto the agent. The importer is simply going to say to the agent: You see that everything is right. If he has worked a swindle or a wangle behind the scenes he says to the agent: I am out of Chis; you organize it; you get the stuff in and you are responsible. I believe it is unfair to place the whole onus of the responsibility on an agent for the deeds of an exporter over whom we have no control. Where the agent is responsible, where his intent is falsified, where he has been part of an attempt to evade customs duty, let him be punished and let him lose his licence. His punishment then can be made as serious as the Minister likes, where he has been party to a fraud. But to make him carry the liability where it is the error of the exporter, in which he is not in any way involved, I believe is not fair. Again it comes back to the same thing. Should the offence not be one of “attempt to defraud” or “material error” instead of any error and any omission?

Then there is the question of the deposit. This can break 90 per cent of the agents in South Africa if that deposit has to bear any relation to the value of the goods involved. Most agents are one-man firms and most of them are under-capitalized. I would say the vast majority of indent agents are undercapitalized, and if the deposit to be demanded of them bears any relationship to the value of the goods sold, you will simply close them down and then you will really have problems with regard to imports.

I hope the Minister will deal with the question of the deposits to be made and also the security to be lodged, as well as the question of liability for immaterial errors and omissions.

I thought it was common cause between myself and the hon. member that we cannot hold the exporter responsible, and that for that reason we must hold somebody in South Africa responsible. It is on the basis of that same principle that we are now holding the agent responsible. Where the hon. member referred to “any omission”, it does not mean “any omission” in the general sense of the word; it means any omission or offence committed in terms of this Act. It can mean nothing else but that, and I do not think we need argue about it any further. The agent must accept the responsibility. The agent is a man who makes money out of these transactions, and since we cannot get at the importer, we must hold somebody here responsible. That is why I think it is no more than right and fair that the agent must accept certain responsibilities.

I want to come to the other point which the hon. member raised, and which he also raised during the second reading. I just want to refer him to the proviso at the end of the new section 99 (4), where it is stated: “Provided that the Secretary may accept such security from any association of such agents approved by him which undertakes to give security on behalf of its members.” I think the hon. member has probably seen it already. If they have such an association, and they can furnish him wit a an overall guarantee on behalf of all the agents which are affiliated to that organization of agents, then it will be acceptable in terms of this proviso.

But there is no such organization.

The hon. member is objecting to this security which is being requested, but I want to point out to him that the clearance agents are already furnishing security. Why cannot the agents also furnish security? All that we have desired from the clearance agents in the past, in the form of security, is a bank guarantee for R2,000. The hon. member wanted to know what the extent and the value of the security should be, because he related it to the imports which could perhaps run into millions of rand. All that we have expected from the clearance agents in the past is a bank guarantee, or other approved security, to the value of R2,000, and I presume that this is all we will do in respect of agents. I do not think that this is unfair.

I merely want to state that then the Minister will close down over half the indent agents in South Africa. I can tell him that right now.

Clause put and agreed to.

First Schedule:

I simply want to repeat my appeal to the hon. the Minister to try to simplify in co-operation with the Board of Trade the headings of these Schedules. The amendments alone affecting textiles run to 150 items spread over 14 pages in the duties section, apart from the rebate section, which runs to another 10 or 12 pages, and it is getting impossible to follow. We cannot go on building up this mountain of definitions which are becoming impossible to handle.

Secondly, I raised with the Minister the question of narrow-width definitions. In terms of the original Act, in the case of fabrics classified under certain headings which are affected here, namely Nos. 51.04, 55.07, etc., any fabric under 30 inches in width shall be deemed to be 30 inches. In other words, we are creating an entirely false valuation. I have not the time to deal with it now, but I can assure the Minister that if one studies the G.A.T.T. Agreement it is clear one may not tax on fictitious values. I have all these references here. This is creating a fictitious value, by deeming something to be something which it is not. I hope the hon. the Minister can clarify that.

I have given the undertaking in the Committee of Ways and Means that we will make attempts to simplify these Schedules. Special persons have been appointed for this purpose, and I do not think it is necessary to repeat what I said previously.

As regards the width of the material, the hon. member has already raised the matter with me that materials which are narrower than 30 inches, are regarded as being 30 inches wide. This provision is not really in this Schedule; strictly speaking, therefore, it is immaterial. I shall furnish the hon. member with a private reply to this.

Schedule put and agreed to.

I move—

Hon. members will probably not expect me to give a comprehensive summary this morning of current financial and economic questions. If hon. members raise any questions during the course of this debate, I will deal with them to the best of my ability in my reply. But I should like to avail myself of this opportunity this morning to say something in regard to the new scheme of Special Drawing Rights which was recently approved by the Governors of the International Monetary Fund.

This scheme is a complicated one, and I do not think that hon. members will expect me to describe it in full. Basically it is a method of supplementing international liquidity. Up to now international liquidity, i.e. the monetary reserves of the countries of the world, consisted mainly of gold and foreign currency. For a number of years these reserves have, for various reasons, been growing at a considerably slower rate than the total world trade, so that the fear arose that these reserves would shortly become too small to bear the increasing international trade.

The best and simplest way of increasing the value of international reserves is in my opinion to increase the gold price. For various reasons America in particular has not been in favour of this solution. Consequently another method was sought, and after long and thorough study by financial experts the new scheme was submitted to the Governors of the International Monetary Fund.

Only monetary powers will be able to have these Special Drawing Rights (SDRs); in reality the SDR is an entry in the books of the Fund. The SDR is linked to the same quantity of gold as the present gold parity of the dollar, but is not convertible into gold. When SDRs are created, each participant in the scheme receives a certain amount of SDRs as an allocation; this allocation is in proportion to his quota in this Fund. He gives nothing in exchange for his SDRs, and if he has a balance of payment requirement, he can use his SDRs to obtain convertible currency from another country. On the one hand, he can be compelled to accept SDRs from other participants, and to give convertible currency in exchange for that up to a maximum amount of twice the quantity of SDRs which he originally received.

The general expectation is that SDRs to the value of $10 billion will be created during the first five years of the scheme, at a rate of $2 billion per year. This means that South Africa, whose quota in the Fund is 0.95 per cent of the total quotas, can receive an allocation of SDRs to an amount of $95 million or R68 million over the five years, but we can then be compelled to accept SDRs to a maxi-« mum of R136 million from other countries in exchange for gold and convertible currency.

A participant in the scheme must retain an average balance of at least 30 per cent of his allocations of SDRs over each five-year period. He can therefore use 70 per cent of his SDRs immediately, but if he. uses more, he will, during the five-year period, have to buy back SDRs in order to bring up his average balance to the required 30 per cent. As I have already said, the Governors of the Fund have approved the new scheme. As Governor for the Republic of South Africa I abstained from voting. I did so because I have serious doubts whether the scheme, if it is introduced, will be in the interests of South Africa and of the world. Theoretically the scheme can in fact serve a useful purpose in supplementing international liquidity. I feel, however, that sufficient attention is not being given to the increase of the gold price as an alternative, and that there is no assurance either that countries with a permanent balance of payment deficit (particularly the so-called key currency countries) will rectify their position before the new scheme is put into operation. There is a strong possibility that the SDRs of the economically weaker will flow to the economically stronger countries so that the latter will in a few years be in the possession of most of the SDRs.

Nevertheless the required majority of the Governors voted in favour of this scheme, and this scheme is now being formally submitted to the member countries of the Fund. It is almost certain that the scheme will be accepted by the member countries, but owing to the need for amending legislation in most countries, it is unlikely that it will come into operation before 1969. As soon as the scheme is approved by the required majority, the said amendments to the articles of the Fund are binding upon all members, whether they have voted for it or not. I shall probably therefore introduce legislation during the ensuing Parliamentary session in order to make provision for these amendments to the constitution of the Fund.

Whether it has voted for the scheme or not, a country is still free to choose whether it wants to participate in the scheme—participation gives that country the right to vote on matters in regard to the scheme. And even if it becomes a participant, a country can still choose to refuse to accept any SDRs upon any allocation; and then it is not obliged to purchase any SDRs from other countries. Therefore it is not a foregone conslusion that South Africa will receive SDRs or will have to receive them; the decision remains in our hands.

The value of any scheme of this nature depends upon the confidence which it inspires. The events of the past few months have made it very clear that the international financial community still has far more confidence in gold than in any artificial currency or paper gold, and I find it a pity that the important countries of the world do not want to discuss the increase of the gold price in a calm and objective manner as a partial solution to these problems. We in the Republic have always approached these problems in a responsible way. We want an increase in the gold price, not only because it is in our own interests, but also because we believe that it is in the interests of the world, and we want to have this done in an orderly fashion, and not as a result of a collapse of currency. I hope that other countries will also begin to realize that considerations of national importance or international politics must not be allowed to stand in the way of an essential adjustment in the gold price.

In my opinion we must do away with the idea that the prestige of the dollar or any other currency is tied up with a fixed gold price. Once this is accepted, and the revaluation of gold has taken place and it has been placed on a realistic level in terms of all currencies, it may perhaps be possible for fruitful international discussions to take place in regard to the factors which ought in future to determine the price of gold. One suggestion is for example that the price of gold should be adjusted from time to time, in accordance with a price index of important commodities in the world trade, or at a fixed annual percentage. I am not saying that this is necessarily the best solution, but I feel that now is the right time to discuss these or other proposals for the future orderly determination of the gold price on an international level.

There is one other matter I want to refer to. Hon. members will remember that last year we made the equivalent in rands of $10 million available to the International Monetary Fund for a drawing by New Zealand. Recently two further drawings for rands took place—the equivalent of $10 million by Peru and the equivalent of $23 million by France. We are pleased that our financial position is so strong that we were able in this way to make a contribution to international financial stability.

In so far as the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance is a plea for at least a revaluation of the price of gold, I feel sure that it will find an echo throughout the country and that it will certainly find an echo on this side of the House. It has seemed quite clear to us for some considerable time that in taking up the attitude which they have done in respect of gold in the international field, many countries have placed political considerations well before economic considerations. While I do not want to follow the hon. the Minister in respect of the technicalities of this matter, it does seem to me to be important to ascertain at an early stage whether, if once we have opted not to use our SDRs and not to accept SDRs, we will subsequently be in a position to change our minds, and under what conditions? There seems also to be some uncertainty as to the extent to which any possible debts that we may owe to the I.M.F. can be paid by tendering gold in terms of, I think, article 4 of the Statutes of the International Monetary Fund. My own impression is that we have that right; that this provision in respect of SDRs has not affected that right in any way. I think it is important that there should be clarity on that subject as well before this debate is continued in respect of this matter, possibly during the recess, with the coming changes from time to time.

I believe that the hon. the Minister is attending a meeting overseas on this issue in the very near future, and I believe I am right in saying that he will take with him the good wishes of this side of the House and of the whole country in dealing with this particular matter.

Sir, I wish to concentrate my remarks in this debate round an amendment which I propose to move, and that amendment is to this effect—

In examining an amendment of this kind and applying it, one has not been unmindful of the fact that during this Session of Parliament the Government has been celebrating the fact that the party which it represents has been in power for some 20 years. Indeed, Sir, that is no mean achievement for any Government or any party anywhere in the world.

Congratulate us.

I want to say that while it would be no mean achievement elsewhere in the world, it is indeed a signal achievement for the party opposite, particularly when one bears in mind their differences and the way they quarrelled with each other over the long years that they have been in power. In fact, when one thinks back over those years, one cannot help coming to the conclusion that the fat years in office enjoyed by hon. gentlemen opposite have to some extent destroyed their initiative and their ability to think for themselves.

Everytime we fight, you split.

The hon. gentleman says that every time they fight we split. The amusing thing is that the splits on our side seem to be far less significant than the splits on the side of the hon. the Prime Minister. You see, Sir, throughout the whole of this Session we have had this incipient split between the “verligtes” and the “verkramptes”, but so lacking in goal, so lacking in zeal, are hon. members opposite for any fight that one cannot help feeling that Professor Swart, who spoke at Port Elizabeth over the week-end, was quite right to dub the whole Nationalist Party as the “verleptes”, and indeed that is the only adequate explanation of their continued and uncomplaining support of policies which have failed so palpably already. You know, Sir, there are certain disadvantages attached to the fact that they have been in office for such a long time. One of the major disadvantages of having been in office for a long time is the fact that they can no longer use that much-hackneyed, dearly beloved argument, that anything that goes wrong is due to the state of affairs they inherited from the previous Government. I think after 20 years they have to face the fact that they now have to look the world in the eye and accept that if anything goes wrong it is their fault and nobody else’s, and that they cannot blame anybody else for it. Their failures are due entirely to themselves, and indeed, there have been a considerable number of failures and there will undoubtedly be more if they continue with their present policy. ’What has been so interesting is this: When you look back you find that virtually all their failures have been inter-related and due, I think, to one underlying cause, and that underlying cause has been the dangerous practice this Government has followed of evolving policies in pursuit of ideologies based on false premises. Instead of tailoring policies to the facts, they have tried to twist the facts to suit the policies. Sir, just let us think back on the promises made in 1948. I remember one of them very clearly, which was that in order to promote separation or apartheid, all the Indians were going to be repatriated to India. That was based on the premise, firstly, that the Indians would go and, secondly, that India would accept them. Both turned out to be false, and after a short while they found themselves in the awkward position that there were actually more Indians in South Africa than when they started. I remember so well that the Minister at the time said that he did not know where they had come from. Sir, the Government has not learned from that experience; it is still trying to move big masses of people about. It is busy now trying to move large sections of the Bantu population back to the reserves, regardless of the fact that on the whole they do not want to go and regardless of the fact that they are not being welcomed at the other end, certainly in the most developed reserves, because there just is not work for them when they get there. It seems to me—in fact I have no doubt in saying—that we are heading once again for another major failure on the part of the Government which will be chalked up on the slate of the history of their period in office, in due course.

Then I think of another promise that was made in 1948, a most effective promise at the time, and that is that this Government was going to reduce the cost of living in South Africa. That was their promise and out of that promise Louwcol was born, and we all remember what a “natkol” Louwcol turned out to be; we all remember what a flop Louwcol was. After 20 years, Sir, what do we find? The cost of living has gone on rising and rising, in many respects faster than ever before. The value of our money has continued to erode. We find ourselves now in the position that our civil servants are clamouring with a great deal of justice for higher salaries, and we find our teachers, also with a great deal of justice, in a more unhappy state of mind than they have been at any time I can remember in the history of South Africa. Responsible people like teachers are not easily driven to the stage where they talk of resigning in large blocks from the profession and where they start issuing threats to the hon. the Minister of National Education. Here again we have had false premises for the failure to deal with the situation.

A third promise, a third undertaking was that they were going to cut down on the United Party immigration scheme when they took over in 1948, because they believed they could maintain the position of the white man in South Africa, despite the fact that the black man was increasing faster than he was, without increasing the numbers of the white man with the assistance of immigration. What has happened? After a few years we now find the Government spending vast sums of money attempting to get immigrants to come to South Africa and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was calling only last year for an extra baby for every young family to celebrate the fifth year of the Republic.

No, it was the year before last.

It makes it even worse. [Interjections.]

I want to mention only one more promise. I want to mention only one more of the failures of this Government. Do you remember, Sir, when they came into power in 1948, plans for the use and the exploitation of the waters of the Orange River were well in advance? They were being considered very seriously and plans were being made fast. What happened? We found that within a year or two the Minister representing the Government of the time felt it was more important to concentrate on a whole number of small dams than on one big scheme of this kind. In fact, he emphasized this to such an extent that he was called the “small dam Minister”. Subsequent to this Ministers indicated to us the scheme was dead. Now what is happening? Now we find the Government falling over itself spending millions and millions because they have realized at last that South Africa cannot develop adequately without exploiting the waters of one of our greatest natural recources in the whole of the Republic. There have been delays and if is just another example of the failures of this Government during its period in office.

I can go on. Mr. Speaker. You and I have been here a long time and we have lived through a lot of those failures. There are a lot more coming, I have no doubt, and the public is slowly becoming aware of the failures and the false premises upon which they were based.

I know it is not always easy to get information of this kind across to the public, partciularly the Afrikaans-speaking public, because they are being subjected to intensive propaganda on behalf of the Nationalist Party at the present time, possibly more intensive than at any time in their history. You see, Sir, it is not only carried out through the distorted mirror of the Afrikaans Press, on the boards of which sit Ministers of this Government dictating policy in respect of the political attitudes of those papers.

But your newspapers are dying; what about the Landstenrt

The hon. gentleman seems to take the example that suits him. One day he says all the English-language newspapers are mine and the next day he says all the papers I am interested in have died. All I want to say is very simply that despite this propaganda, despite this sort of thing that is going on through the S.A.B.C., which used to be Radio Albert and I suppose is now going to become Radio Basie, despite all that the truth is slowly getting through to the people that this Government has failed, and it is happening despite the theme that is being exploited all the time, that to criticise the Government is to be disloyal to the State. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be a greater misuse of public moneys than some of the type of thing that is coming across over the radio in South Africa.

I think it is becoming evident slowly not only that there have been failures in the past but that there are two additional failures, amongst others, to which attention must be directed which are being caused by exactly the same reasons as the failures in the past, namely the tendency of this Government to base its actions on false premises to further unrealistic ideologies.

The first example I want to deal with has reference to the manpower problem in South Africa, and here the whole situation is complicated by the fact that this Government has based its actions on the belief that South Africa can keep pace with the progress in the modern world, despite the fact that it is drawing all the material for executive positions, for technical positions, for skilled work and allied occupations from one small section of the population, namely the white section of the population. They are doing that without making meaningful efforts to see to it that that section of the population gets the best possible training, technically, scientifically and educationally, in order to be able to do that work.

They seem to have another false premise in dealing with this subject and that is that they can persuade highly trained civil servants and highly trained teachers to stay happily in the employ of the Government or its agencies, despite the fact that they can get very much better salaries and very much better conditions outside. So once again it seems to be the premise is false.

Let us look at the first premise. It is hardly necessary to recall in this House that statistics show that there are roughly 3½ million Whites in South Africa and some 15 million nonWhites. If this Government bases its policies on the fact that 19 per cent of the population, because that is what that 31 million is, is able to supply all the executive, administrative. technical and scientific skilled and other qualities necessary for a population of 18 million to keep pace with development in the Western world, then its policies must fail. We must, of course, keep pace, because our security depends on keeping pace, and the extent to which we can defend ourselves depends on our ability to keep pace. This is the problem with which we are faced. It has been a problem for some time and it has been foreseen by many, and already shortages are being experienced in a variety of spheres. We have had complaints from the S.A.R. & H. of the shortage of white labour. It is the one thing that gives the hon. the Minister of Transport sleepless nights. He knows it is reaching crisis proportions in South Africa even at the present time. We know that the Chairman of the Federal Consultative Council of the Railway Staff Association has said the Railways are trying and are making efforts to train people as fast as they can but the difficulty is to keep them in the employ of the Railways once they are trained. We had Mr. Murray, the president of TUCSA, estimating only last year that from 1968 at the present tempo of development he expeoted South Africa to have a shortage of 11,000 skilled artisans every year up till the year 1970 and beyond. That figure is borne out by one Dr. Van Eck gave speaking in Port Elizabeth a little while back where he expected a shortage of 30,000 skilled white workers by the end of 1970.

With these shortages developing I think there are two points that one has to note, and the first is that non-Whites are streaming into our industries in South Africa at a rate little more than three times as fast as Whites. I know the hon. the Minister of Labour has been at pains to point out that the ratio of non-Whites to Whites in South African industry has not changed much in recent years. He knows, of course, that TUCSA disagrees with him. Be that as it may, the fact remains that if full use is to be made of the non-white labour available and the country is to enjoy the economic potential of which it is capable, then _ far more Whites are necessary, unless certain jobs done by Whites are to be thrown open to non-Whites and the non-Whites prove themselves capable of doing those jobs.

I think a second point is that with this chronic shortage of manpower that exists there is nevertheless a vast increase in the number of white people employed by the Government and Government agencies. Some reports say they increased by over 10 per cent between 1960 and 1965, that is by some 36,000. I cannot say whether that figure is completely correct, but certainly that figure does not give a reflection of the total number employed by the State at the present time because you have to have regard to State undertakings like Iscor, Escom and Sasol, and there are people who estimate to-day that if you have regard to all those things then there must be close on half a million, that is 500,000 Whites in the employ of the State and State-supported agencies at the present time. One wonders whether, with this shortage of manpower as it exists, we have not far too many people to-day engaged in unproductive jobs and engaged in inhibiting the productivity of others in furtherance of Government policy. With a situation such as this one would have expected that the Government would a long time ago have dedicated itself to the training of the white minority to its fullest potential. ’One would have expected it would have taken over the policy we had pleaded for for so long, that every white child, regardless of the economic position of his parents, should receive the maximum education from which he is capable of benefiting, including higher and technical education. Unfortunately, and the figures are well known, we are spending a lower proportion of our national income on education then many countries of the world. The Minister of Education has come round to our way of thinking in appreciating that much more must be done. But the lotus-eaters have got away with a lot of time and we have a big lag to make up now as a result of the delays and the uncertainties and the lack of initiative and planning in this regard. We have Dr. Kuschke, Chairman of Soekor, complaining only last year that in the search for oil in South Africa he is having to recruit geologists, geophysicists, physicists, and engineers from overseas to assist in this search, because we just do not have the technical people. We have a young and up and coming man like Mr. Douglas Hoffe, Chairman of the Carlton Centre project. stressing in April of this year that South Africa needed more teachers and a general rise of educational standards “to tackle and solve the underlying cause of a future crippling shortage which can inhibit the development, economically and otherwise, of the Republic of South Africa”. He made a plea also for women to play an increasing part in meeting these shortages.

The very same month the Trade Union Council was calling for an up-to-date training programme to meet manpower needs and for the enactment of an industrial manpower training Act. Even though this shortage has been foreseen for so long and speeches have been made in this House over the years emphasizing that this shortage was going to arise, we find that in April of this year the Trade Union Council of South Africa had to appeal for proper and up-to-date training methods and a manpower training Act. We get a call for suitable training systems which would bring about a change in the apprenticeship system and the improvement thereof. This will also mean the rationalization of training for semiskilled workers to prevent redundancy and legislation to make this possible and to assist with it. I want to quote just one more example, namely, Mr. Jan Marais, President of the Afrikatnse Handelsinstituut. He said that the shortage of skilled manpower in South Africa was the weak link in South Africa’s otherwise sound economy and that it would assert itself more and more in the future, unless some positive solution was found. He accepts Government policy and he accepted that the solution had to be found within the framework of that policy. He suggested several other solutions to our manpower problem, but he points out one thing that is dangerous, namely that 70 per cent of our students training overseas at the present time, according to his figures, have no intention of returning to South Africa. He therefore pleads for an extension of educational and research facilities and points out how unfavourably South Africa compares with other great countries of the Western world like the Netherlands, U.S.A. and Great Britain in respect of the facilities it is making available. One hears appeals of this kind from outstanding people and of the seriousness with which they view the situation. One wonders what the Government has been doing during the time of its period in office. This shortage of teachers is something that has been building up for over ten years and the hon. the Minister knows it.

All over the world.

It is no good saying to me it is happening “all over the world”. The fact is that it could have been avoided here if steps had been taken and it could have been minimized if decent salaries were paid in time. There is the same difficulty in respect of the Civil Service. From the time we started having prosperity in South Africa, the Civil Service started losing men. It is not an answtr to say that it always happens. Does the machinery of State always break down when we have a boom? Can it not cope? Are any steps being taken to deal with situations of this kind? It is quite clear that the shortage of manpower has already contributed to the inflationary situation in South Africa. What have we got so far? We have got a statement from the hon. Minister of Planning that there is going to be, can one believe it, another commission. It is going to undertake a wide ranging investigation into the conditions of service in different Government Departments in view of the increasingly serious shortage of scientists, technicians and skilled workers. I am glad that something is going to be done, but should we have waited so long for this to happen? Not only has this led to inflationary forces in South Africa, but the shortage of manpower has led to us having to say that the economy was overheated and it has meant that we have had to slow down our rate of progress. Surely this overheating has only taken place owing to the neglect of the Government over the years, owing to its lack of planning and its failure to take proper steps to make sure that there are adequate supplies of manpower available and to take meaningful steps to deal with inflation? The fact is that there has been a woeful lack of long-term planning in this sphere. Not only has this led to inflationary trends and the slowing up of the development of our economy, but it also limits our military security. Coupled with all this we have got legislation inhibiting the development of industry which, as a result, limits our domestic market and denies us the opportunities of large-scale markets here in South Africa, which would cut down costs of production so that our industrialists will be able to compete much more satisfactorily in world markets than at the present time.

Unfortunately at the present time immigration is not an adequate answer. The average increase of Whites by means of immigration in the last few years has been about 14,000 a year. We need another 11,000 skilled artisans per annum and it is quite clear that that figure cannot meet the shortage. We need 11,000 additional skilled artisans, while the Government has got its foot so firmly on the brake to keep down the rate of development and keep down inflation. What is the shortage of manpower going to be the moment the Government lifts its foot a littlt bit and the economy starts getting into top gear again? Already the existing shortages and the lack of policy are bringing about a change in the labour patterns in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Planning gave answers to the hon. member for Port Natal this year which indicated that nonWhites were flowing into our industries at an ever increasing rate as more and more jobs, previously done by Whites, were now being done by non-Whites. I know that the Government is resisting this change in pattern, except in the border industries. It is resisting it, which means a restraint on our growth, because our industries are going to require more and more white labour as opposed to non-White. We know that the Government has taken drastic powers to restrict development in our existing industrial areas where it involves greater use of non-European labour. We know of the powers given to the hon. the Minister of Planning, but what do we find? We find that the Government is now trying, where it prevents the flow of Bantu labour to the factories, to force the factories to go to the Bantu labour. What do we have there? There we have white workers living opposite huge concentrations of non-white workers, as integrated as anywhere else in South Africa. This, then, is held up to us as a solution in respect of our manpower problems.

That is a complete untruth.

The hon. the Minister says that it is a “complete untruth”…

They are not living opposite them.

Of course they are. Go to Hammarsdale and see for yourself.

They are working there.

Let the hon. Minister compromise himself a little further. How far do those Bantu have to move each day to come to those factories? Only a few miles, because the Government has to supply housing for them in the vicinity of the factories where the white workers are living as well.

They are not living there.

Then they are only holidaying there and going home for week-ends? This is the old argument that we have with these gentlemen. The policy is never tailored to the facts, but the facts are always tailored to the policy. That is why when a white man and a black man work in a factory, under Nationalist Party policy, it is not economic integration. If a white man and a black man live close to each other, because they are both working in the same factory, and the black man has a home in the reserve, they are not living opposite each other. They are not living there; they are just there for the purposes of their work. This is a perfect example of the sort of thing we get. I do not believe that this border industry business is going to be the solution to the Bantustan problem and the apartheid problem. I want to deal with this matter later, it is, however, here being represented, in a sense, as the solution to the manpower problem, because in these factories, and I want the hon. the Minister of Planning to listen carefully here, black men are being allowed to do work done elsewhere by white men. The point is that they are frequently allowed to do work done elsewhere by white men at lower rates than the white men are being paid. Admittedly this policy may make a small contribution to meeting the manpower problem in new industries, but it cannot make a contribution in old industries without forcing down the living standards of the white workers engaged in those industries.

What other solution is the Government offering for this manpoer shortage? We have a commission. There is the Minister of National Education with the new advisory committee trying to deal with the teachers’ situation. There is the Minister of Planning, with his border industries. What other solution is being offered? There have been some realistic statements by members of the Civil Service, but they have not been interpreted into action by the Government so far. We had a very fine statement by Mr. Hugo, the General Manager of Railways, which I think we have heard here before. He said—

Then he went on to emphasize that it was imperative that the brain power and leadership potential of our people should be developed to the maximum. He gave some extremely interesting figures. He said that in developed countries between 7 and 12 per cent of the total population were occupied in executive, technical and skilled work and allied occupations. Let us take a rough mean at 10 per cent. We have 184 million people in South Africa. If we are to be a developed country, that means that 10 per cent of our total population. man, woman and child, must be so occupied. We restrict those occupations on the whole to Whites only. That means that the 1,800,000, which is 10 per cent of the 18 million, must come from the white population, of whom there are 34 million. If one accepts that roughly 52 per cent of the population must be so engaged, and that 50 per cent of the white population are old people and children, it means that of the 50 per cent of the Whites left over, the entire group of workers, man and woman, must be engaged in those occupations. That is quite clearly an impossibility, because it means that more than 1.800.000 workers which represents over 52 per cent of the total white population, and over 100 per cent of the men and women of work-going age. will have to be so employed.

Therefore it is becoming quite clear that we have to accept the non-Whites more and more for employment in certain classes of work if we want South Africa to become a developed country. But now comes the problem: How? So many people have said this, but how is it to be done? We in the United Party gave our answer to this problem some time ago. We approached that problem with the fundamental and unshakeable objective to ensure that whatever measures are taken to increase the supply of labour, the workers from the various racial groups must together improve on the standards of living which they at present enjoy. In other words, they must move forward together and not stagnate in sterile division. Quite clearly, the white man stands to gain a very great deal from increased prosperity in the country, more perhaps than any other racial group, because there will be a shortage of white labour for some considerable time. Undoubtedly, there will always be a great demand for white labour. If they are trained, as we on this side of the House have demanded that they should be trained, the opportunities for advancement of our young people in South Africa will be unparalleled anywhere in the world. I am sufficient of a realist, of course, to accept that employers must be prevented from exploiting the opportunities to employ non-Whites in the white jobs at lower rates of pay. That is why I believe that increasing reliance will have to be placed on the rate for the job as one of the best means of protecting white workers.

I also want to say that I have great faith in the ability of our trade unions to bring the experience they have had in the past to play in assisting in a harmonious change of the labour pattern, acceptable to themselves as representatives of the workers, to management and in the interests of the country. I am also sufficient of a realist to appreciate that there will be a certain number of white workers, I believe a very limited number, who will fall by the wayside in that they will not be able to compete. It is for that reason that I have advocated the granting of a national minimum wage for the white worker in South Africa. I know that there has been a greater flexibility of approach to labour matters lately. Job reservation on its own has proved entirely inadequate to reserve certain jobs for white workers, for the simple reason that there are not sufficient white workers to do the jobs which they have traditionally done in the past. I wonder whether the Industrial Tribunal could not play a more constructive role in this matter, in dealing with appeals from groups of workers who believe that they have been unjustly treated where the pattern of labour has been changed. That is why I suggest also a national convention on labour matters for a full discussion of these problems.

If I am to sum up I should like to put my submission as follows: Obviously we need a sufficient supply of labour; White and nonWhite must be trained; there must be protection for the Whites by the rate for the job; there must be a national minimum wage for the white workers; the Industrial Tribunal must play a part in assisting to see that there is no unfairness to the white worker; and there should be a national convention on labour. What will have to be concentrated on, is the better training of all sections of our labour force.

But I have a shortage of thousands of unskilled white labourers. The academic qualification is Std. VI. What has training to do with that?

The hon. the Minister is asking a question which he should be able to answer very simply. He has a shortage of thousands of white people, doing unskilled work.

Semiskilled and unskilled.

Semi-skilled and unskilled. If there is the protection of a minimum wage for Whites throughout the country, why should not some of that work be thrown open to non-Whites, as they are doing regularly at the moment?

If the trade unions will not agree, what then?

The hon. the Minister says the trade unions will not agree. My impression is that he has not been handling the trade unions properly, because there is a growing appreciation amongst the trade unions in South Africa to-day of the fact that non-Whites doing certain white work means that more higher grade work at higher salaries and higher standards of living are open to the Whites. If the hon. the Minister says that, I do not believe he is handling those people properly. But I want to lay emphasis on the fact that so far, when it comes to the question of the training of labour, the only proposal for legislation we have had so far, has been a Private Members’ Bill, namely from the hon. member for Hillbrow. It is a first-class proposal, but we have had nothing so far from the Government side.

I believe they are backing him for your job.

I understand that it is thought that he will take over from the hon. the Prime Minister in due course, but after I have had a go first.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Before the lunch adjournment I had dealt with certain proposals from this side of the House as to how the manpower shortage should be dealt with. I had stressed that Whites and nonWhites should be better trained to ensure greater productivity and earning capacity. I had stressed the role which the trade unions could play in seeing to it that changing labour patterns took place harmoniously. I had spoken o-f the possibility of the Industrial Tribunal acting as a court of appeal in respect of workers who felt they had not been properly treated, and I had spoken also of the necessity for a national convention on labour to set things in train.

Who must be invited to that convention?

That will be left to the Minister to decide. I would even come myself if the Minister was there. I have no doubt that the workers would very soon find on whose side each of us was. I have no doubt either that a convention of that kind would redound to the great advantage of the country.

Will that convention be confined to Europeans?

If it is a national convention of labour, of course it will be a European convention. Is that what is worrying the hon. the Minister? [Interjection.] The Minister is not seeing spooks; he is seeing black men everywhere. The Minister sees so many of them on his Railways. That is his trouble. I pointed out that unless these suggestions, or suggestions of a similar kind, are attended to urgently I believe we will be faced with very real dangers. I can quote again Mr. Liebenberg, the president of the Consultative Council and a member of the Minister’s Department, who said that the authorities should be made aware of the extent and danger of the growing shortage of skilled workers, and he stressed that there was little time in which to make the necessary plans to train them. Well, Sir, we have been stressing this for some time.

I think it is as well for us to inquire what those dangers are. I think the first of those dangers is that as jobs become fragmented, as they will do when there is a shortage of labour, the proportion of semi-skilled to skilled jobs is going to rise and you will find yourself in the position that an intolerable burden will be laid and intolerable demands made on the white minority which they will not be able to cope with because there just are not enough of them. Because of that we may have to face larger and larger numbers of unemployed Bantu living below the breadline and acting as a threat to our safety and our security. I think that is the first danger.

The second danger is that the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration may have more success than either they or we anticipate and that the result may be that in border industries more and more jobs previously done by Whites will be done by non-Whites. The danger there is that the position of the Whites, particularly in the existing industries, will become more and more difficult because they will be representing an ever smaller proportion of the type of skilled work for which their trade union was formed. Their bargaining power will fall and their relative standard of living inevitably will have to fall, as I have indicated previously.

Then there is the third danger, and that is that with this shortage of labour, to an extent artificially created by the Government, management is going to be forced to seek urgent fragmentation of jobs. If this happens too quickly, you will find that many occupations which were white occupations in the past will be lost permanently to the white man, because this fragmentation is already taking place on a basis which makes it clear that the employer is not going to fragment on the understanding that what he paid the white man in the past will be paid to the black man who is doing the fragmented jobs.

Much of it is due to mechanization.

The hon. the Minister says it is due to mechanization, but it has been particularly noticeable in the recent negotiations for an agreement in the steel and engineering industry. The Minister knows that that was the cause of all the trouble and he knows that those proliferated jobs have not been paid at the rate paid previously to white workers in those jobs. He also knows the comments of some of the trade unionists, who said that anyone who puts his son into a skilled job to-day needs to have his head read, because this is what might happen to him in the future. These are the dangers unless this Government is prepared to take over and adopt proper training schemes and tackle the matter realistically. As I said before, this is all due to lack of planning and this lack of planning has led to the influence of the manpower shortage on inflation; it has led to a curb on our industrial expansion. It limits our military security and it will undoubtedly affect our living standards. The whole thing goes back to the fact that the Government adopted its original policy on a series of false premises. The major false premise was that the white group would be able to provide all the professional. technical and skilled people for 18 million people. We have to face up to the fact that either we have to do something about it or our rate of development is going to fall and our standard of living is going to fall, particularly for the white worker. Instead of getting down to the job and tackling it on a broad basis, as one would have expected from the Government, we have had a series of ineffective bites at the cherry, a series of statements. a little bit here and a little bit there, a commission here and a commission there, but nothing has been done and the position has not been rectified. In the light of the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance to-day in respect of gold, one would have thought that this would have acted as an added spur to the Government because there are doubts as to that situation; without being alarmist, there are doubts whether gold will continue to play that part in our economy it played in the past. I sincerely hope it will, but we have to be ready for eventualities, and this should be a spur to the Government to take the sort of broad-based steps that will give us an opportunity to cope with this problem.

When I started this discussion I said there were two additional major failures for which the Government was heading. The one concerns the question of manpower and the other, very largely for the same reason that caused failures in the past, concerns the race policies of this Government which I indicated earlier in the Session were crumbling before the eyes of the Government. In so far as those policies affect the Bantu people, they too are based on certain premises which I think we should examine. I want to deal with only four but these are major premises. I think one could set them out by saying that Government policy is based on the premises that it will be possible to return the vast majority of the black workers to their homelands and still maintain a high standard for the existing white economy and the white population; secondly, that it will be possible to create eight independent, viable black states in the Bantu homelands; thirdly, that border industries, located for ideological considerations instead of sound economic reasons, will safeguard white security; and fourthly, that there is no middle way between racial separation and complete racial integration. Sir, let us take a look at these problems. The first is the problem of returning the vast majority of the black workers to the homelands, because that, after all, is the essence of Government policy. If it is not possible, then Government policy fails. Here we are faced with three problems. How do we get on without them if we sent them back; what do they do when they get back to the homelands; what will be the effect on the economy of the country? I think those are the three questions that have to be answered. Now, Sir, how do we get on without them? I think the answer to this question is a very simple one, because for all practical purposes we cannot get on without them, without a considerable lowering of our standard of living and the standard of living of everyone in South Africa. It seems to me that the bon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is coming round to that way of thinking himself because I believe that that was really the thinking behind his Potchefstroom speech a little while ago. He made one or two very significant remarks there. He said that however much we would like to see only white labour employed in the white homelands, we must never lose sight of the reality. No, Sir, we must never lose sight of the reality, and the reality is that we cannot get on without black labour in the homeland of the Whites. Later on in his speech he poured scorn on the fictionists who demand that the Whites should dispense with all forms of Bantu labour. I do not know what the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration anti Education thinks about that after some of the statements he has made for Die Transvaler. I am quite satisfied that Dagbreek, in the light of the leading article it wrote after one of his speeches, would approve of that realism. Quite clearly, you cannot get on without them.

The second question is also simple to answer. What are the Bantu going to do when they are sent back to the reserves? The answer there is perfectly simple as well. If the vast majority are sent back to the homelands there is nothing for them to do. Chief Kaizer Matanzima says that he has not got work for them, and that is the most developed of the homelands. Dr. Adendorff, the chairman of the Bantu Development Corporation, says that progress is so slow that they cannot even get work for the natural increase of those in the reserves, let alone cope with anybody sent back to the reserves. The border industries cannot possibly cope with the situation. That is what the figures show, no matter how they are juggled. There has been some very odd juggling with the figures. We had a most remarkable statement from the Minister of Planning the other day. He had all his figures back to front; he had no idea what he was talking about when he made this statement.

He has you worried.

The hon. member says he has me worried. He has. I can assure him that when a responsible Minister makes a statement and quotes figures so far off the figures given by his Department, it horrifies me. I was very interested to note that over the week-end before last, the Financial Gazette, a paper which, as we all know, is brought out by a Nationalist publishing house and which is intent on supporting the Government, said unequivocally in its issue of the 7th of June—

Sir, that is the comment of a financial paper which so far as I know is edited by some very erudite people in the financial world. The argument they advanced seemed to be the same as that advanced by certain Stellenbosch professors, and that was to the effect that development on the borders of the homelands, unless in the central areas which they served, would be attached to development of the neighbouring white areas because it was found that they spent a large part of their earnings in those white areas and it was found that the development of the border industry and of the white area went hand in hand but it tended to attract development from inside the reserves to the border and that the reserves themselves were not able to cope. I think that that question too is one which is very simply answered. If they go back to the reserves there will be nothing for them to do.

The third question is: What will be the effect on our economy if they are sent back? I believe that is also easy to answer. The effect will be disastrous because, what unskilled work there is to be done will have to be done by Whites and they are not going to get the wages and salaries that they are getting now, for doing that unskilled work, because we will then not be able to compete, and the result is going to be a fall in the general living standards all round; it cannot be otherwise. Fortunately, Sir, I do not think we have to worry too much about this situation because I do not believe it will arise, despite the efforts of the Deputy Minister and of the hon. the Minister of Planning. The problem that we have to face is, I think, a different one and that is how to fit the Bantu who are permanently outside the reserves harmoniously into the policy laid down by this Government or any other government.

You see, Sir, what is happening to these people at the moment is that they are getting a passport instead of a chance to make a living in the homelands; they are getting a passport to say that they are foreigners, that they belong to some homeland which can never give them a living. They have all the disadvantages of being foreigners with none of the advantages in the homeland of being able to go to a place somewhere that belongs to them, where they can make a decent living and where they can have a chance of a decent future. Already we are faced with the fact that the Bantu—or many of them—removed from the Western Cape, are in transit camps in certain areas on the border. What is the position in respect of unemployment there? What chances have they of earning a living? What is happening to them? Therefore I believe that that first premise is failing. Now let us look at the second premise, and that is that it will be possible to create eight independent viable black states in the Bantu is that it will be possible to create eight independence to any state you like; that is perfectly easy.

Like Lesotho, for example.

The hon. the Deputy Minister seems intent on trying to create bad relations with Lesotho by maligning them. That is very irresponsible on the part of the Deputy Minister. Why make remarks like that?

What remark?

Sir, you can grant independence to any state you like. [Interjections.]

Why do you ridicule their independence?

I did not ridicule it; your Leader ridiculed it.

Order!

Sir, the Deputy Minister keeps rushing in where angels fear to tread. He then finds himself in trouble and he starts being abusive. You cannot argue with him.

He does not know the meaning of the word.

The point I am trying to make is that it is possible to grant independence to any sort of state you like, but whether it will be viable and whether it will be able to maintain its independence and become a good, stable neighbour is quite another matter. In order to achieve those ends, to make sure that it shall be viable and that it shall be a good, stable neighbour, which is one of the two tests which the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development outlined the other day, a large measure of consolidation of the territory concerned is necessary. That will have to be undertaken, but except in the case of the Transkei, progress in that direction is being bogged down.

We are nowhere within sight of having an adequate measure of consolidation in any one of the other homelands to be able to consider establishing a state and giving it independence. [Interjections.] I would be grateful, Sir, if the hon. the Deputy Minister would either ask me a question or keep quiet. I do not know why he should be trying to conduct a debate across the floor of the House.

Order!

Let us now deal with this question of viability. Any suggestion of economic viability seems even further away. The latest figures given by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development for industrial development inside the homelands are almost unbelievable. It appears that in the last six years 945 jobs were created in industry in all the reserves as opposed to the 20,000 a year that Tomlinson asked some 15 years ago. 945 jobs were created in six years as opposed to the 20,000 a year asked for by Tomlinson. It is 945 as opposed to 120,000, and the cost according to the figures given by the Minister himself work out at R11,500 per job per Bantu. Do you know whait that means, Sir? Work out what it costs even if you were to supply the number of jobs which Tomlinson envisaged. But those economists who have done more recent work feel Chat Tomlinson is out-dated.

Professor Sadie of Stellenbosch, who went into this matter, said if the reserves were to absorb just their natural increase plus 5 per cent per year returned from the white areas, then it would mean development at four times the rate envisaged by Tomlinson. That is instead of 945 in six years, the figure should have been 400.000 in six years. No wonder the Minister talks about inter-dependence of the states in Southern Africa. Some of those states are going to be very dependent indeed.

[Inaudible.]

I do wish hon. gentlemen would interject loudly enough for one to be able to hear.

I have just told Vause that I am getting as sleepy as he is.

The probability is you lunched too well.

The Minister has probably been worrying about these scandalous stories told about the Government; possibly he had sleepless nights about them. I think after this we are going to hear a lot more about this matter. Now comes the question of independence of these areas. They are to become viable independent states. Of course, you can grant independence, but if you want stabliity then the hon. the Minister himself has laid down seven conditions. One of them interested me, namely: “Dat die ekonomiese uitbouing van jou land en die skepping van werksgeleenthede vir jou mense deur jou eie regering baie noodsaaklik is. Jy moet in staat wees daartoe.” I agree with the Minister. But what is he going to do if they start asking for independence before they have reached that stage, in his opinion, as they have done all over Africa? What is he going to do if he finds there is a disagreement between him and the Deputy Minister, because the Deputy Minister has already made remarks about Lesotho and its economic viability.

We know what you are going to do; after all, you have said you would give way to pressure.

The hon. gentleman says I said I would “swig voor druk”. You see, Sir, here is again a misrepresentation probably due to ignorance, because I said I would treat any area of South Africa whether it was white or black, which attempted to break away from the Republic in the same way, and I believe it is in the interests of South Africa for the Republic to be maintained as one integral whole with all the force and power at my disposal. Of course, he does not remember that, it does not suit him to remember that.

The third of these premises was that border industries would supply a solution. I think I have said enough about them just to pass on; they obviously will not; they are going to create more dangers than they can solve and we are going to end up in respect of border industries by labour conditions being regulated by international treaties between the Bantustans concerned and the Republic of South Africa.

Then comes the fourth premise, and that is there is no middle way between complete race separation and complete racial integration. But of course there is. We have applied it here for nearly 300 years, and that is the position at the moment.

You mean Jan van Riebeeck was a United Party supporter?

It is difficult to reply to the interjection without changing languages but I think the hon. the Prime Minister will understand me when I say Jan van Riebeeck was not a Nat, because no good South African for a couple of hundred years was a Nat of the kind we have opposite. This type of artificial nationalism has only developed within the last 40 or 50 years, and they are no credit to this country. Look at the trouble they have caused, the harm they have done ifihe country, and they sit there and tiy and let you believe to-day that the only history in South Africa is the history of the Nationalist Party. They try and identify themselves with the State. Good heavens, South Africa had a history of which one can be proud of before there was ever talk of petty, narrow, little nationalists of the kind we see opposite us.

Let us test the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s theses further. His policy today for Coloured people is not complete racial separation. Is he then on the way to complete integration? He cannot have it both ways. Either there is no alternative or there is an alternative. We are certainly not on the way to complete racial separation. He has pooh-poohed any idea of a Coloured homeland, he has pooh-poohed any idea of an independent Colouredstan, he has pooh-poohed any idea of an Indian homeland. If there is no alternative, which way is he going with the Coloured people and the Indian people? Must I accept that if his argument is correct he is moving in the direction of complete racial integration? If it is not correct, and of course it is not correct, then there must be a different course, the course that we on this side of the House have outlined time and time again which will see to it that there is neither complete racial separation or complete racial integration.

If I am correct here then all four the premises upon which the Government’s racial policy is based are all palpably false. They do not bear examination, and short of a whole series of miracles the policy must fail, as so many of the other policies of this Government have failed. The trouble is if this policy fails it is going to do a great deal of damage to South Africa in the process because the Government is continuing to act as though it were possible to carry it out, and what is worse, in the course of failing it is going to expose the country to serious dangers in an unsettled world. What are we going to find? These Bantustans are just going to be dormitory areas in which the workers live, despite the fact that they live in the neighbourhood of the border industries during their working days. They are going to be have-not states, they will only have their labour to export, they are going to be exposed to all sorts of influences. They could develop into serious running sores on our boundaries. No wonder Mr. Kaunda was delighted in Botswana at the idea of creating as many independent Bantustans around South Africa as possible. What for? To be friendly to us? To help us? Anyone who read that speech knew how much he approved of this Government’s policy and why. This policy is failing because the premises in which it is based are false. It is time this Government got down to getting its facts straight and to basing its policies on realities. One of the biggest realities it has to face is that it has no policy for the urban Native in South Africa. I therefore move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, my problem is of course to say something original now, after the most unoriginal speech I have ever heard. We have been listening to this pot-pourri of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for 10, 15 years already. He has not yet learnt anything, and we are none the wiser in connection with his policy. To begin with, I just want to say something about something I said when he said that we wanted eight independent “Bantustans”. He said they were not economically viable. Then I asked him: What about Lesotho? Then he remarked in a derogatory way that I did not want good relations with Lesotho. No Government could have better relations with Lesotho than this Government has, because we realize one thing, and that is that Lesotho is not economically viable. But does he have any objection to Lesotho’s having become independent? Does he have any objection to Botswana’s having become independent? Then surely he is the man, and not this side of the House, who is stirring up enmity between us and those countries. We have listened to his prophecies about how our standard of living will drop. Allegedly we were not doing any planning in South Africa. Everybody’s standard of living was going to drop. But he knows for a fact that the standard of living in South Africa has never been higher than it is to-day. I want to ask the hon. the Leader when he is going to stop making his prophecies of doom. Does he not realize that he is making himself ridiculous with his prophecies of doom? Does he not realize that he is acting like a child, because surely these are not the first prophecies of doom we hear from them? After all, we were told how the banks in South Africa were going to close down. We heard of all the chaos that was going to descend upon us if we became a Republic outside the Commonwealth of Nations. Does the hon. the Leader remember his prophecies of doom as to how the factories were going to close down, how money was going to flow out of the country and how there was going to be unemployment? Does he remember this? They made all those prophecies of doom about the miseries that would come down upon South Africa. Where are the banks that have closed down? [Interjections.] Where are the factories that are being closed down? I am very glad to see that the hon. member for Durban (Point) is at least awake when I am speaking, although he is not awake when his Leader is speaking. I want to assure him that I shall keep him awake. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition where the factories are that have been closed down, and where all the unemployment is. He spoke for almost an hour and a half, but he did not find it necessary to speak about unemployment. He spoke for an hour and a half about a shortage of manpower in South Africa. Where is the misery they predicted? Notwithstanding all the calamities they predicted, and notwithstanding the prosperity we are enjoying to-day, the hon. the Leader comes forward with these arguments. Our problem is not one of adversity, but one of great prosperity. Our problem is not one of unemployment, but of a shortage of manpower. Our problem is not a shortage of money, but a surplus of money. Notwithstanding all these things the hon. the Leader is still making his prophecies of doom as to what lies in store for us if this Government remains in power. He is still making these prophecies of doom after 20 years. The only disaster that could hit this country, is that we might have to listen to the same sort of speeches during the next 20 years. The only difference there will be is that there will be fewer of them on that side. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the Bantu we want to return to the homelands. I just want to tell him that not a single Bantu who is in South Africa lawfully is being returned to the homelands. Only Bantu who are here unlawfully are being returned. Now I want to ask the garrulous hon. member for Transkei: Is he in favour of the Bantu who are in the white areas unlawfully, remaining in those white areas? Is he in favour of that? They are supposedly in favour of influx control. From the platforms they say that they are in favour of influx control, but then they take it amiss of us that we return those Bantu to the homelands who entered the white areas unlawfully contrary to influx control.

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

No, I only have half an hour at my disposal, and not an hour and a half as his hon. Leader had. He knows that Bantu who are here lawfully are not being returned.

What about the 5 per cent?

I shall tell the hon. member how I have succeeded in this connection. I want to show him how I have succeeded, and not in my own words, but in those of his party. It is not people who are here lawfully who are being returned; it is people whose contracts have expired who are sent away. I succeeded in obtaining a confidential document of the City Council of Cape Town. This is what they say about this matter of the 5 per cent. This matter was discussed by the Health and Housing Committee of the Corporation of Cape Town. This is what they said:

Therefore those hon. members are welcome to ridicule the 5 per cent if they wish. I succeeded, with the co-operation of the industrialists and with an increase in production and the wages of the Bantu, to reduce it by not merely 5 per cent, but according to their own evidence, by 7.12 per cent. The others are now working in the border industries. (But I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what our plan is. We are also willing to face the consequences of that plan. Our plan is to reduce the stream of Bantu moving from the homelands to the urban areas. We have already succeeded brilliantly in doing so. I am going to mention an example.

What about Vereeniging?

Yes. we have also succeeded in Vereeniging. If that hon. member comes to Vereeniging the people of Vereeniging will throw him in the Vaal River before he arrives there. I want to point out to you how we have succeeded in reducing the stream. From 1951 to 1960 the influx of Bantu to Pretoria amounted to 77,000, an average of over 8,000 per year. From 1961 to 1968. it decreased to 5,000. i.e. fewer than 700 per year. It decreased from 8,000 per year to 700 per year. This is what we achieved as a result of Ga-Rankua, Rosslvn and the establishment of border areas. Although I admit that this was our easiest task in this connection, we have proved beyond all doubt that we can stop that influx by means of the border industries and development in the Bantu homelands. We want to stop this influx, I readily admit that the only way in which we can stop it, and this I give to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as a present, is to absorb the natural increase of the Bantu in the Bantu homelands in the homelands themselves and in the border industries. I think we are moving rapidly in that direction. I showed you a moment ago how rapidly this influx was diminishing. I think it can still be done in our lifetime. After that we will get a gradual flowing back of Bantu to their homelands. Now I am giving the hon. the Leader of the Opposition another present: This will mean slower industrial growth in white South Africa—and what about it?

And a lower standard of living.

No, not a lower standard of living. There will be a much higher standard of living than when the Opposition was in power. There will be a much higher standard of living, but we need not all be as fat as the hon. member for Durban (Point) and I. This is not necessary. There will not be a lower standard of living. I am still an apostle of the man who said: Rather a ooor South Africa but a white South Africa. I am an apostle of that man, and I am quite willing to join issue with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on that basis. I readily admit that this might mean slower development on the Witwatersrand. although this need not be so. especially not if more mechanization is applied. But this idea that has taken root among some people that they can obtain Bantu labour on request, because it is cheap labour, is the greatest nonsense in the world. We have refused them labour. Here in Cape Town we have refused factories labour. At least, we did supply them with labour, but we said that the factory owners themselves should provide housing for the labourers. When they found out what the cost of housing was, they reduced their request from 80 to 40. I met the manager of such a factory recently and asked him how things were. He said that their production had increased because they had installed another conveyor belt. Therefore it need not necessarily be so. but even if it is so, we will accept the consequences of our policy.

I want to return in passing to a minor noint made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He launched a tremendous attack on our policy because of job reservation. He said that we were not using all the resources. He said that 19 per cent of the population had to do all the specialized work, such as technical work, for 100 per cent of the population. Then he said that their alternative for this was the rate for the job. But then he made a statement which we simply cannot leave unanswered.

Do not make a misrepresentation.

No, I will not make a misrepresentation. The Leader of the Opposition can tell me if I make a misrepresentation. He said that instead of job reservation their policy was the rate for the job. If the rate for the job means anything at all, it means the same pay for the same work, whether it be performed by a white person or a Bantu. But then he made another statement. He spoke of minimum wages for Whites. Mr. Speaker, if this means anything at all, it simply means that the rate for the job is the fixing of a certain wage. But they are not satisfied with this. They now want to fix a minimum wage for Whites. In other words, the minimum wage for Whites must be higher than “the rate for the job”. In other words, an ordinary fitter and turner, if he is a white person, must be paid a certain wage, but if he is a Bantu, he may be paid less. Has a greater danger to the white workers even been created? This is the greatest nonsense, because it would destroy the white workers.

That representation is quite wrong.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says it is quite wrong. Am I doing him an injustice if I say that their policy is the rate for the job?

The rate for the job. taking into account the proposals of the trade unions, in negotiation with…[Interjections.]

The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport, who was Minister of Labour for a long time, must be having cold shivers down their spines. The rate for the job can mean only one thing, and that is the same pay for the same work, whether the worker by a white person, an Indian, a Bantu, or whatever. Now he wants to fix a higher minimum for the Whites. This will mean, of course, that the industrialists will employ the cheaper worker. Then the Bantu and the Coloureds will be employed. The employers will then employ skilled non-white workers. There is simply no greater danger to the white workers. I am not going to let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition get away with it. He criticized the consequences of our policy. I tried to sketch them briefly. I have very little speaking time. We are willing to go to the country with the consequences of our policy, which include the possibility of slower economic development. Now I want to discuss the consequences of the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition deeply resented it when I said that if his party came into power, we would have a black Prime Minister within ten vears. I did say this, and I will repeat it as long as I have breath in my body and as long as they follow that policy. Their policy means the complete flooding of white areas by Bantu. Their policy is in the first place that the Bantu should enter the white areas unhindered. I am saying this because they say that every industry, every commercial undertaking, and every employer who wants a Bantu, should be able to get a Bantu. Then they go further. They say that those Bantu should enter on a family basis. At a very conservative estimate this means that for every Bantu worker who comes in, five other Bantu come in as well. Then they go much further. They say that we should not control the industrial development on the Witwatersrand, in the Vaal Triangle, and in the metropolitan areas. They do not want us to develop these areas in an orderly way. They say that those areas should develop in the way they developed in past years, before the Act of the hon. the Minister of Planning came into operation. In other words, they want those areas to develop in an unplanned way. as much as they like. That is why they voted against the Physical Planning Act. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development calculated that if the Witwatersrand were allowed to develop in the way in which it had developed in the past, it would mean that, if only the present industrial land is taken into account, there would be an increase of approximately 700,000 Bantu during the next few years. If they all entered on a family basis it would mean an additional three to five million Bantu on the Witwatersrand during the next 10 years. What is the labour pattern? There should be no job reservation for the Whites. The rate for the job should be applied. This monstrosity he has proposed now, is something totally different, something much more serious. The rate for the job is all very well as long as there is a shortage of manpower. But who will be pushed out into the street when the first recession comes—the white man or the Black man? Of course it will be the white man, because the Black man is willing to work for a lower wage. It is also much easier for the employer to influence him. I would be very glad if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or one of his colleagues would tell us what their policy is exactly in connection with black trade unions and the affiliation of the Blacks with Tucsa and other trade unions. I get the impression that they are not as strongly apposed to Black trade unions as they pretend to be. We would have the flooding of our white areas by Bantu, with no protection for the white workers. Possibly we would have Black trade unions as well. Add to all this the fact that there would be no shortage of agitators. It is that party that objected to the restriction of the Helen Josephs, of the Reeveses of the Huddlestons, of the Patrick Duncans, and of the Daniels. According to them all those people should have remained here. Solly Sacks and Sam Kahn, all of them, should have remained here. They go further. According to their policy, we now have an over-concentrarion of Bantu; the fact that agitators may not be dealt with severely; and on top of that they are inexorably committed to doing away with the 90 days and 180 days clauses. On the authority of the man who knows, namely our present Prime Minister, who was Minister of Justice at the time, I say that, without this 90 days clause, Rivonia could not have been exposed; Bram Fisher, Mandela, and all those people could not have been brought to book. They are committed to doing away with the 90 days clause. We would therefore have a revolutionary state of affairs in South Africa, with white areas flooded by Bantu, with no restriction on a family basis. If this lot of agitators were then let loose amongst them, it would not be possible to stop them. We would have a witches’ cauldron here which no one in the world would be able to prevent from bubbling over. But this is not yet the end of the story. In addition we would have to give the nonWhites of South Africa 16 additional members in this Parliament, seven of whom could be Coloureds. I have not the slightest doubt that among those 16 members who would sit here, there would be the Hamilton Russells, the Ballingers, the Suzmans, the Kahns and the Buntings. I am saying this because the United Party voted against communists being excluded from this House. You would have 16 agitators in this Parliament. Just imagine what our position would be against this background. Now I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the following. His chances of coming into power are extremely slender, virtually nil.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. the Deputy Minister entitled to name me by name and then to couple me with agitators?

If this is the only insinuation, I gladly withdraw it. I am terribly fond of that hon. member. She is such a great help to me in my elections.

Order! Yes, but the hon. the Deputy Minister may not express his personal feelings here.

Now I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. There is the danger which is so often pointed out by Die Burger, and that is that the Opposition may come into power with a majority of less than 16. Can you imagine what they would do? Do you think they would resign? They would of course go and ask the support of those people, and then those people would stipulate their conditions. I cannot imagine a better situation for extortion. Let us imagine the situation. Under the present circumstances the United Party is mainly under the leadership of its conservative members. There are the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for South Coast. I do not know where I must place the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It all depends whether they are exerting enough pressure. If they exert enough pressure upon him, he will become liberal. If they exert enough pressure upon him from the other side, he will become conservative. This is according to his own testimony. But if they had to come into power now, they would again have a strong left wing. They would have a strong liberalist wing. And they would come under pressure. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition admitted that if enough pressure was exerted upon him, he would be willing to make concessions and to grant more and more political rights to the non-Whites.

I never admitted that.

Of course you admitted it. And then let loose the whole liberal establishment on them. They have created this position and they are in power. Let them give the Coloureds seven or eight Coloured representatives; but to the Bantu they do not want to give Bantu representatives and to the Indians they do not want to give Indian representatives. I can just imagine how Victor Norton and Lawrence Gandar would carry on. I can just imagine how the Black Sash and most of the English churches and ecclesiastics such as De Blank, Reeves and Huddleston would carry on. I can just imagine how the English universities and others like them would carry on. Put all this against the background of a white area flooded by Bantu, and see what would happen. And I am not even mentioning the pressure which U.N. could exert under those circumstances. I am not even mentioning the South West Africa hunters and how they would carry on. And then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along with this wretched so-called entrenchment. Before anything of that nature happened, a referendum would be held. After all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that an entrenchment in the Constitution does not mean a thing. It is not worth the paper on which it is written, because there are a hundred and one ways to circumyent any entrenchment.

That depends on the Government.

How many entrenchments did we not circumyent when I was still a member of the United Party? The hon. member for Transkei is making such a noise now, but they changed the entire constitution of the United Party in order to kick Strauss out of here. No, all they still need to get is haloes round their heads. Then we would get the pattern we have had in the whole of Africa. The hon. member for South Coast, for whom I have such respect, said, I believe, during the debate on Ovamboland—

I fully agree with this. But this is because we had the pattern in the African states which that Party wants for South Africa, and not the pattern of separate development and of separate states. I want to mention the case of Sir Roy Welensky. No one desired white leadership, white Prime Ministers and a white Government for the Federation more than did Roy Welensky. But the inexorable logic, the inexorable consequences of his policy—which only differed in degree from the policy of this Party on the opposite side—were too strong for his deepest heart’s desire. And the same would happen in South Africa. I say that our policy is a difficult one. Sometimes it is almost beyond human powers. We will have to carry it out, and we will have to make greater sacrifices to do so. I am going to speak more and more, and I do not care what happens, about the sacrifices that go hand in hand with our policy. I do not care what happens. But at the same time I am going to put it relentlessly, not against the policy which they want to put into water-tight compartments by saying they will decide on this and on that, but against what their policy must lead to, and that is the downfall of the white man in Southern Africa. I shall say this relentlessly. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he produced nothing new. He said nothing which convinced me in any way that they are not on the road which leads to the doom of the white man in South Africa. We will fight the elections in South Africa on this issue, and I have not the slightest doubt about what the choice of the people will be.

Mr. Speaker, I found it really interesting to see how the hon. the Deputy Minister suddenly became afraid of white leadership. White leadership has brought South Africa to where it is to-day. Now he is running away from it. He states that it is an obsolete concept. I maintain that white leadership is intrinsically as sound as non-white leadership, and that it is unquestionably preferable to chaos. What we want to eliminate in South Africa is chaos. The hon. Deputy Minister speaks of his policy, but our entire approach is that this policy is incapable of implementation. It seems to me that if only the Government can develop a slogan then they think they can ignore reality in South Africa entirely. If only one can coin a slogan one can forget about the true state of affairs in South Africa. Previously the hon. the Deputy Minister staked his reputation on the year 1978. I would just like to know whether the still adheres to that? He has just furnished as with statistics in regard to how the non-Whites are being sent away from the Cape. Is this happening on the Railways as well? Is the Minister of Transport also managing with fewer Bantu? All the Railways statistics I have seen indicate that there is an ever increasing influx of these people.

When I listen to the hon. the Deputy Minister I get the idea that he bases his judgment on certain superficial features only. He never gets down to the heart of the matter. He circumyents it. He is like the man who says a whale is a fish. I know that if one looks at a whale for the first time and does not know much about it one would say that it was a fish. But after one has gone into the matter further, one realizes that a whale is not a fish. It is a mammal. He is one of those people who thinks a whale is a fish. But I also recall that Sir Winston Churchill once said to a politician that he must look ahead but that he must not try and look further ahead than he could actually see. That is that hon. gentleman’s problem. He is trying to look so far ahead, and is conjuring up such visions, such distant prospects for us, that he is completely unaware of the abyss before us. That is what we are all going to fall into. But what I hope is that we will be able to make progress in such discussions. There is no doubt that thunder clouds are gathering on the horizon, that there are powers which are marshalling their forces against us. We must get down to the heart, the core of this matter. We must set our house in order, so that when these onslaughts are made, we will be able to cope with them. We are going round in little circles here. It is apparent that even ordinary concepts apparently do not have the same significance for us anymore. When we say—and we do not encourage this, we are simply stating a reality that the industries in Johannesburg need non-white labour, then we are told that we are advocating integration. But when the Government encourages industries to establish themselves in Rosslyn, which is just outside Pretoria, where we make use of the same non-white labour, then it is no longer integration. Then, quite suddenly, it is border area development. When we say that white capital and initiative must be utilized in developing their homelands, then we are told that it is exploitation. But when that factory is shifted a mile further away and is probably just across the border, and the same non-white labour is used to manufacture precisely the same articles, then it is not exploitation. Then it is not integration either; then it is decentralization of industries which has become necessary for sociological reasons. Surely we cannot get any further on this basis.

But I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister is disregarding an extremely important matter, and that is what is happening in the economy of South Africa. So often I have heard him say that there is a connection between economic development and political pattern. But often when he says that it seems to me that he does not really believe it. And even if he does believe it, I am not certain that he really knows what is involved. What we are faced with here is a cardinal problem. For if there is such a connection and if we can determine what it is, then surely we can predict what is going to happen in South Africa. I want to try and indicate to-day that there is in fact such a pattern, and I also want to venture to make a prediction of what is going to happen. It is generally accepted that as soon as a country makes a start with industrialization, a pattern of development begins to take shape. What I have in mind here are not only the obvious things, such as urbanization, the rise of the entrepreneur and the trade unions. What I have in mind is a far more suttle relationship which exists between economic development and political pattern. In order to determine what this is we must go back a little. Economic progress and industrialization goes through specific phases, and if we can identify them, we can really begin to make progress.

The first phase is what I want to call the “On your marks” phase. Actually it is just like a race. Before the starter fires the starting gun, he says, “Get ready. On your marks”. The first phase is therefore one of being “on your marks”. This is one which can be clearly distinguished in the economic development of all countries. Here a country begins to prepare itself for large-scale development. It looks for natural resources. It creates an infra-structure, and accumulates capital. Also during this phase one usually finds the development of new pressure groups, and these immediately come into conflict with established interests. For this reason this phase is usually the one which goes hand in hand with instability of government. This is usually the one in which all the major revolutions have occurred, such as the Russian revolution, the French revolution and the American civil war. Now we must determine what happened in South Africa. This phase probably began in South Africa in 1880 with the discovery of gold and diamonds, and all the features discernible overseas in this phase of development we see here as well. There was instability and underlying disturbances here too, and it is in fact true that during this period of South Africa’s development the two Anglo-Boer Wars as well as the Rebellion of 1914 occurred. This was to a large extent attributable to overseas pressure or interference, but the 1922 strike also occurred during this phase. We have forgotten about it now, but it was one of the greatest revolutions in South Africa, and it took 20,000 men with aircraft, cannons and tanks to maintain control over this situation. So, in the first phase, we have followed the normal the universal pattern.

We now come to the second phase, which in English is called the “take-off’.

Jan Hofmeyr is back.

All the hon. Minister has to do is listen; I am coming back to him. What happens in all countries during this “take-off phase”? People flock to the cities in increasing numbers, and one finds that the cardinal feature of this phase is the presence of poverty. There is simply not enough wealth to give everybody a proper share of it. Government at this stage is repressive and suppressive, and perhaps it is necessary for economic progress that this should be the case. Consequently there is discrimination at this stage, and in most countries it is the poor who are discriminated against. What happened in South Africa? This phase probably commenced in South Africa in 1930, for then for the first time our national income began to increase at a rate of more than 4i per cent per annum. We find all the other patterns here too. Discrimination no longer took place on such a large scale, and poverty did not exist on such a large scale anymore because our natural resources had increased. Nor was there such large-scale suppression in this country because in South Africa there had been no successful revolution. Usually one finds that where the revolution has been successful, i.e. in countries such as Russia and France, the suppression is fierce and intense. But where this was not the case, i.e. in countries such as Britain, Belgium and South Africa itself, the suppression was not of this nature. But there is one other difference in South Africa. Whereas this difference and distinction in most other countries became a class distinction, we sought the obvious dividing line, and that is of course the colour distinction.

The third phase is one which we can call the “sprint phase”. A country is now running as fast as it possibly can. In most countries it is clear that during this stage more and more people flock to the cities, but now there is a difference. Suddenly the worker is no longer regarded as a liability but as an asset, and consequently more and more attention is given to his schooling and his housing, and all these other factors. Usually in this stage of development government is no longer so repressive. It tries to entrench itself by manipulating franchise and delimitation and factors of this kind. This third phase is the one in which we find ourselves at tihe moment, and I want to suggest that most of these points I have indicated can at present be seen in South Africa. Undoubtedly, more and more people are coming to the cities. Undoubtedly, the Government is supplying them with improved housing and school training. This is a normal step in the development at this stage. But there is another difference. Although the Government is following a progressive course and lending assistance, we find that it is actually in the situation of a man trying to ride two horses simultaneously. The one horse wants to go ahead rapidly, but the other jibs. That is the difference which is at present to be found in that party in its struggle between the “verkramptes” and the “verligtes”. South Africa entered that phase round about the year 1950. It is indicated by our overseas balance and by the rate at which our capital growth has begun to forge ahead. In addition the characteristic tendencies we find overseas are also to be seen here. During this second phase there are normally mally two other factors which go hand in hand with it. One is a strong feeling of nationalism and, if there is any possibility of this happening, it goes over into colonialism. We have in fact experienced the first here. Opinions differ as to whether we are going to experience the second.

Then there is still the large phase which I want to distinguish. I think we can call it the “flat out” phase. The goal is now in sight, and overseas it is clear w.rat happens during this phase. A complete reversal takes place in regard to the worker. To see to his needs is no longer merely a good idea; it is economically imperative because he has become a consumer. Consequently one finds throughout the world that during this phase dramatic reforms take place. This is the phase which we will shortly have to enter, and the question we have to ask ourselves now is: Are we also going to go through this process of relaxation, of liberalization, which characterizes what is happening throughout the world todayand which all states have gone through during this phase of development? There will be those who will say to me, “No, in South Africa it will not happen because there is a colour distinction; our situation is quite different, because there is a colour distinction”. Nevertheless I want to suggest to this hon. House that perhaps this colour distinction is not as great as one would sometimes think, and perhaps this colour distinction can also be bridged. There are examples I can mention in this regard. Often we speak here about different nations in South Africa. Recently I came across something which I found extremely interesting, because the writer had the following to say—

This is what people are constantly saying here. It is not an hon. member opposite who said this. These words were used by Disraeli, the Prime Minister of Britain more than a century ago; and he was not talking about Whites or non-Whites. He was not talking about English or French; he was talking about his own people, the English, the rich and the poor. Economic factors have of course done away with this position altogether. But is colour such an important factor here in South Africa? We have fad conflicts. We have had a Sharpeville, but Sharpeville cannot in any way be compared in intensity and in cruelty with the kind of conflict which occurred overseas in Russia and France, and they are homogeneous communities. There were no colour distinctions there. There is no doubt that the economy can bridge some of these matters. In Holland for example it has bridged religious factors, and in Switzerland it has bridged the language factors, and here in South Africa adjustments are being made every day. We all know that Japanese are non-Whites; they are Orientals, but here in South Africa we have suddenly made them Whites and Westerners, something which was unheard of 20 to 30 years ago. But is the entire new approach or the Government, the outwara movement which the hon. the Prime Minister is tehing us about, not part of this process of liberalization to which I referred?

No.

I shall give you a better example of w.iat is going on. About 12 years ago the Leader of that party, in the shape of its Prime Minister, could stand up there and state: “My party and I stand for White domination (baasskap) and I do not hesitate to say this.” To-day the Minister of Bantu Administration belates us for standing for White domination. Sir, there has never been such a rapid about face in the policy of a government as this one. [Interjections.]

You are talking nonsense.

Last week the hon. member for Primrose jumped into a debate, and this was really a pity because in ten minutes he said more things which he should not have said than he has ever done before. But nevertheless, he wanted to lead us towards a pitfail, and fell into it himself. He stated that we were the men who believed in white domination, but that he advocated white domination over the white areas only, and he also told us how he was going to defend this. He advocated white domination over 87 per cent of the territory of South Africa, and over more than 95 per cent of its economic means. This is not domination over the entire South Africa, but at least almost the entire South Africa.

But the tendencies to which I have referred, are going to forge ahead at an even more rapid pace and covering wider fields. Economists predict that by the end of this century the standard of living of all groups in Soutr Africa will be identical to what it is in Sweden at present. At that stage the non-white groups in South Africa will represent one-third of the national income of South Africa. Their purchasing capacity will then be between R20 million and R25 million per day. Can you imagine what will happen then?

But as I have said, the pattern here in South Africa is the normal and the classical pattern, and hence the confusion which exists at present in Government circles, and also the conflict between the “verligtes” and the “verkramptes”. [Interjections.] Your own people say that you are the “verligtes”. You cannot hurl that reproach at me. But I would like to say this. Since we have had this conflict, one thing is clear to me, i.e. that the “verkramptes” at this stage still have a solid foundation of prejudice which they can exploit. Twenty years of indoctrination still remain which they can exploit, but what they want to do they will have to do quickly. I am very sorry they are not here. Apparently they are no longer participating in our debates. But I want to say that what they want to do, they will have to do quickly, because the development is proceeding in the other direction, and the longer they wait, the less time they will have to do what they want to do. The Government is now following the general pattern. There is this emancipational process, but now they are moving in the wrong direction.

You say there are no “verkramptes” here, but see how we are sitting here.

The direction in which this policy is developing is absolutely wrong, and that is why I say that this policy is incapable of being implemented, because we have one central communal economic basis in South Africa. What did Tomlinson say? He said—

We have one economic foundation, and instead of building various rooms on top of that to maintain the separateness, or instead of building various storeys on top of that, what does the Government want to do? It wants to build various houses on one foundation. They will lean over in various directions like towers of Pisa and such a structure has never before existed, and will collapse. Surely the facts in regard to the South African situation are clear. There are too few Whites to develop our natural resources properly. All the planning being undertaken by that hon. member’s Department, which proposes a 5½ per cent rate of growth, is based on greater and greater incorporation of non-Whites. There is a direct correlation between our standard of living and the number of non-Whites working in our industries; and should we reduce the non-White to any considerable extent, the standard of living would diminish.

But I think the best indication of what is going on here was furnished by Professor Frankel, one of our best economists when he said-—

Now the Government is taking a stand. Everything is being done to make this concept of separate freedoms work, but it is also doomed to failure and I shall tell you. Apart from all these economic factors which I have mentioned, there are four other reasons. There is insufficient territory. One cannot give 13 per cent of the territory to three-quarters of the people and say that it is fair. In the second place there is not enough money to undertake the consolidation which must take place here. It will require astronomical amounts. Who is there in the Government who states that they will want to appropriate that money? [Interjections.]

Have you read Smith’s book on the Tugela yet?

In the third place there is not enough time. If South Africa had come forward with this plan during Jan Van Riebeeck’s time, it would still have been possible, but economic factors have already eliminated that possibility. There are still a few remaining idealists who do not want to accept this. In the fourth place—and this is probably the most important aspect—-there is not enough will-power. Nobody is prepared to make the sacrifices which this would require, and even if one did so, what would one achieve? Towards the end of this century there will be 30 million Bantu in South Africa. Tell me: Where are they going to live? They will live precisely where they are living to-day. Towards the end of the century there will be 2 million Coloureds in greater Cape Town. Where are they going to live; where are they going to acquire this separate freedom? They will remain here where they are.

How many United Party men are there going to be?

Sir, there is room for only one civilization in South Africa, and that is a Western civilization, and the Government with its separate freedoms, wants to throw that overboard completely now.

What you are adopting now is the standpoint of the Liberal Party.

No, nonsense. I say there is only one civilization in South Africa and it is a Western civilization. The role of the white man here is an explicit one. The white man is the cement, the binding agent. If the white man were not there, if white influence were removed, then the whole structure would collapse. This has nothing to do with South Africa; these are the facts of South Africa.

How should we approach this problem? The Government has embarked on a mad pursuit of the end of the rainbow, they are merely creating slogans, one after the other, but when it comes to the fundamental problems, the heart of the matter, then they runaway from it. Sir, there are three levels on which people must have contact with one another, and do have contact with one another. The first is the social level, and here, as I have stated previously, we all advocate the greatest possible degree of separation. But in contrast to the Government we want to use the magnet to draw each group into itself; they use the knife and the axe and they are inflicting wounds which are going to take years to heal. In the second place there is the economic level, and the economy of South Africa is based on co-operation between White and non-White. Without that there is no future for us. It is wrong to say that we can be poor and safe; our safety is tied up with our wealth, because that gives us the power to protect ourselves here. Let us therefore develop the non-Whites economically, because as long as we do so, we are making it more difficult for the political agitator. When it comes to the political level, which is the third one, then our standpoint is clear: We maintain that South Africa is a pluralistic community which consists of component parts at various stages of development. We maintain that there should be the greatest possible measure of devolution of powers, but that there should also be stability of the whole, a general structure and that is what the white man must effect; that is the service he must render to South Africa. I am surprised that hon. members on that side are running away from the concept of White leadership. Do they think that white leadership has no further role to play in South Africa. Do they want to eliminate it entirely? No, Sir, South Africa consists of quite a number of component parts, and we must see to it that these each contribute their proper share. Out of this amalgam of variety which exists in South Africa, we must create a whole, a totality, which will be greater and stronger than its component parts. Although the Government stands for development, we also stand for development, but although we stand for development which will lead to greater cooperation, they stand for development which will lead to the fragmentation of South Africa, and we do not agree to that.

In the course of my speech I shall reply to the hon. member who has just spoken, but it seems to me as though in this debate the Opposition are once again going to waste their time by putting forward hackneyed statements and by mentioning matters here to which they have time and again been given the replies by this side of the House. They do not make any constructive suggestions. Therefore I want to avail myself of this opportunity to bring this debate back to the real state of affairs existing in South Africa to-day, which is the following: After 20 years of National Party Government we have succeeded in overcoming and solving a long series of difficult problems. If we look back over the 20 years the National Party has been in power, we find that we have solved the constitutional issue by establishing a Republic, and that we have finally rounded off political apartheid here in this Parliament. These were two very cardinal and very important planks in the political platform of the National Party in the past. We have also brought about another very important development, a development which has swept the ground from under the feet of our critics at U.N. and in the rest of the world and even amongst our so-called friends. I am referring to the charge hurled against us at U.N. and elsewhere in connection with the question of a minority government in South Africa. I am referring to the projects undertaken by the National Party in connection with the establishment of states, projects by means of which it has put an end to the existence of anything like minority government in the Republic of South Africa. To-day all the various races in South Africa have political rights, something which they did not have before. This is a very important point, and to my mind it should be carried outwards to a greater extent, particularly to countries which want to be friendly towards us and which have always thought (that we claimed the right for ourselves to keep a minority government in power solely for our own benefit. I therefore want to express the hope that our Information Service will place very great emphasis on the fact that there is no longer such a thing as minority government in South Africa. The fact that we have solved our constitutional problems, not only within the country itself, but also on the international level, has engendered unprecedented confidence in us among people in the outside world who did not oppose us for political reasons, but who wanted to see the South African situation as it really is.

While I am on the topic of unprecedented economic prosperity and growth, I should like to quote a newspaper report here which, figuratively speaking, would have been a knockout blow to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if he had been present, a blow which would have sent him reeling for many days and weeks, because his main argument todaywas that the policies of the Government had failed one after another. Sir, it is sometimes a good thing, when one is judging oneself, to take note of the views, not of the local official Opposition, but of people abroad. It is sometimes a good thing to see what other countries are saying about one, countries that want to be friendly towards one. I am referring to a report which appeared in the Sunday Times, anewspaper that would not want to mollycoddle the Government. I think that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had read this report, he would have torn it up immediately. I am quoting from a report which appeared in the Sunday Times of 12th May—

The reporter, Mr. John Spira, said, inter alia,the following—

It is a good thing that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here at the moment, for if he has any political instinct at all, he would have been reeling now—

Not one, but a number of financial editors expressed this view—

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had any breath left, then this would have dealt him the final blow—

This is the condition that is stipulated, i.e. that the political climate must remain as calm as it is to-day. A Government can receive no greater compliment than this, and it is one that comes not from its admirers, but from people who do adopt a neutral attitude in this respect and who view the economic position of South Africa from all angles and who judge it objectively. After 20 years of National Party Government we get this verdict, this compliment to the National Party Government. This report goes on to say—

I just want to say in passing that this is applicable to this country as well—

I think this is a fatal blow to the hon. member for Hillbrow, because I do not think I am doing him an injustice when I say that he is very closely connected with bodies in South Africa which have the same aim, namely the development of monopolies which want to make free competition in South Africa a thing of the past.

I am connected with nothing but the House of Assembly.

Sir, that is news, and I hope the newspapers will publish it too. I want to do nobody an injustice. I want to make two statements here this afternoon, in the absence of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and if I am doing the United Party an injustice in any way, then hon. members on that side must tell me. I want to make two statements here, and they represent the essence of the entire struggle in South Africa. I think the electorate are slowly getting tired of the attitude adopted by the Opposition. One election after another is held and time after time the National Party is returned to power with ever-increasing majorities. Time after time the electorate gives the Opposition of the day a clear reply and a warning not to pursue their nonsensical policy any further. Sir, we are approaching the next election. I do not think I am the worst political prophet in the country, and I predict that when these two statements are properly communicated to the electorate of South Africa, the electorate will deal the United Party the final knock-out blow.

The story of your daughter marrying a Bantu.

When the electorate compares the policy of the National Party with the policy of the United Party, they will deal the United Party a final blow which will remove them from the political arena of South Africa for good. First of all I want to state the policy of the National Party in clear, simple terms, as against the policy of the United Party, as I see it. I leave it to the United Party to tell me whether I am doing them any injustice. The first tenet of the National Party is that white South Africa will survive in South Africa and that this is the predominant requirement, along with the requirement that economic growth will always take place subject to and in accordance with the prerequisite of the survival of a white South Africa. This is our tenet, of which we are not ashamed, and our prerequisite for all economic development and whatever other resources may develop in the course of time. This we place over against the tenet of the United Party, and if I make an incorrect statement of their tenet, they must tell me when I sit down. The tenet of the United Party is that settled economic interests will in all respects be the first priority and that the survival of the white population of South Africa will be subordinate to it. These are the two statements I want to make. It is time to state this clearly, because then we will not have the type of repetition which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition subjected us to here again this afternoon. Then we can get a clear verdict. However, the United Party always succeeds in creating confusion with the expression “white leadership”. A large number of voters still believe todaythat white leadership, even when it is stated in such vague terms as it is here, does have some value as regards ensuring the survival of the Whites. However, if one compares these two tenets, then it is clearwhy the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke in this way this afternoon. The hon. member for Hillbrow also spoke in the same vein. To them the economic aspect means everything and is of overriding importance, and the Whites as such must be used only as a means of ensuring economic prosperity. They do not say that economic welfare must serve to ensure the welfare, survival and security of the white man, but this tenet is reversed by them. This is why one has this terrible struggle, and at the next general election we shall be able to deal the United Party the final blow. Then we shall no longer hear arguments of this kind, which have no substance and only confuse the issue and the electorate.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am very sorry, but I am not prepared to reply to any questions at this stage, as I am developing a theme. I do not want to interrupt my theme by replying to questions which will lead me away from it. As a result of the state of affairs prevailing in South Africa at the moment, with this pattern where we have white areas with a white government, and where we will have Black areas with Black governments, overseas investors and any investor in South Africa know where they stand. This creates this unparalleled confidence which the world has in South Africa, as I quoted to you this afternoon from a report in the Sunday Times.That is the reason for the unshakable confidence placed in South Africa. With this basis of separate development one gets the minimum of conflicts, but also maximum performance. The mining industry in South Africa is being run on this basis. Where in the world does one find a more efficient major industry? And it is all done on this pattern.

This brings me to a very important future development. There are two matters which I should like to emphasize strongly this afternoon. We are now being confronted with those problems which are constantly blamed on us here. Therefore I want to say todaythat it is necessary for South Africa to apply the Physical Planning Act as strictly and absolutely as the letter of the law allows. If we do not do this, we will not be able to control this tremendous and terrible rush that is taking place in South Africa at present. Even a child would ask one: If the economic policy of the National Party is not sound, why this tremendous rush? Where does it come from? Why this tremendous impetus? The hon. the Minister of Finance must apply the brake to-day, because foreign capital wants to stream in and immigrants want to come here.

While I am on the tonic of immigrants. I should like to say a few words in this connection. We are very keen to get immigrants, but iust as we have to control our industrial development, we also have to control immigration. [Interjections.! Hon. members on the other side may object as much as they like, but I do not want South Africa to have another “uitlander” problem tomorrow or in a short time.

You already have one.

I am not ashamed of what I am saying here. I do not want us to have an “uitlander” problem tomorrow or the day after. I know that the question will immediately be asked: What will become of the great needs of industry? I want to emphasize the policy of the National Party in this respect, i.e. that the industries should only develop at the rate that South Africa can bear, and not an iota more. If the white population of South Africa is not able to supply all the white labour which the industries need, then those industries must go slower. They must go as fast as the white population is able to meet their needs. There are many problems in this connection, for example housing, transport and many others which must all keep pace with this development. The hon. member for Hillbrow said that we should not create chaos. Where is the chaos? I think the United Party is striving towards a measure of chaos. I think that there is no more orderly society in the world than we have in South Africa today, in spite of this rapid industrial development. If we were to allow this industrial development to take place quite disproportionately and to be given the absolute priority which the hon. the Opposition wants it to enjoy, then there would be great danger of chaos arising. There are two matters which must be controlled absolutely, i.e. the number of industries that are established must keep pace with the white population, and the number of industries that, are being and will be moved from the white areas to the border areas, must be moved in such a way as not to cause temporary and unnecessary disruption in the white areas. All this must be done systematically, so that it will always be possible to exercise control. It has become the fashion lately that if one mentions immigration or immigrants, one must necessarily plead that the maximum number be brought to South Africa. That is not right, neither is it in the interests of South Africa.

What I say is: Let us bring them here. I am addressing myself to the hon. member for Hillbrow. I do not know whether I have talked him out of the House, I see that he is shining by Hs absence. South Africa would not have had this problem to-day, were it not for the policy in regard to the mining industry. When Creswell wanted to bring 100,000 Whites here from Britain, good “Rooineks”to come and work here. they said “No”. What was their reason? I am confronting the United Party with this now. Why did they not want that large number of people from England here? “No, the political power in the hands of the workers would be too strong. They will hold the Government in the palms of their hands”. That was their argument. They arestill pretending sometimes that they are in favour of the importation of white workers, but in the meantime they are still afraid that, if one were to increase the numbers of the white workers, it would result in too strong a government by workers in South Africa and that they would obtain too much power. That is the reason for the present pattern in the mining industry. That is why so many industrialists have become so tremendously fond of black labour, “because there is no political danger to high finance”.

Why did you then prefer the “Rooineks”?

I will gladly take the “Rooineks”. They are good people. [Interjection.] Yes, but the political financial masters of the United Party did not want the “Rooineks” to come to this country to work in the mines. They said at the time: Rather a Chinaman, but not a “Rooinek”, as the latter would create a political consciousness. [Interjections.] That is still true, but it has had its effect. These were seeds with hard husks that have taken years to germinate. They are only beginning to germinate now. The true state of affairs is only becoming evident now. The reason why these large industries do not want to employ Whites, is also becoming clear. Here and there a professional man will be appointed, but they want the Blacks, as they pleaded here th;s afternoon, under the so-called “rate for the job”, with which the hon. the Deputy Minister dealt fully this afternoon. They can have their way with the Blacks. They speak of “the minimum wage for the white worker”, but no mention has been made of a minimum wage for the Black man. By no means! For then their financial masters will say to them: “Most certainly not, fellows. We are not going to allow you to do this. We have been supporting you with our money all these years, and now you must dance to our tune”. This is the entire pattern. We must investigate the matter more thoroughly and not keep plaving around on the surface. There would have been no problem as a result of a shortage of white workers in this country, had the United Party not applied their routine policy, namely that, if they want Whites, only a few professional people are appointed. But they do not want the artisans who are needed so badly to-dav. They are afraid of political power. After all, the workmen can and will never vote for the United Party. Therefore they do not want them here. Therefore they prefer to have the Blacks in the mining industry and in all other respects. These are the basic facts which we have to bring home to people, so that we may deal the United Party the death-blow they deserve at the next general election, and I wish it were to-morrow. That sentence should have been executed long ago.

Mr. Speaker, it interests me very mudh to hear the hon. member for Krugersdorp speaking about the “finale nekslag vir die Verenigde Party”. I remember, in the election of 1958, being asked by The Star to reply to an article by Professor Du Plessis which said that that election would be the “final and definitive death blow of the United Party”.

It was!

Since then the United Party has fought about eight elections and is going very strong indeed. [Interjections.] If hon. members cared to follow what is going on in the country at the polls, they would have had good reason to appreciate the truth of that statement.

It is difficult to take some of the remarks of the hon. member for Krugersdorp seriously when, in endeavouring to make a plea for the white workers, he criticizes the United Party leader for having said that he will come out for a minimum wage for the white workers. He (the hon. member for Krugersdorp) appears to regret that statement very much indeed. He regards it as a reproach that we have not come out for a minimum wage for the black worker. I would have thought that anybody concerned with the interests of the white worker, would be very glad indeed to know that the United Party stood for a minimum wage for the white worker. There are one or two other points that the hon. member raised upon which I would like to touch, but I shall do so later in my speech.

First, I want to deal with his reference to the “uitlanderpirobleem”. I would like to give him perhaps a new facet to that problem that he has not thought of. Secondly, I would like to touch later in my speech on his statement that we must repudiate the statement that South Africa has a minority Government. I would like to come back to that also. But I want immediately to start with what I think was the main aspect of his speech, and indeed what has been the main aspect of the speeches so far, namely the overriding question in South Africa: What is the right policy to ensure the white man’s civilization, and that the other sections here get taken along in a state of progress, safety and security? Both parties desire that. It is merely a question of difference in policy. I want hon. members opposite to reflect quite honestly on what we have experienced in the Dast. I believe they will agree that on th“ basis of what we have seen in regard to Native policy, particularly, there is no hope whatsoever that the Government is on the right road in this regard. One only has to look at the past contortions and convolutions in which they have had to indulge in the implementation of their policy. One must look also to the future. I want to do that today.

But just in passing, let us stop a moment at their policy for the Coloured people. We have seen in this very Session the Government abandoning representation for the Coloured people.

In this House.

They are abandoning representation in this House for the Coloured people. I would suggest that in doing that, they have cut the ground completely from under the logic of their whole racial policy. When it could be said that the Coloureds have no so-called “homeland”, and therefore they must have a say here, coupled with the fact that the Bantu would have their independent state whilst having no say in this House, it might have made sense. But now we have the position that the Coloureds will have neither an independent state, nor a say in this Parliament. I want to ask hon. members opposite: Why then, on their reasoning, is it so essential that the Native people should have independent states? If the Coloureds are going to be perfectly happy with neither a say in this Parliament nor an independent state, why then, on their reasoning, is it necessary that the Natives should have independent states? Perhaps they will tell me that. A second indication, I think, of the fact that their policy is failing to appeal to the Coloured people, is the great number of very good Coloured people that are emigrating from this country. If one takes the position in regard to Canada alone, do hon. members opposite know that half the South Africans that left during the years 1966-’67 to go to Canada, were Coloured people? There were 338 Coloured people that left in 1966, and 532 left in 1967. Those people are some of the best Coloureds, such as artisans, teachers, nurses, carpenters, scientists, doctors and so forth. These are the people that are leaving, and I suggest that this is a strong indication that these leading people do not see the policy of the Government as the great one they believe it is.

But let us look at the overriding policy, which is that in regard to the Native people. I have said that the Government has followed a corkscrew path in this regard. No one minds a party changing their policy from time to time, but the Government party has been in the position that the whole foundation of its policy is being proved to be wrong. They are having to change and grasping at straws in order to call what they are doins today a policy at all. Let us just shortly recall the position. They had this ideal of total separation.

It is still the ideal.

The test whether it was working, was whether the numbers were being reduced. We know that the numbers were not being reduced. They then had the policy that the Natives must be sucked back by creating opportunities for them in and around their reserves. Dr. Verwoerd and Mr. De Wet Nel stated that there should be no dislocation of industry in doing this. We know that this got them nowhere. Those numbers increased by leaps and bounds. Then we got the first adaptation of this by the late Dr. Verwoerd, namely that it did not matter whether the Natives went back or not. As long as you understood their policy all was well. He said that the presence, or even an increase in the number of these people in the white areas did not represent any violation of their policy. The hon. member for Heilbron was also the great apostle of this policy. He said whether there are 5,000 or 50,000 or 5 million Natives here, it does not matter at all. In other words, when they could not get them back they changed their policy and embraced a policy which did not require them to return to the reserves. Just before the unfortunate death of Dr. Verwoerd we had indications that this had been abandoned and that a new approach was being made. I believe that this was done under the pressure of the “verligte” element in the Nationalist Party, who felt that you could not just go on having these numbers here and doing nothing about them.

So we have come to our present position. Let us examine this and see what prospects of success it has. We have reached the position where industry is to be forced away even if it does mean dislocation. This is the new element. Industry will be forced away even if it does mean dislocation. The hon. member for Krugersdorp has pleaded that the Planning Bill should be very sharply applied in order to achieve this. He will remember what an absolute retreat this is from the statement of his former Leader and the former Minister of Bantu Administration who said that there will be no dislocation at all. That is my first point. Secondly, there is to be no question of sucking back. As many workers as possible are to be made migratory workers. It is quite clear that there is no intention of actually reducing the number of Natives working in our areas, apart from the marginal influence of the border industries.

The obvious intention is that we shall rely as always to a growing extent on the Natives. Furthermore we shall rely more and more on migratory labour. Even those who are today not migratory workers are to be made migratory workers, if at all possible. We have therefore that heartless departmental circular of 12 December, 1967, which makes it clear that all but actual workers are to be shifted to the homelands. That is a most heartless circular. It indicates the length to which the Government will go to try to put some lfe and sense into this policy. The circular stresses that no stone is to be left unturned to achieve the settlement in the homelands of non-productive Bantu at present residing in the European areas. I want to question many aspects of this circular.

I want to question whether this policy has any chance at all of being accepted. First of all, it says that those who are too old for work are to be shifted. I regret to say that this reminds me of Victorian England where the view was held that you should work a man until he drops and then throw him out. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration said that in terms of their policy they would only send out the people who were unlawfully in the white areas. But I believe that that is not a fully honest statement. I say this because it depends on what the law is. The point is that a person who is too old or too weak to work may have been born in the so-called white areas and has spent his whole life there and has every right to be there. Then by a law of this Government, if a person becomes too old, he may be regarded as being there unlawfully.

[Inaudible.]

On the contrary, in terms of this departmental circular the Bantu in the European areas, who are normally regarded as non-productive and are as such to be resettled in the homelands, are conveniently classified as follows: “The aged, the unfit, widows, women with dependent children and families who do not qualify under the provisions of the Bantu Urban Areas Act for family accommodation in European areas.” This says quite clearly that the aged, the unfit and widows are to be sent back to the homelands.

We give them everything. We resettle them and we give them houses and transport.

That is another matter altogether. The hon. the Deputy Minister is now retreating from the stand he took and now concedes that people who have been here lawfully all their lives can by a new law of this Government after they have become aged or unfit be declared to be people who have to be sent back to the homelands. The question he put was therefore not fair at all. Not only do those categories I quoted apply to urban Bantu but to the farm Bantu as well. If he becomes too old to work or if his wife becomes a widow, they too, although they may have been born outside the “homelands”, must be sent back in terms of this circular “to the territory of the national unit where they fit in ethnically”. Even though they may have been born in Johannesburg, Durban or Cape Town, they must be sent back. The same applies to the professional Bantu, according to that circular. Hon. members opposite have not yet replied to this question. Where they are now following these new harsh repatriation methods …

Why do you say “harsh”?

Of course they are harsh. They are harsh because when people come to the end of their days and they can work no longer they are to be sent away to a place where they have never lived. If I were to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, who comes from the Somerset East area, that after his useful life is passed he will be sent to Angola, will he be pleased?

Many old people are being sent to old age homes. Do you want them to die on the streets?

I should like to say that the very worst you can do for an old mother or father when their working days are over is not to allow them to remain in the town or place where they grew up or worked or where their family is. I say it is harsh to do anything else, especially if they are compelled to do something else by law. I believe that hon. members opposite will concede that it is harsh if they think about it for a moment.

I was busy asking hon. members opposite a question. At what population ratio between Black and White is their policy now aiming, where they are now going in for these repatriation programmes? I want an answer in this regard. We are going to have a lot of heartburn as a result of this repatriation.

Why must it be a ratio?

Presumably you have some idea behind this scheme. Presumably you think that some ratio is going to bring security to the Whites. The hon. members opposite will remember that after the report of the Tomlinson Commission was issued their own White Paper stated that they had to achieve equality by the end of the century. What ratio are they now aiming at, so that we may be able to judge whether they are succeeding or failing? However, I believe they are running away from this—that is why we cannot get an answer from them.

To summarize the Government’s policy on this point, I should like to say, first of all, that it is quite clear they have abandoned the sucking back of these people through creating the necessary opportunities and are continuing to base our economy 100 per cent on Bantu labour. They are not going to try to stop that. Hence the statement we had from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that “skouspelagtige verwydering” was not priority number one. In that sense the worker, the man who can perform labour, will be able to come in as much as before. Furthermore, they are trying to throttle growth wherever black labour is required, except in the border industries. With that they are going to make labour increasingly migratory and are shifting dependants of workers. This is what they call “verankering aan die tuislande”. So they shift themout, thereby trying to “veranker” them in their homelands.

Another integration speech.

I should like that hon. Deputy Minister, who is interjecting now, to tell us how else than by these means they are going to “veranker” these people in the homelands? Finally, the Government, as the hon. the Minister said at Potchefstroom, is going in for “ontvoogding”. We know they stand for sovereign independence of the Native peoples. Lastly, and to satisfy the hon. member for Primrose, they stand for “baasskap” in the white areas. This then is the Government’s policy in a nutshell. I say such a policy is doomed to failure. First of all, I believe that neither they nor their supporters outside are hard-hearted enough to send back a sufficient number of people to make any real difference. Of course, they will create enough hardship, but they are not hardhearted enough to make any significant difference. Indeed, the hon. member for Primrose said as much when he spoke at Parow quite recently. My hon. Leader has also indicated what another Afrikaans institution, the Financial Gazette, thinks about that. Secondly, as far as the industrialists are concerned, I say that not enough of them are prepared to go to the borders of the reserves to enable them to draw back anough Bantu workers. Next, the cost to the prosperity of South Africa will be too great. Hon. members opposite seem to think that this is with us the main consideration, but it is not so by any means. However, if they know how very many people have to struggle to make a living, they will not lightly throw away any chance to alleviate the lot of all our peoples. Therefore our economic prosperity must be considered because people are suffering greatly where there is no prosperity.

As I have said, I do not think the best consciences on the Government side will stand for the real harsh return of these people, a return which their laws theoretically make possible.

There is no harshness, except in your vicious mind.

But the major reason why they will not get any significant reduction …

Order! Will the hon. Deputy Minister withdraw the phrase “vicious mind”?

I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest reason why they will not achieve this, is I say …

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has again remarked that the hon. member for Pinelands is “vicious”.

I said he was placing a vicious interpretation on matters.

Order! The hon. Deputy Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw, Mr. Speaker, and say that he is putting an unkind interpretation on matters.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to say that the major reason why they will not achieve this is the fact that the Bantu peoples and their governments do not agree with this policy. Already we know that the Transkeian Government is opposed to the migratory system of labour. As a matter of fact, in the Transkei all parties are opposed to this system. That was indicated absolutely clearly by them during the Second Reading debate on their Labour Law Amendment Bill last year. They indicated that quite clearly and in very strong language. And the hon. member for Heilbron indicated with great regret that the Transkei had not seen fit to accept the latest labour regulations.

When was that?

In the speech he made recently, I think on the Bantu Affairs Vote. He invited them, plaintively invited them, to accept these regulations but he knows perfectly well that they will not. So, immediately we have a clash with the Government’s policy. But not only do they not approve of migratory labour; they also flatly oppose this question of endorsements out when ½ there are no job opportunities available. Their I chief minister in the Transkei said that they ½ were flatly opposed to this. They were not I prepared to accept that these dependent people I should be sent back to the Transkei.

What do you understand by “endorsements out”?

I do not have the time now to go into that question; I have only got a few minutes left. But let me say that, as far as I know, none of these “nonproductive” and dependent people who have been sent back have been sent back to the Transkei. As a matter of fact, I would be glad if they could name me a place to which they were sent. In any event, they were not sent tothe Transkei where their government does not stand for this type of thing. Instead, they have been sent to places like Sada in the Ciskei, Hinge near Lady Frere and other places. They are definitely not being sent back to the Transkei. What is more, I believe the Government of the Transkei will not accept any number of these people. The hon. member for Heilbron, in a speech before the Institute of Citizenship I think, indicated the size of the problem by saying that there were just over 2 million productive workers amongst the Bantu in the “white” areas. We know that the Bantu population in the white areas is about 8 million. Therefore the hon. member himself indicated the size of this problem. I say that these evolving states are not going to tolerate these non-productive people being sent back to them. In the circumstances, the Government’s policy in this regard is absolutely still-born. I think it should be said to hon. members opposite that they are heading for a head on clash with the Transkeian Government over this matter. Let me just summarize some of the points.

Firstly, there is migratory labour, on which I have already elaborated. Secondly, there is this endorsing out of dependents, to which also I have already referred. Thirdly, these governments want permanent residence for their people in the white areas. Fourthly, they want more land. They have stated so already quite clearly. As a matter of fact, the Transkeian Assembly has adopted a resolution to that effect. They want Matatiele, Port St. Johns and other places. As a matter of fact, we have heard leading members in the Transkeian Parliament say that they want all the land up to the Fish River. Fifthly, they are pressing for independence. They have not yet actually asked for it but they are moving rapidly towards a point where they are going to ask for independence. I think it was the Nationalist Party Leader of Natal who at the time the Republican referendum was held who spoke as if a thousand years might pass before these states would be able to get their independence.

I did not say so.

Then I apologize to the hon. Minister. However. I thought it was he who said that a thousand years might pass before one of these states would get its independence.

It was Mr. de Wet Nel who said it.

Thank you. Apparently it was Mr. de Wet Nel.

Nobody knows. It might take any number of years.

From this side it has already been pointed out that the

Government does not have the control of the timetable, and if they think they are going to be able to control it they are very much mistaken. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education has been praising Basutoland. Well, I do not want to say anything against Basutoland but let me point out that I am quite certain Basutoland did not comply with half the requirements the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration set out as being essential for independence. Yet the hon. the Deputy Minister is apparently very happy with Basutoland, is he not?

No. Do you not remember what Dr. Verwoerd offered Great Britain?

It was Dr. Anton Rupert, I think, who talked about “byna-byna ’n potensiele Kuba” in Lesotho. So I want to say that I believe that our Government is heading either for relatively early independence for the Transkei or a showdown with the Transkei—probably the latter. It was not so long ago that the hon. member for Heilbron indicated in a speech that he made, that it might only be a limited time before they got their independence—at least that was the implication of his speech. I say, therefore, if the Government were wise they would abandon this policy before it is too late. They are using valuable time; they are using valuable goodwill. If we have peace and order in this country, this is the measure of goodwill that exists, and they are exhausting that goodwill with every day that passes. Their own former leader said this was not the policy that side wanted but it is the policy which was forced on them from outside. I am saying, let them get back to the traditional policy of South Africa in this regard. What was the traditional policy? It was to bring civilization to the native peoples steadily over the years: it was not to abandon them to the sort of fate which has been the lot of so many other countries in Africa.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp said we must tell people there is not a minority Government in South Africa. This is the trouble with hon. members opposite. Ever since 1959 they have apparently been mesmerized by numbers. Up to 1959 they saw no danger at all in our being a so-called minority government, but in that year when Dr. Verwoerd had I suggest a brain-storm he suddenly became mesmerized by numbers and the Nationalist Party followed him into that state. They were absolutely stampeded by the cry of “one man, one vote”. They were absolutely stampeded by this slogan. I want to say this. The true voice of the world does not require one man, one vote. They do not allow one man, one vote at the U.N.O. The five key nations have a veto on everything that happens there; so they do not for a moment allow one man, one vote. This party does not stand for one man, one vote, and nor does theProgressive Party. We stand for White leadership as indicated, and that White leadership is what is required here. We often hear it said that the Afrikaner’s own experience requires that the native peoples should have these independent states. The way those people talked you would think the Afrikaners were the only citizens of this country. But they are not, they share this country with English-speaking South Africans, with the Coloured people and with the Indian people, and therefore it is perfectly possible to say the Afrikaners do not have this country as a homeland only for themselves. This is a place we are sharing and there is co-operation, and whether we like it or not, there has got to be that sharing in that sense, and that co-operation.

So I say where we have the population distributed in the way we have, where Providence has put peoples here in the way they are. and where we rely absolutely on millions and millions of native people to do our work, the very loosest possible arrangement you can have between these people is the federal relationship. And that, under the leadership of the Whites, is the policy of this party. It is a policy which, if the Government does not take it over completely, the voters will ask us to put into operation in this country.

Mr. Speaker, so far this debate has been a very interesting one for me, and this I find rather significant since up to now no mention has been made of the financial implications of the budget. Now I want to make the deduction that there is no criticism to level at the budget, and that the keys to the Treasury may confidently be left in the competent hands of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

The Opposition succumbed to the temptation of arguing about ideological points of view. In this respect they wanted to read the Government a lecture on the apartheid concept advocated by the Government, and they were violently opposed to the possible implications of the Government’s apartheid policy. I could make the deduction that they wanted to pose here as preceptors to the Government. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to our conversion to their “way of thinking”, as he called it. Since the Opposition has now become so strongly opposed to the policy of apartheid, since they are condemning it with might and main, I think that it would be interesting just to measure them in terms of the attitude they adopted 10 years ago when this side of the House discussed our becoming a Republic. What was their attitude at that time? In the course of my speech I should like to counterbalance the respective attitudes adopted by the Government and by the Opposition in respect of apartheid and freedom, and I must do so against the background of this year’s budget, for that has also given rise to some of the statements which were made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to which I should like to reply.

We must weigh up the Government and the Opposition against each other and test them against the budget which we now want to sanction here. To my mind it was a budget of strength which reflects the viability of our country’s economy. This question is being asked, “Why is there a manpower shortage in the country?” The reason is that over the past number of years we have had fantastic economic progress. To what is it attributable that the Government could introduce such a strong and vigorous budget here? Such a budget was only possible because we have a strong Government in power here, a Government which bases its policies on sound principles. I referred to a budget of strength. This is not merely a statement, but it is also strikingly supported in the magazine Commerce and Industry of April, 1968, where we find the following passage on page 387—

It is unlikely that any government could obtain a better testimonial than this one.

Now one asks oneself this question: To what is such a vigorous budget attributable? We know that the mighty U.S.A, is struggling to straighten out its balance of payments. Britain, too, is struggling to maintain the pound sterling. In spite of that it has been possible for the Republic of South Africa to boast of such a budget of strength this year. The reply to the above-mentioned question is not far to seek. It is attributable to the fact that the National Party Government is governing this country in an effective way and has deliberately endeavoured to carry through and lay down certain basic principles. This is the basis of the Republic’s economic successes. In this regard I should now like to refer to a few aspects.

In the first place, we have the fact that this Government has established the Republic of South Africa, a republic in the true sense of the word, for we are a free, sovereign, independent state in the true sense of the word, free of any ties. This has, of course, also contributed towards the strong economy of the country. In the second place, it is a fact that the apartheid endeavour has been placed on a course which future governments will have to follow, and they will not be ableto turn back. I am addressing this to the hon. Opposition. As regards this Government’s apartheid endeavour, the Republic has irrevocably been placed on this course and no future government, not even the United Party Government, will be able to reverse this process. In the third place, the successes are attributable to the fact that provision was made for equal treatment of both White language groups. This has effected a spirit of harmony in the country such as we have never experienced since the country was settled. Now I want to challenge the Opposition to adduce proof to the effect that we were converted to their way of thinking as regards of these basic principles. They claim that we have in many respects taken over some of their policies. It is perhaps necessary to remind the Opposition of what their attitude was in regard to these matters. Just as strongly as they are opposing apartheid to-day, so strongly did they in the past oppose this Government’s endeavour to establish a republic. On the Opposition side todaythere is nobody left who wants to undo the Republic of South Africa. Nobody may deny todaythat the Republic is the corner-stone of all the successes that have been achieved, be it economically or in connection with our foreign relationships. The Republic is the corner-stone on which all of that is based. What was the attitude adopted by the United Party in respect of this corner-stone which was laid by the National Party? I still remember well what the attitude was the hon. member for Orange Grove adopted at the time. He said the following significant words (translation)—

Now this question arises. If at the time we did not demolish that old building and replace it by the republican building, in what a mess of a building would we not have had to live to-day? I leave it to the imagination of those who listen to it. The hon. member for South Coast—unfortunately he is not here —came forward with further threats when this Government was discussing our becoming a republic. He said (translation)—

But I wonder whether at present there is still such political unity in Natal. He went on to say—

Now I should very much like to ask those hon. members of Natal who are sitting here whether it is still their intention to undo the Republic of South Africa at the first opportunity that offers itself. I mentioned these matters to show what attitude the Opposition adopted at that time in respect of our becoming a republic. I want to make the statement that just as they changed their attitude in respect of our becoming a republic, so they will in years to come change their attitude in respect of the apartheid endeavour of this Government. There you have the attitude of the United Party. It is diametrically opposed to that of the Government. The Union of South Africa was irrevocably placed on the Republican course by the National Party. That was done without the assistance or advice of the United Party. The United Party dare not undo that Republic, for then they would find themselves in the desert for ever.

But. in the second place: What is the attitude adopted by the United Party in respect of the apartheid endeavour of the National Party? This matter was very exhaustively dealt with here this afternoon. Its implications were discussed in full detail. There can be no doubt about the fact that the attitude of the Government is the opposite of that of the Opposition. I even want to go as far as to suggest that no reconsiliation is possible between the respective attitudes adopted by the Government and the Opposition. Now I want to make this statement, in spite of what has been said here this afternoon by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and all the other hon. members opposite who have taken part in this debate up to now. The decisions this Government has taken and carried into effect in respect of apartheid, will never be changed. I am now referring specifically to the development and the granting of selfrule in the homelands, the abolition of Native Representation in the House of Assembly, the abolition of Coloured Representation in the House of Assembly, and our border industry development. I find it very difficult to conceive of the United Party’s ever becoming a future government, but I say that these decisions will be respected and accepted by future governments, just as the Opposition accepts the Republic of South Africa to-day. It is an acknowledged fact that this Government has added the finishing touches to the endeavour to ensure that there will be no political integration inthe Republic of South Africa. Now I want to suggest that if the attitude adopted by the United Party implied the intention to undo what the National Government has accomplished in the sphere of separate development, they would remain in the desert forever. Just as the Opposition accepts todaythe Republic to which they were so violently opposed, so they will in years to come claim for themselves the apartheid policy of this Government, and say that this was the Opposition’s policy which we subsequently took over. I want to conclude by saying that the National Party has never been guided by the United Party. They cannot convert us to their way of thinking. On the contrary, even the United Party have shown that they have administration and respect for the monuments established by the National Party up to now.

The hon. member for Virginia who has just sat down referred to the Republic. Well, Sir, it is true that we did oppose the establishment of the Republic in 1961. but what was the basis of that opposition? We were not against the Republic as such, but against the timing of it. [Laughter.] Indeed, but for the grace of things as they turned out, matters could have turned out very badly for us. Indeed, it was merely fortunate that things did not turn out badly for South Africa. He talks as though the Government is responsible for the economic development that has taken place in this country and the prosperity we have had. Indeed, I would like to know just what the Government itself contributed towards this development. I have not seen it and I have not heard of it up to date. All I know is that our development has taken place despite the Government and not because of the Government. Indeed, we have had previous experiences of a Nationalist Party Government and in each case it has happened that they bring Sotuh Africa right to its knees and then the United Party has to take over and build it up again. In fact, having gone back into the past, as the hon. member for Virginia has done, we need not even go back as far. We need only go back to 1933, when a Nationalist Party Government brought South Africa absolutely to its knees and the United Party Government came in and built this country up again within six years, and not 20 years as this Government has had now, but within six years, to a point where she could take part in a world war and, what is more, to see that war through and after that could still be so successful that England could have a loan of £80 million in gold from us. At that stage this Government could take over from the United Party Government statutes which laid the basis for development in South Africa. My hon. leader has already dealt with some of them, but there are others. The I.D.C. was established during our time. All the agricultural measures were put on the statute book during the time of the United Party. Even the Bantu Urban Areas Act of 1945, the influx control of which we hear so much, was put on the statute book by the United Party Government. Having heard of all the wonderful things this Government has done, may I ask why they do not produce something concrete to show us what they did for South Africa? The hon. member says the time will come when we will accept apartheid. We have had that before. The time is fast approaching when again the Nationalist Party Government will take over completely what the United Party stands for as far as race relations are concerned.

Define your middle of the road policy.

That was done very clearly this afternoon. In that respect I want to deal for a few moments with this question of separate development and the pillars which support it. The hon. the Minister dealt with this at Potchefstroom to some extent, but I find that Dr. Van Rensburg put it much more clearly than he did. Amongst other things he talks about the first pillar being “volkslidmaatskap”. Here we find that there has to be re-established the citizenship for this nation, and the hon. the Minister said at Potchefstroom that it did not matter where these people were, nor did their numbers count at all. That was not essential; ancestry only was the question that mattered. One of course wonders why there must now within the Bantu peoples of South Africa be re-established separate citizenships for the different ethnic groups. One’s mind automatically goes to other nations which are similarly situated or have similar conditions, such as for example Britain. One would of course think that the Scotsman must have his separate citizenship, and also the Welshman, in order to qualify as a British citizen. So we must have in South Africa Zulus and Xhosas and Tswanas. Indeed, whilst there is an inherent difference perhaps between these different groups, I believe it is no bigger a difference than the difference within the ethnic unit of the different tribes within that unit. The whole trouble, of course, is that the Government is trying to establish this and to bring it about and to create these independent states only and solely to avoid giving the Bantu people political rights within what they call White South Africa. They are therefore prepared to set back the clock no less than 100 years in order to re-establish the very thing which over the last 100 years has been slowly breaking down and which South African Governments have tried to break down more and more, the re-establishment of a different citizenship for the Bantu people. There is the breaking down of old traditions and habits and old ways of living. Those are the things we wanted to eliminate and, indeed, in respect of which the Government is now contradicting itself by, firstly, encouraging the old Bantu tribal system and all that goes with it and at the same time introducing the white man’s wayof government, the modem democracy, for them, things which have been broken down to a great extent and which even todayare being broken down more and more as between the different ethnic groups, because how often do we not find a Xhosa, for example, married to a Zulu, or even a Zulu married to a Basuto and vice versa? There are hunderds of them and one wonders, when one has considered all that, where all the offspring of these marriages are going to be classified.

We discussed the second point of this separate development, and that is of course the “volkstuistes”, and here we immediately have to deal with the consolidation of these areas. The areas are spread out and have to be brought together, and we have had quotations time and time again that if we want to establish an independent unit, basic consolidation is absolutely necessary. The Minister said, and I must say that that speech of his at Potchefstroom seemed to be one excuse on top of the other, why the Government was not in fact carrying out its policy. Because here again, in regard to consolidation, he brought forward a long list of excuses why consoldation was not being effected. He mentioned the cost and the difficulty of obtaining land from white people and the difficulty of tribes being cut up, and even different tribes being in one area. Self-government or independence cannot work unless there is consolidation, and yet the Minister said: “I cannot consolidate completely and I cannot establish the boundaries until there is an authority with whom I can negotiate”. Then he went on to say that we must be very careful when we consider the manner of assistance to these people on the question of the borders and assistance inside the homelands, because on that depends the good relations for the future. Can we think of anything that is more likely to create bad feeling than this very question of the boundaries? Can we think what the negotiations will lead to once governments are established? Sir, the Government is already faced with a request for more land, and that despite the assurance given in this House about a month ago by the hon. the Prime Minister that those areas can be considered White indefinitely. Yet, following on his words in this House, the Transkei Legislative Assembly passed a motion asking for more land, asking for the very land which the Prime Minister said here would remain White. Sir, is that not heading for trouble? Indeed, already there is in the Transkei an authority with which this Government can negotiate. How far have they negotiated on this question of the boundaries? When will it be settled? Is it not only right that they should settle this question one way or another so that either we can have an end to the assurances given in this House in regard to the areas which will remain White, or we can have an end to the motions by the Transkei Legislative Assembly asking for more land? But of course, as with everything, you do not get anywhere with this Government, inasmuch as I have asked repeatedly in this House that not all the boundaries of the Ciskei should be settled but only one. That would leave the Government ample scope to manoeuvre and to solve these problems which the Minister said he had when he has to consolidate, to give security to an area there which is completely insecure because of this very fact of there being an unsettled boundary. This does not only apply to the Ciskei and the Transkei, but to all the Bantu areas in South Africa.

I want to deal with the question of labour. As my hon. Leader said here this morning, figures have been bandied about terrifically of late, ever since the report of the Permanent Committee came to hand. We know that in that report was the statement that 35,000 Bantu males become available in the homelands annually, and in that report it was stated that one in four, or 25 per cent were taken up in industry. The Minister of Planning was quite aware of those figures.

What report are you referring to?

I am referring to the 1967 report of the Permanent Committee for the establishment of industry. The hon. the Minister was quite aware of this report and of those figures. He gave half of them but he painted a completely different picture to this House during his Planning Vote. He came along here and he did not say, as the report says, that one in four go into industry; he said one in five went into industry, and instead of having 9,000 Bantu males available, according to his figure he has 7,000. And then he takes one globular figure of 5,000 Bantu having been placed in industry, but on the one hand we are working with Bantu males and on the other hand we are working with Bantu. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Planning how many Bantu females are employed in border industries, or do they not figure anywhere? Accepting at this stage that the Permanent Committee’s figure is correct, which I do, I want to point out that economists have found that the number of people in industry is not always, as the Permanent Committee has suggested, one in four but in fact one in three, and that it was found in the development of Canada that the proportion of workers taken up in industry was over 30 per cent.

In South Africa it is 18 per cent to 20 per cent.

On what figure is that based?

I would like to know where the hon. the Minister of Planning gets that figure because it does not coincide with the figure of his Department.

It is quite different for the border industries.

Sir, from that point we go on to the question of the backlog, and one wonders how this backlog can be made up. He says that only 5,000 have been placed in employment—that is the total—as against the figure of 9,000 that is required. He also says that the border areas of Rosslyn, Hammarsdale and Pietermaritzburg are now mature, so much so that he now has to look elsewhere for development. We also know, as has been admitted here this afternoon by the hon. the Deputy Minister, that through this very programme he is going to inhibit economic development. As a result there is going to be a deceleration of development, in spite of the fact that more and more Bantu are coming on to the market, and if he cannot give them all opportunities now, how is he going to make up this backlog? Let us assume for a moment that the rate of growth continues to be the same. The question then arises whether employment opportunities will grow with our present rate of growth. We have already heard from that side of the House the effects of mechanization and automation and what goes with it. Sir, I would like to quote another authority on this very matter, Prof. Houghton, who says that in 1964—’65 the growth of South Africa was 5f per cent, but during that same period the growth in white employment was 45,500, which is 3.6 per cent. He says that the growth in non-white employment is that time—this is the employment figure; I am not talking about industries only—was 179,100, that is to say, 3.8 per cent. With these two varying growth rates, how can the hon. the Minister make up the backlog; how can he give these people employment? These figures include the vast number of jobs which were previously done by Whites and which are now being done by non-Whites, either because of the granting of exemptions or because of the reclassification of these pobs. Sir, what is the justification for this decentralization of border industries? We hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education that the justification is the ever-increasing cost of the infrastructure in the developed areas. He started this refrain and he has been followed quite steadily by hon. members on the other side.

It is a very sound refrain.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he can prove this refrain that he has started.

Of course.

Whilst we agree that there will be a point at which maximum development will be reached, a critical point after which the unit costs of the infrastructure will start to increase and that thereafter you have to start from scratch …

What do you think one mile of fly-way in Johannesburg costs?

The hon. the Deputy Minister talks about a fly-way in Johannesburg, but that is a built-up area already. The Bantu are not going to cause that fly-way not to be built at this stage. You have to build everything from scratch in the Bantu areas. Sir, South Africa has a lot of space in which to manoeuvre, and I do believe that our industrial areas, the Witwatersrand included, are not anywhere near that critical point at the moment. We have a vast space in which to move in South Africa and that space can be used to a far greater extent. It is only when we reach the stage where that space has been used, where we have to start going up instead of spreading out, that these cost factors will reach such proportions that you will have to begin to think of moving elsewhere. Sir, we must remember that with increased investment in industry there will, of course, be increased employment opportunities, but it is best to keep our ratio of marginal investment to marginal employment as low as possible. But what do we find in South Africa? According to U.N. the cost of providing employment for one worker is only R 1,800, but in the case of South Africa, according to the committee, the figure is R6,000. Sir, we are in this invidious position that we cannot increase the numbers of those who are dependent on the wage sector, nor can we move them from areas of under-employment. Therefore we are saddled with the situation that we have to increase our social overheads to provide for and maintain those who are unemployed. That is what we find so blatantly todayin the Ciskei, if I may quote that as an example. Hon. members have made reference here this afternoon to people who are being repatriated. Indeed, they are being repatriated, but to what are they being repatriated? Sada has been mentioned; Hinge has been mentioned and Mngqesha has been mentioned. Sir, I grant that in due course improvements are effected, but I do not think the hon. the Minister or any hon. member or Minister can tell me that to send a person back to Mngqesha, as it is to-day, is right and just. It is most unsatisfactory. What is more, it is not the fault of the departmental officials because they do not want to bring these people into these areas under the conditions which prevail there at present. Sir, earlier this Session we mentioned Limehill about which the hon. member for Heilbron had a lot to say. He talked here of conditions which he saw there probably a whole month after those conditions had started to develop there initially. And what is the position at Mngqesha? There are at the moment 100 prefabricated Vulindlela houses. One cannot blame the Government for making use of Vulindlela houses. After all, they are manufactured at the factory at Umtata, but one can at least expect that they would inspect these houses or that they would be passed as serviceable before they are put up. They are put up to the best of the ability of the people who erect them but the wood is warped and twisted; the house leaks; there is no floor and, what is more, the people are not allowed to make fires inside. Those are the conditions which prevail there to-day. I wonder what hon. members opposite would do if they saw them, let alone live in them. Hon. members know that the services which are supplied are by no means sufficient. I do not deny that in time these conditions are improved. In fact, Sada has improved in comparison with what it was before but Mngqesha todayis what Sada was before, and we get a repetition of this time and time again. In any case, Sada todayis still not what it should be and the facilities which the people should have are still not sufficient. Sir, the sum total of all this, as my hon. Leader has said, is that it shows a lack of planning on the part of the Government. It shows a lack of initiative on the part of this Government. They are unable to solve these crucial problems of South Africa.

They ignore them.

They cannot provide training to make good the shortage of skilled workers, nor can they provide work for the surplus of untrained non-white workers. Sir, I want to mention one last point in connection with the border industries. Border industries are being established now and yet more and more mention is being made of the development within the Native reserves. How can one think of any development taking place within these Bantu reserves when industries are being established inside, industries which will be in direct competition with them and which will smother them every time!. Sir, we hear so much about white capital and know-how which are going to be allowed in the reserves on the agency basis. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us how much white capital he has had on the agency basis. He has been busy now for over two years talking about using white capital on the agency basis. Surely somebody must have come forward at this stage of the development; surely somebody must be prepared to provide the capital if there is anything in this scheme mentioned by him. Let us hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister where this white capital is and what it has done. That is the basis of the whole problem. Unless we get development inside these reserves, we are not going to achieve anything. Then I want to mention a further point. The supplementary and complementary industries which will be established on the borders as a result of the development of primary industries, will all be on the white side of the line. Those industries will therefore detract further from development inside the Bantu areas. Sir, I say again that this Government has shown no sign of planning and certainly not one iota of foresight, and therefore I fully support the amendment moved by my hon. Leader.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members on that side have had one thing in common in respect of the discussions here all afternoon, it is that every one of them expects us, in this rapidly developing country, which is developing in scores of fields on a scale such as we have never known before, to tell them finally here and now, as if it were written in Revelations: “This is precisely what the position will be in respect of the development of the homelands; this is precisely what the position will be in respect of the development of border industries; this is precisely what the position will be in respect of diplomatic relations with the outside world”, and then with chapter and verse we must also tell them, up to the last cent, what it will cost. Sir, surely it is simply impossible to determine these things years in advance in such a rapidly developing country. They would like to know from us precisely what the position is going to be, knowing that it is impossible to determine it in advance, as I shall prove in a moment when I put a few very simple questions to them about what the position in a certain connection will be in a year or two. \ is simply impossible to determine these things in advance. It is very nice to get UD and to say: “You now have this policy and this or that project, but no one in the world can predict where it will lead to or what is going to happen in ten or 20 years’ time”. Then they ask us where the exact boundaries of the Bantu homelands are going to be. They want to know precisely where these boundaries are going to be—which farms will be within the boundaries and which farms will be outside the boundaries. There are eight of these homelands which must be developed, possibly over a long period. We are not ashamed to say this, because we know that we have a long road ahead. Because we have chosen a long road, we know that it is an important road. We shall perhaps only achieve our objectives in 80 or 100 years’ time. We are not ail Biblical prophets. I wonder if the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, or one of the other members who spoke in this way, can tell me precisely what his domestic circumstances will be 12 months from to-dav? One does not even want to ask them what they think is going to happen to them in the next election. We shall rather not ask them to answer that question. The hon. members want to pretend that everythin? which we undertake will never come to fruition and that everything which they suggest, will and can be altogether successful. Even where we have achieved certain things, we still have to hear from those hon. members that that was precisely what they had been askingus to do for ten years. They say that they are glad that we have eventually opened our sealed ears and listened to them. I want to read to you what Mr. Blackwell said in 1938 (Hansard, col. 354)—

You must listen to the certainty which emanated from certain quarters at that time—

What has become of all that certainty now? Now they want to demand so much certainty from us. But I want to quote what he said further (col. 357)—

I am not speaking disrespectfully now—

Today we sing “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”, together with all our good English-speaking citizens. In col. 357 he says—

When the hon. members tell us with so much conviction that this policy of ours will come to notning, ¡and that if we follow the good advice which they give to us, everything will be realized, they must give a little thought to the things I have mentioned now. These things were said long ago, Mr. Speaker, but you will allow ¡me the opportunity of mentioning them again. I now want to mention the things which those hon. members thought they would oppose so successfully that we would never achieve them. Hon. members probably know about this, but I want to refresh their memories once again. Thus the following legislation to bring about social apartheid was opposed in Parliament by the Unitea Party. I know that all the hon. members have these matters on the tips of their fingers, but I want to mention them once again, namely the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Group Areas Act and the Immorality Act; and measures in connection with apartheid in museums and zoos; separate trade unions; work reservation; mixed clubs, dances and parties; separate residential areas; separate universities ¡and apartheid in the nursing profession. How the United Party can. in the light of these facts, still declare itself to be the protector of the white man is beyond understanding However, this is but the beginning. In addition I just want to mention 12 points in regard to which similar opposition was experienced from the United Party. The hon. members opposed these things violently with their very life-blood, namely South African citizenship, one flag and one anthem, abolition ¡of the right of appeal to the Privy Council in Britain, our own monetary system, the establishment of a Republic, withdrawal from the Commonwealth, the combating of communism, strong action against sabotage, the 90 days detention clause, the action taken against Patrick Duncan. Sam Kahn and other communists and the action taken against the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. These are the things which these hon. members opposed by word and deed, in the notion that they would govern this country well when they came into power. But nothing came of that. It all disappeared like mist before the sun because there was a strong Government, which said that these things would be carried through in ¡spite of their opposition. And they were carried through.

As regards separate development, which we also heard so much about this afternoon, I just want to say that we are only too well aware that it has been strongly opposed in certain circles. This opposition has been supported by ill-considered, obsolete and even selfish slogans. But we are gradually making progress in this connection. Tf there is time later on. I shall indicate to you how far our influence extends abroad in this connection and how more and more notice is being taken of the fact that progress is being made in this connection. I shall indicate to you how it is enjoying recognition where we thought it would not gain recognition so easily. Thirty years before the concept of apartheid was taken up in the political vocabulary, someone said—

It is not political manoeuvring; it is an attitude to life—

I want hon. members to guess who said this. It sounds like Adv. Strydom or Dr. Malan, does it not? It was General Smuts who said it. Twelve years later he said:

It is clear that a race so unique and so different in its mentality …

There is no disparagement or feeling of superiority here on our part. This has often been said in regard to our policy by the hon. the Prime Minister, and we endorse it. I just repeat—

Again it must surely have been the late Adv. Strydom, Dr. Malan or Gen. Hertzog who said it. But it is not. It was said by the late Gen. Smuts. If one looks at this, it must surely be apparent to hon. members on that side that it is childish to want to continue telling us that everything we are engaged in is impractical, impossible or childish. What we advocate, and that alone, will eventually be the salvation of the Whites and the non-Whiites in this country of ours. What we have undertaken, and what we are proceeding with, in faith and courage, has given clear and convincing proof that there is only one road for the Republic of South Africa, and that is the road of the National Party and that of the National Government, to-day, to-morrow and far into the future. I must say a word about “break-through” and “outward movement”, but I actually want to say a few words about breaking in.

And packing up.

Breaking in, not packing up. That we shall do at the end of the week. These ideas of the Government are now being caricatured as if the National Party has draped a new cloak round its shoulders, as if the National Party is now going around in disguise, as if it is now engaged in a misleading diplomatic move, as if it is giving way to world opnion, and as if if is, after years of headstrong obstinacy, now listening to the advice of the United Party, as well as, last but not least, as if we are now going around Clothed in a mini political world fashion where all proven and political honour is left in the cloakroom and we are now appearing politically naked in public. That would have been the case if we had followed the advice of hon. members on the other side of the House. The suggestion that our policy is now displaying a greater flexibility in order to counteract our poor world image which is suddenly supposed to have developed, is laughable. It is said that we are now doing this in order to meet crisis conditions which are allegedly developing. This flexibility is nothing but realistic adjustment of our declared policy, but now it is unfortunately being magnified and presented as a renunciation of principles. We know that a Danish Minister forfeited his position because he, inter alia, defended the policy of separate development in South Africa and said, “Give these people a chance.” While Senator Goldwater was in South Africa, he also said ¡that the National Party should be given a chance with their policy of separate development, but, even before he boarded the aircraft in which he flew back to his nest, he himself told of how he had lied about the whole matter. Mr. Humphrey’s nose will never glow with pride either for having been kept out of our affairs.

I just want to say that the National Party is implementing its policy wholeheartedly because it knows that the choice which it has made is not the fruit of an indoctrinated conscience. The choice which one makes with an indoctrinated conscience is detrimental to oneself and to one’s people. It is false, immoral, criminal and reckless. We refuse to be so. However, the world is now adopting a certain attitude towards us and hon. members on the opposite side of the House are adopting the same attitude. On 15th November, 1962, the Hon. Dr. H. Muller said in London—

The position is presented as though we are sacrificing our identity and our nationhood, and as though we are placing our destiny in the hands of those who will only tolerate us as Whites in this country because of our utility value, that is to say, utility value for ignorant people taking over. However, we are doing the very opposite. We want those who are less privileged to benefit from our wider knowledge and we want to enable them eventually to govern their own territories according to their own capability and according to what is inherently peculiar to them. As far as possible it must still take place under the supervision ofthe Republic of South Africa with the gradual transference of more and more powers* as they prove that they are indeed capable of carrying such responsibility.

We in South Africa will not go to meet our downfall at the dictates of the world. We in South Africa will not go to meet our downfall by choice as a result of fear, prejudice or selfchosen isolation. We must not be afraid of revising our equipage and the application of that equipage, and of utilizing it within the framework of the guiding principles of our firmly based view of life. We must not be afraid to fulfil our calling and to execute our task, and in fact to live internationally as South Africans. We must not detach and isolate ourselves, and we must guard against a rigid passivity. Opportunities which were contained and enclosed within the rosebud of our programme of principles at the establishment of the National Party, are now becoming apparent with the opening of that rose. It is true that many of us knew less about this in the past, and there were certain things which appeared somewhat strange, but which are not strange. To our leaders, in whom we have the greatest trust, these things were never strange when they drew up the programme of principles, and they transferred them to us. But now, in the implementation thereof, these things would sometimes appear to be strange here and there. But we have no apology to make in connection with the execution of our policy as it unfolds and as it was all embodied in the principle when our programme of principles was drawn up, a programme from which we have not deviated an inch up to the present day.

Sir, we ourselves have never raised calculated and fruitful political practices to the level of principles. One does not do that. We have principles by which we stand, but to raise fruitful political practices to the level of a principle for a time, is to look for trouble. That is what the National Party does not do. It is too level headed for that. Therefore, our outward movement is not a throwing open of doors after a period of voluntary or enforced restriction or political obstruction. But this movement is still less an act of entering through the doors leading to a trap set by our enemies, who have opened the doors to ensnare us. [Interjection.] It seems to me as if hon. members would very much like to make interjections, but are in mortal fear of doing it so loudly that I can hear. It is done in a whisper. I want to state here and now that it is least of all a breaking away from principles. Let me put it like this: In this way we are breaking through, in this way we are breaking in. Our policy is unchanged in principle; it is a matter of the development of established and pre-determined principles, with a sober-minded shift of emphasis where this may be necessary. There is no change of principle. Shifting of emphasis, with the retention of principles, is absolute proof of levelheadedness in the execution of a political policy. Furthermore, we must be unashamedly ourselves and we must convince the world. If it is neoessary, we shall confound the world. We shall confound them by our determination. We shall compel them to give respectful attention and eventually to agree through our steady and sure progress, because for us it is a question of heartfelt conviction. We want to deliberate and negotiate and stand clearly recognisable on our own pedestal internationally. We do not want to be placed on an international pedestal by anyone in the word; we want to stand on our own pedestal. We do not want to be mixed and stirred into that undemarcated world population pot, a kind of proposed “world scrambled egg humanity”, where one can no longer differentiate between the white and the yellow. That is what our very respected friends on the other side of the House want us to do. We refuse. We will simply not do it. We do not want to be a part of that, as I have already put it, “world scrambled egg humanity”. This must now be clear to everyone. Diplomatic relations with white and non-white states, trade agreements, membership of U.N., inter-state treaties with whichever countries in the world, development of homelands, heart transplantations from non-Whites to Whites and vice versa, all these things and more will always remain subordinate and subservient to two underlying principles. All this will be subordinate to our policy for the maintenance and also the survival of the white nation, with justice to every other population group in this country; not “white leadership with justice”.

In conclusion I want to say that anyone who butters us up we shall treat with the contempt which he deserves. Anyone who attacks us we shall bend or break according to his own striking power and our own military strength. Because we are determined not to allow ourselves to be moulded or ruled. With the aid of Providence, as the hon. the Prime Minister said outside the Senate Chamber on the day of his election, first raising his hand meaningfully and later pointing to the ground, what is decided in connection with this country will be decided by ourselves on South African soil.

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech made by the hon. member for Waterberg, who has just resumed his seat, very interesting. I am not going to discuss it. There are other important matters which I want to discuss in the time at my disposal;

The hon. member for Waterberg discussed at great length the principles of the Nationalist Party, and I want to discuss those principles as well. First of all, we are busy with the Government’s Appropriation Bill, and my hon. Leader moved an amendment. I want to speak on that amendment. I want to discuss the policies of the Nationalist Party and the Government and how the policy has given the impression to us that the whole policy, during this Session in particular, is nothing but an illusion to the white electorate that their security is in safe hands under this Government. Under this word “illusion” I want tomention three main points, which I believe comprise the Nationalist Party’s race policy. First of all, I want to deal with the consolidation of the native reserves. The second point is the repatriation of the Bantu to those reserves. The third, and cardinal point, trie main issue which everyone on the Government side of the House avoids in this discussion, is the sovereign independence of those Bantu reserves, which has been guaranteed to them. This great crusade of the present Government in the field of race policy originated in 1959, when South Africa found itself in a new era, when this new policy was launched and announced.

First of all, I want to discuss the consolidation of the reserves. I see the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development is here this afternoon. I am very pleased, because he has frequently during this session accused the United Party of supporting the 1936 Land and Trust Act of General Hertzog, and yet we are not prepared to support him in respect of consolidation.

I do so again.

Yes, I expected him to say that. He is an honourable gentleman and should do so again. At the congress of my Party in 1959, after this new policy of the Nationalist Party was announced, when we entered a new era under this Government. the United Party Congress took a decision of 13th August to oppose further purchases of native land for native settlement by the present Government, because the party—

I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to listen—

This was the decision taken, and we still abide by the 1936 Land and Trust Act. We adhere to every clause in the Act. I know the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot say the same, because nowhere in the Act does it say that the land must eventually become part of a sovereign independent state. Nowhere in the Act does it say so. And yet hon. members on that side of the House say that they stand by the Act. This is what we cannot understand about them. We stand by the Act with no amendments whatsoever. Nowhere does it say this land must become sovereign and independent. And what do we see?

Where does it say that it cannot?

I am pleased the hon. the Prime Minister is here. I will come to him presently. Once the carrot of independence was held in front of the Native peoples’ noses we see immediate demands coming forth. There is immediate reaction. Here I have a whole lot of newspaper cuttings with the following headings—

Those are all from the East London Daily Despatchi

They are not. You will find them in any newspaper. But if it consoles the hon. the Minister that ¡these cuttings are all from the Daily Despatch let him have that consolation. The Daily Despatch does not support me, nor does it support my Party. There is the further heading—

And then, the only Nationalist Party member representing a constituency in the border area, namely the member for Queenstown, says: “Accept ¡the surrender of the Ciskei to the Bantu.” This is land which will become sovereign and independent, and which we cannot accept. The hon. member for Waterberg spoke about the “beginsels”, the principles of the Nationalist Party. I cannot understand how hon. members opposite can even mention principles when they have changed their policy so often over the years. The hon. member went back 30 years. He mentioned what General Smuts said. Here I have a magazine called the Cape Illustrated magazine with President Paul Kruger’s picture on it. This magazine was printed in April 1892, during Ue regime of President Paul Kruger and President Reitz. They had, of course, the Native question as a problem in ¡those days too. Incidentally, while I page through this magazine, I see they spoke of the Native in 1892 as the Bantu. This is so, according to the magazine which is here for any hon. member to see. Let us see what those Presidents had to say about policy in those days. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I wish hon. members would give me a chance. I have no time to reply to the questions thrown at me. I should like tbem to hear what was said in 1892 by those famous Presidents. Hear what President Reitz said—

And the second point was “to abolish chieftainships”. This is what they said in 1892. But what do they say to-day? I have here aNationalist Party pamphlet containing their new policy. This is what the present Minister, the hon. M. C. Botha, has to say—

They are being restored at present. The hon. the Minister goes further and, discussing integration he outlines their policy as follows—

He admits they are here, but not here under a policy of integration. Under this Government it is not integration. But when the United Party governs then it will be integration. While I am on President Reitz’s Native policy of 1892, I want to read you two more points. I have mentioned the first two. The third one is—

The final point is—

This is the policy of President Reitz in 1892. Today it is exactly the opposite. There is thus a complete about face. My colleague, the hon. member for King William’s Town, rightly said that only recently in a speech at Potchefstroom we had another about face again from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The other day I asked all three Ministers for Bantu Administration and Development to tell me what had happened to all the Bantu who are supposed to be sent back to the Native reserves or to the borders of the reserves and to which areas they have bern repatriated. It has frequently been mentioned, it was recently mentioned at the Nationalist Party congress at Parow, that because modern machinery was being introduced in the white metropolitan areas they could do with less black labour. The hon the Minister was cheered when he said this, because now he has found a solution for repatriating black labour to the Eastern Cape. Modern machinery would take their place. They even mentioned, as I did the other day, that certain brick kilns in the white area had introduced modern machinery and now fewer Natives were employed there.

Now, we in the Eastern Cape are civilized and developed too. This does not only apply here to this area, or to the metropolitan areas. We in the Border are devising and introducing modern machinery as well. But what is to happen to all these Natives who are being sent back to the Border and the reserves? The hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration and Education mentioned this afternoon that he is very proud of the fact that he had sent so many back under his “five percent policy”. When we asked him to w-ha-t areas they have been sent, he said to the industries. When we asked him which industries, he replied: “Die nywerhede.” This is all he had to say.

We who represent the Border and Eastern Cape want to know and demand to know to what industries those people are being se-nt, because we have no employment for them. This I can stress in the House right now. We have no work for the surplus Bantu labour in that area. The natural increase is more than we can cope with, let alone this five per cent policy of the Government. It was said here this afternoon again by hon. members on that side: “Rather have a poor country but let us have a white country.” Let me tell the House that it is neither a poor country nor a white country. And hon. members have been governing South Africa for 20 years. And it will never be anything else but a rich country economically, and a country comprising all race groups. Nothing will change it.

They have been governing for 20 years and have not proved to the country and to the world that South Africa is anything else, to what it has been for the last 300 years. But the tragedy is that if this Government were able to carry out their policy, even in a small measure, our whole economy would break down in South Africa. We would become a poor country and what security would that give us? What security would we have if we were economically broke? We certainly would not be a white country. It is all moving in reverse, as you know. The figures show it and no one denies this. Very little of importance happens on the other side of the apartheid fence under this Government. Nothing is in fact happening. But what they say on public platforms amuses me. How hon members can go around during the parliamentary recess and tell the oeople what is happening … [Interjections.] I tell the people of the dangers which are facing South Africa, but all they can tell the people is wih-at the United Party says and does. One would imagine that we were governing. But not one Nationalist member gets uo onto a platform and tells the oeople about the sovereign independence that has been oro-mised and guaranteed to the black people. Not one.

When I discuss it with people outside this House, particularly Nationalists, and tel-1 them about this Government’s policy of sovereign independence for the Blacks, they stand and grin and say: Oh, how stupid can you be.They go further and say: You must be plain daft, yet this is their policy. The tragedy is the public outside do not believe that this Government is going to carry out their policy. And this is why, the Government is enjoying the support from the electorate. It is because they do not believe that it can be done. When I tell to the people outside to imagine eight black states on our eastern seaboard, each with its own army, each with its own foreign alliances, each with its own seat at U.N. and each with its unhampered right to secure equipment and assistance militarily or otherwise from any nation under the sun, the people say, no, this must never be allowed to happen.

I do not care when this Government gives the native people their sovereign independence, no matter when, it is a bad thing to do, whether they give it to them now or at a later date. I say it is a dangerous policy. The trouble is people are being bluffed into believing they have security under this Government. I cannot understand how hon. members opposite can claim that the people directly affected, accept this policy of separate freedom, separate independence, because if one looks at the Transkeian Legislative Assembly one sees that the majority of the elected members who were elected by a free vote by the black people themselves, are opposed to this Government’s policy. They are opposed to sovereign independence because they know what it means; they know what the dangers are. Not only the black people are voting in large majorities against this very policy of the Government, but in election after election the white voters of the Transkei send the hon. member for Transkei back to this House. These are the people who are affected, surely their feelings matter. I believe, as we have always believed, in separate development of the different race groups in South Africa’s traditional way of life. But I certainly do not believe in separate freedoms and separate economic development, which hon. members on that side of the House support.

The moral of the story is this, I am pleased the hon. the Prime Minister is present. When I return to the Eastern Gape and Border, I am going to ask the Nationalists to explain something to me. When African leaders like Dr. Nkrumah of Ghana and Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya chase the white man out of their countries South Africans say. “Ja, maar hulle is onbeskaaf”, we say, yes but they are uncivilized; but when the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa and the other Prime Minister, Chief Kaizer Matanzima. are busy chasing the white people out of the Transkei, as they are doing now, then we say “they are civilized”. I want hon. members to explain to me the difference between the two? Two are uncivilized and the other two are civilized?

It is tragic that South Africa and its people do not realize that we are all living under an illusion. Some people think this Government is providing security for all the different racial groups, but there can be no security at all, none whatsoever, because the moment hon. members opposite say, “let us rather have a poor country, as long as it is a white country”, and it will never be either, then I say, they need their heads read.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this afternoon from the hon. member for King William’s Town that the Opposition were in favour of a change to a republic but our timing was incorrect. I suppose if we live long enough we will also hear from the hon. member for East London (North) that he also agrees with separate development but our timing was not right. I trust he will forgive me if I do not follow his line of thought because I want to raise another matter here this evening.

A national flag and a national anthem are two matters which are of the utmost importance to any nation and I have been of the opinion for some time that the time is ripe to make a change in the design of our national flag in order to give expression to the new spirit of white South African unity which the Republic has brought about. In saying this I want to state that I have the utmost respect for our present flag and I shall always continue to pay it the highest honour as long as it remains the flag of our country.

A flag is a symbol of a state and as states change, the symbol changes accordingly. Stars were added to the Stans and Stripes when new states joined the American Union. The Union Jack was formed by combining the Cross of St. George with the Cross of St. Andrew on the union of England and Scotland in 1603. In 1801 the Cross of St. Patrick was added and gave us the Union Jack as we know it to-day. While the highest honour and respect are paid to our present flag, it seems to me. and I am convinced I am right in this matter, that our flag does not evoke the spontaneous emotion and enthusiasm which are aroused by the Stars and Stripes in the Americans, the Union Jack in the British and the Tricolor in the French. I believe the reason is that the flag, and I say this with all respect, is the flag of the old Union of South Africa, a form of state which has now passed into history, and it is no longer suitable as a symbol for the Republic of South Africa that we love so deeply. As we all know, the Union of South Africa was formed in 1910 after a long process of negotiation and compromise. I Believe that union was merely a constitutional union; it was not a union of hearts between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, but the hope and the wish were there from the beginning that it would develop into a true union between English and Afrikaners. In 1910 the Union of South Africa had no flag of its own, and the Union Jack flew over the whole country. I should like to take this opportunity as an English-speaking South African to say that I have nothing but respect for the Union Jack. It has never done me any harm. I respect it as the flag of another nation. It is theflag of my ancestors because my grandparents were British. But while I respect it, it is not my flag, because I am a South African, and it remains the flag of another nation.

In 1910 there was the Union Jack which was our official flag, and there were also the old Transvaal Vierkleur and the old Orange Free State Republican flag. The latter flags were the symbols of states which had passed into history, states that were dead, and their flags had no official meaning. The peoples of the Free State and the Transvaal, and their territories, formed part of the Union of South Africa. In the early twenties it was felt, particularly by Dr. D. F. Malan. a leader of the National Party, that the Union should have its own distinctive national flag. He felt and I believe he was right, that the flag which he proposed should bear no scars of the conflicts of the past but should be an emblem which would unite us, both English-speaking and Afrikaans speaking people, in our love for South Africa. However, we know what happened. There was a long and bitter controversy which produced the Union flag. It was the result of a compromise. It contained the orange, white and blue bands of Jan van Riebeeck as a background, and on the white band there were three small flags superimposed, namely the Union Jack, the old Transvaal Vierkleur and the Free State flag. The design of this flag confirms my view that the Union of South Africa was only a constitutional union and the white people of that time found it impossible to share a common sentiment. I believe the two peoples were divided in two blocks, with the Afrikaans sentiment of the time being represented by the two small republican flags.

I want to say that I will never accept the argument that the Union Jack represents the old British colonies of the Cape and Natal. In any case, Natal, the old Republic of Natalia, had its own swallow-tail flag, and that was not included. It is obvious to me that the Union Jack was put there because the English-speaking people in South Africa at that time felt themselves to be British and a part of the British nation and to owe allegiance to Britain and to the British empire. I think th-at it is perfectly natural that that was so, and I think that we must accept it as such. In 1960, however. we had a referendum. There was then no question of negotiation or compromise. It was a straight issue. All white South Afrioans had a free vote at that time. The issue was: Republic—yes or no? We are now a sovereign independent republic outside the Commonwealth. It is in this republic that we have at last foun-d that inner harmony and that union of hearts that was so long sought for and desired.

Mr. Speaker, we English speakers, are no longer British. We are South Africans. Our love and devotion to South Africa are the same and just as strong as that of the Afrikaner. We work and live and will lay do-wn our lives for South Africa. On coming to Parliament the other day I was filled with envy when I saw the beautiful Canadian flag fluttering from the motor car of the Canadian Ambassador. The Canadian flag has two vertical red bands on a white background, with a red maple leaf. There is no flag of any other nation on it. I, as a South African, cannot understand why the flag of any other nation should be on the flag of South Africa. I have gone into the matter and there is no precedent for it. If Canada, which is in the British Commonwealth, which is under the monarchy, and which has two language groups, one of which is English speaking as I am, can have a flag which is its very own, why cannot South Africa have its very own flag?

What do you suggest?

It is not for me to suggest a flag. It is not for me to commit myself, but I do think that the new flag must grow out of the old flag. The new flag must grow out of the people, as our anthem has grown. We had some very interesting suggestions from an English-speaking man. His name is Mr. Donald Woods. He recommends a vierkleur. It is not the old Transvaal Vierkleur, but he says that a vierkleu-r of orange, white, blue and green would be acceptable to the English-speaking South Africans. This is a suggestion which came from an English-speaking South African. I hope that the suggestions coming from our side will be acceptable, because so much of our constitutional development, our struggle for our own citizenship, and our struggle for the conception of separate development, which gives us harmony and security for the white man and happiness for everybody in South Africa, and the constitutional struggle for a South African Republic, came from the Afrikaans side. I hope that these suggestions coming from the English side for a new South African flag of our very own will be accepted, because I believe that it will bind us together in friendship that will be indestructible. All the steps which the National Party took in the evolutionary development of South Africa were opposed by the other side. There was for instance the struggle for our own citizenship and the struggle for a republic, which is now accepted as a matter of fact. I d-o not think that you would get ten votes for the monarchy to-day. I believe that when the National Party has given us our own flag, it will be accepted, just as the Republic has been accepted. It will be accepted right away, and when we have a flag of our very own, just as the Canadians have their very own flag, the outside world will realize that we have come to maturity as a nation. We shall realize ourselves, when we see our very own flag fluttering from the mast, that the dream of generations has been achieved, namely the establishment here of a truly united white nation—“knegte vandie Allerhoo-gste, teen die hele wéreld vry”

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland has raised a matterwhich he has raised before, not so much in this House, but on a few occasions outside this House. The fact that the hon. member got up todayand raised the question of a new flag, was therefore not really news to us. What I found peculiar, however, was that the hon. member presumed to try to create the impression over and over again that he was speaking on behalf of English-speaking South Africa. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is the hon. member for Winburg’s turn to speak now. May I have an opportunity of speaking now?

What are the facts of the matter? The facts of the matter are that the hon. member does not even speak on behalf of his own constituency. Even the constituency of Gardens held a debate one evening last year, a few months ago, on the question of whether they wanted a new flag. That was the Nationalist Party itself. With an overwhelming ma/jority the Nationalist Party, among themselves, decided in favour of the old flag. If my memory is not playing me tricks, a youth congress of the Nationalist Party was held in Bloemfontein some time ago. A feature at that congress was that even relatives of persons holding high positions were in favour of the flag remaining just as it is.

Is that the best argument you can advance?

I want to point out to both the hon. member and the hon. the Prime Minister that this is a matter which we should approach with the utmost circumspection owing to the fact that it is an emotional question and because there is no unanimity on this matter to-day—not even on that side of the House. The hon. member for Maitland, who raised this matter, knows that we should rather deal with a question of this nature in the way it was dealt with in 1927. Does the hon. member for Maitland now want to make a political issue of the question whether South Africa should get a new flag? Last year at our congress in Bloemfontein we did not act in the way the hon. the Prime Minister has acted. He said the Provincial Councils should give their views on this matter, but this has nothing to do with the matter.

I said that if the Provinces wanted to discuss something which fell outside their jurisdiction, they could do so profitably, instead of discussing all kinds of matters as the members of the United Party do. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the facts of the matter are simply that, although the Prime Minister may consider giving the Provincial Councils greater powers and wider points for discussion, this is a matter which does not fall within their jurisdiction.

Just before the House adjourned, I was dealing with the flag question, which was raised by the hon. member for Maitland, but at this stage I find it peculiar that, while we are discussing the Appropriation Bill here, not one of the Ministers responsible is present. I hope to indicate in the course of my speech why so little interest is being displayed by Ministers.

There is not one Minister here; only a few half Ministers.

I am sure that that Deputy Minister cannot give us the reply to the important question which the hon. member for Maitland submitted to the House. I want to refer the hon. member to a resolution we adopted in November last year, because I think it reflects the correct attitude, and if I may give any advice to that side of the House, I think it would be wise of them to adopt a similar attitude as far as the flag question is concerned. I hope the fact that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has now come into the House will bring us great joy when he tells us of the new assistance he is going to give the farmers of South Africa. This is what we said (translation)—

We said further—

The correctness of the latter part of this motion was borne out by the fact that Mr. Frans Conradie, who acted as Administrator during the illness of Dr. Nico Malan in the Cape Province, was not even prepared to submit the flag question to the Cape Provincial Council this year. He subsequently issued astatement in which he said that they did not regard this as a matter for the Provincial Council, but rather as a matter to be dealt with by the caucus of the Nationalist Party. I therefore think that hon. members on that side of the House should be warned that this is a matter which was dealt with in a statesmanlike way in 1927, and that, if they want some advice from us, it would be best to adopt a similar attitude in 1968 or whenever they decide to deal with this matter in future. But this is enough as far as the flag question is concerned.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition told the Government that at this juncture they were endangering the safety of South Africa through the policy they were following and, furthermore, that they were completely out of touch with the real problems of the people outside. I do not believe for one moment that the Nationalist Government adopts so indifferent an attitude to the people of South Africa as not to know what is going on. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition drew their attention to the question of the shortage of manpower. Articles are appearing regularly every week in the newsoapers and magazines, such as Volkshandel, drawing the attention of the Government to the shortage of manpower, particularly skilled manpower, which is one of the major obstacles in our fight against inflation. Sir, they need not listen only to us; they should listen to their own people, to the supporters of that side of the House. The following was stated in Volkshandel in November last year (translation)—

They have therefore had a warning. There is another Minister coming into the House now. I think we shall have the full Cabinet here by half-past ten to-night. They did not get this warning from us; they are getting it regularly from their own circles. Why is the Government not prepared to give attention to this matter? Why this lax attitude; why this wilted (verlepte) attitude, as Professor Swart put it? I want to suggest that the reason why this Government is adopting this indifferent attitude to the problems of South Africa, is that they are divided among themselves. They are divided among themselves as to the road their party is following today. This is why one finds the situation that other organizations are taking over the role of the Nationalist Party.

This is why one finds that leaders of organizations such as the Rapportryers are warning the leaders of the Nationalist Party, as was done last year by the Chairman of the Junior Rapportryers, Mr. Leon Maree, in Pietersburg when he said that ihe wanted to warn the leaders of the Nationalist Party to make sure that they were not betraying the Afrikaner. The Nationalist Party are divided among themselves and that is why they cannot give attention to the problems of the people outside. I say they are divided on two aspects in particular. These are, firstly, the relationship between Afrikaans and English speaking people, because too many of their own people, of their own supporters outside, believe that the Nationalist Party is no longer fulfilling its role and is no longer the home of the Afrikaner alone. Secondly, I believe they are divided as a result of the changes in their policy as regards racial matters.

What changes?

I shall tell the hon. member. Sir, one need not make a speech when the hon. the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party is present, because he makes one’s speech for one. He says there have been no changes in the policy of the Nationalist Party.

Even if there may perhaps be changes, they are not departures.

I just want to refer the hon. member to what happened in the Senate in 1951, when the then Minister of Native Affairs said the following on pages 2892 to 2894 of the Senate Hansard—

Senator Conradie: One of the candidates said that.

The Minister of Native Affairs: This may be in so far as one individual is concerned. but that is not the policy of the party. It has never been that and no leader has ever said it, and most certainly I have not.

As long ago as in 1950 we made the accusation that the result of tiheir policy would be that the Native people would get their own, autonomous, independent and sovereign states in South Africa, and the then Minister of Native Affairs denied this and said further—

And, remember, they have changed that policy as well—

But the hon. the Chief Whip on that side says that they are not deviating from their policy. Sir, it is because they are deviating from their policy that the Nationalist Party are divided to-day; that is why they cannot give their undivided attention to the real problems facing South Africa. I also want to quote the following—

Sir, this was said in 1951 by the then Minister of Native Affairs, barely 17 years ago, and then the hon. the Chief Whip on that side of the House comes along and asks to what changes the Nationalist Party has made in its policy.

This is implicit in the basis of our policy.

He knows very well that his party had to change its policy in regard to sport. He also knows perfectly well that even Dirk Richard wrote that Nationalist M.P.s had come to the Transvaal in order to explain the new policy in regard to sport and that their own branch members then said to them: “Please send a Minister to come and explain this to us, because we do not understand it”, and now the hon. Chief Whip on that side of the House comes along and says that their policy has not been changed at all. Sir, tt>e fact that the Nationalist Party finds itself in difficulties to-day, is only their just deserts. They are the people who exploited Afrikaner sentiment in South Africa on a large scale. They are the people who pre-eminently exploited racial prejudice for political gain in a blatant and unwarranted way.

Are you talking of Sannie van Niekerk now?

After 20 years they now have to make certain adjustments to their policy. It is because they are divided among themselves todaythat the people who supported them are looking at their policy with two pairs of eyes. Sir, it has been very evident through the years that the Afrikaner, and particularly the Nationalist Afrikaner, could not move along his single-lane road alone. We on this side of the House have said through all these years, as did our predecessors, that we want unity between the Afrikaans and English-speaking sections. To-day the Nationalist Party is also prepared to accept this. But they have made this change without taking their own people along with them, and then they started to make adjustments, and in this process of making adjustments they are losing some of their most loyal supporters. I do not agree with those loyal supporters of theirs, and I have never had any doubt that they are wrong. The Nationalist Party is only getting back todaywhat it exploited for so many years. It will regain its former strength only if it returns to the course it followed in days gone by, when it had room only for the Nationalist Afrikaner, when it followed the policy of keeping the Bantu in his place and sending the Indian out of the country. If it returns to that course, that narrow and conservative direction, it will regain its former strength, but because the Nationalist Party has had to make adjustments owing to the circumstances in South Africa, its ranks are divided to-day. They are trying todayto be all things for all people. This is why they are divided into “verligtes” and “verkramptes” and the remaining group which Professor Swart described as the withered ones (verleptes). For that reason they cannot cope with the problems facing South Africa. The Nationalist Party cannot deny that they are divided. Sir, I just want to quote to you what Mrs. Maria Malan said at their congress in Port Elizabeth last year. Do you know what Mrs. Malan said, according to the Evening Post of 21st September of last year? [Interjections.] This report has never been reoudiated and it appeared prominently. She said the following—

Sir, there we have the truth from the mouth of someone who is a member of the general executive of the Nationalist Party in the Cape Province. On his return from his visit to South West last year, the hon. the Prime Minister told us that the struggle in the ranks of the Afrikaner was actually something unpleasantand that he hoped that the holiday episode was something of the past. Sir, we have reached the stage when a holiday is at hand again …

You are living in a fool’s paradise.

… and I want to tell the hon. the Chief Whip that the same holiday spirit which prevailed last year, will prevail again in the ranks of the Nationalist Party outside. Before the commencement of this Session we were told that this Session— this was envisaged by Dirk Richard—would bring finality as regards the struggle between the “verligtes” and the “verkramptes”. He honed that all the Nationalists would stand solidly behind the Prime Minister. This was said in this House as well, and what happened? The Deputy Mnister of Bantu Administration and Education went to Brackenfei and said there that he was sneaking on behalf of Mr. Jaap Marais, and that he was able to say that Mr. Jaap Marais repudiated Mr. S. E. D. Brown entirely. But then Mr. Jaap Marais, the hon. member for Innesdal, wrote a letter to the Vaderland in which he stated: “The report is a half-truth”. He was referring to the report according to which the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education said that Mr. Jaap Marais repudiated Mr. Brown. The report stated further (translation)—

Mr. Jaap Marais went on to say—

Sir, then the hon. member for Carletonville. Mr. Greyling, came along, and what did he say, according to the Burner of 20th March this year? He said (translation)—

Keep straight, Cas!

His statement reads further (translation)—

The hon. member did say this, but he did not dissociate himself from the “conservative attitude” adopted by the S.A. Observer. Last year the hon. member for Innesdal had an opportunity of putting his point of view when addressing a symposium, and what did he say in regard to the policy of the Government? He said the following (translation)—

Sir. the same question is being asked once again in the latest edition of the S.A. Observer.

Did you see my correction in the Vaderland?

All I am interested in. is that Mr. Brown is launching one attack after the other on the outward-looking policy of the Government. I ask the hon. member for Innesdal: Does he repudiate Mr. Brown in this connection?

Do you agree with him?

I am indicating why this Government cannot meet the problems facing South Africa. They cannot cope with these problems because they are divided among themselves, because they do not agree with the new approach of the Prime Minister, and as long as they are divided they will not be able to solve, for the benefit of South Africa, tue fundamental problems of South Africa which were held up to us by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Newton Park played an unusual role to-night, the role which is usually played by the hon. member for Orange Grove, and that is to be terribly concerned about what is happening in the ranks of the Afrikaners and in the ranks of the National Party. His speech, as the hon. the Chief Whip said, was a real piece of gossip. This is proved by the fact that when the hon. member for Innesdal asked the hon. member: “Did you read my correction in Die Vaderland?, he replied that he was not interested in that, and just went on quoting. His speech was a real piece of gossip, but I will show you why this tone of pointing to disagreement within the National Party is adopted by the United Party these days. I will show you what tactics the United Party are using to change their image a little so that they can leave Cape Town with a new image after this Session.

Sir, the Rapportryers have been referred to. The hon. the Prime Minister himself recently said that the Rapportryers was a supporting organization of the National Party, and the hon. member would not succeed in driving a wedge into the ranks of the National Party in that way. He heard the original piece of gossip, but he pays no attention to what was said by the hon. the Prime Minister. This proves once again that his speech was nothing but a piece of gossip. Sir, mention is made of disunity within the National Party, and what was said in 1951 is quoted, but, strangely enough, after 1951 we had the election of 1953, the election of 1958, the election of 1961 and the election of 1966, and where has this disunity brough us? Just see what that side of the House looks like as a result of our disunity. But, Mr. Speaker, the people accusing us not only make adjustments, but turn complete somersault. I mention only one instance to you, namely that from common voters’ roll to a separate voters’ roll for Coloureds. These people who turn somersaults accuse us of making adjustments. They are terribly concerned when gatherings of Cape Province peonle are attended by Transvalers. Then, suddenly, there is unrest. But Transvalers and Cane Province people together still give the United Party a beating every time so that they look as they do.

I said that strange tactics were being followed here. All kinds of methods were being applied, and this year and in this Session in particular it was very striking how the United Party wanted to excite some interest in their case amongst the voters, and how anxious they were to find somebody who would at least listen to them. People should not pass over the United Party so casually. They should at least take a little notice of the United Party, and of what they are saying. These tactics and methods have been followed ever since 1948. They are applied at one election after another. They make a splash at by elections, and they keep on making plans in between. But one cannot blame them either. There are so few people who listen to them these days that one cannot blame them at all if they long to have a larger audience.

I now want to tell you about the plans and policies being devised in the United Party. This phenomenon does not follow a fixed pattern, but varies all the time on the basis of their opportunism and the various wavs in which they can make a little party-political capital. We have already been taken back as far as 1892 this evening. I shall only go back to 1948. There are the things that were done at the time, when it was still profitable to stir up jingo sentiments, such as the following: Fight the introduction of our own national symbols; vehemently oppose the establishment of a republic in South Africa; make terrible predictions about how bad the situation in South Africa will be if a republic is established in this country; and even undertake to lead South Africa back to the Commonwealth. That was when it was still of some use to play on the jingo sentiment. There are many occasions on which the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side told us that we did not seek to bring about unity between the white groups in South Africa. They told us we were rather creating discord between the white groups and they tried to make the English-speaking section doubt the good faith of this Party, because this Party was also leading those people towards sound policies. But there is something else as well. We have really heard a great many things from that side of the House as far as the politics of relationships is concerned.

I am going to mention a few examples to you. Do vou still remember “civilized leadership”; “white leadership with justice”; “white control with justice over all South Africa”? And the interesting part is that these sayings and slogans in themselves actually have no meaning. They are merely slogans to give a new look to something which is basic to that Party, to put new life into something which has no real life any more; to give flavour to something which has already become unpalatable to the electorate. These slogans are the clothes they dress their favourite child in and that child is called race federation. They have swung to the left, they have swung to the right, they have swung back, they sang this tune and they sang that tune, but race federation remains as ugly as it was, it remains as unpalatable as it was; it is not dead yet. Pace federation still stands! It is amazing how little we heard about this creation of the United Party during this Session. That is why I say it is interesting to follow their tactics. They talk about disunity within the National Party and such matters, but they do not come to discussing their favourite child. It has to play in the backyard now. it is not allowed on the front porch any more, it is not allowed in the sitting-room any more. It is being treated in stepmotherly fashion: its parents, brothers and sisters do not want to know it any more. But we know how they have run away from many of their creations.

What was expected from race federation? I mention the following (translation)—

How are the non-Whites to get this “real hope” which the race federation is to bring? According to the plan of the United Party acentral government, representative of all the races, will exercise general control over the affairs of the Republic. The representatives of the Bantu, and the Bantu are being discussed a great deal here to-night, will be Whites, but “representation by their own people cannot be withheld from them indefinitely. Much will depend on the attitude of the Native peoples and especially their leaders in determining when this step should be taken”. It is very interesting to note that the attitude of nonwhite leaders will carry much weight with the United Party. Therefore, if we combine what these people say with the pressure of the Leader of the Opposition mentioned only last year, we can imagine why they are no longer keen to discuss race federation in this House. In a speech held at De Aar in 1962, of which I have a verbatim copy, the following was stated, after other matters had been dealt with—

Hear, hear!

Now they are shouting: “Hear, hear!” But it is interesting that if we talk about the representatives of the ¡Bantu who have to come and sit here in this Parliament, there is much shifting around and explaining and much silence these days. But, after all, we know the United Party by this time. We know what this will lead to. Because if the basis is “one nation in one undivided state” and “one nation with a common loyalty”, surely we know what the colour of that nation will be. In such an integrated state with only one nation, once cannot discriminate. And one cannot permanently deny the Bantu the right to have their own people in this House. These matters have not been discussed this Session. Using the fingers of one hand, we would not be able to count that word five times during this entire Session. But as long as nothing can be substituted for it, it stands. It still stands, but it is inopportune to discuss it now, it is not convenient to discuss it now. We have to look for other fig leaves now, such as disunity amongst the Afrikaners and in the National Party. This is something about which that hon. member had so much to say.

There is also another plan that is being used, i.e., “Play National”. This is very popular these days. It is being said that the Government is implementing the policies propagated and advocated by the Opposition. In other words, one must now play ’National and one must at least show the electorate—this is the course of action adopted by the United Party —that there is a useful United Party here which is not doing too badly in this House. As recently as last year, at the congress of the United Party in Bloemfontein, when such a somersault was made in connection with their policy in regard to the Coloureds, the Leader of the Opposition said that the National Party should not say anything, because who had stolen more from the policy of the United Party than the National Party itself? The examples of policies of theirs that were stolen from them were then mentioned. These were terribly “important” matters. We stole the following four aspects of their policy: An immigration policy …

Hear, hear!

They say “hear, hear”, but we know what their immigration policy was. Let them come, the good and the bad. This is something they inherited from Milner’s time. The other important aspect of their policy is the oil pipeline from Durban to the Rand. Another matter is import control and the fourth point is the fixing of interest rates. These are the important matters mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville should keep quiet.

Only the other day, when the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was dealt with and the business basis on which the Post Office is now to be organized was discussed, the hon. member for Yeoville said that they had been advocating this for years. With chapter and verse the Minister then proved to him that they had opposed this until as recently as during the forties, and I think almost up to 1958, and also 1961. But, Sir, it is very convenient to claim for yourself all the good things which are happening in South Africa. Paul Kruger was mentioned tonight. These people have their history confused. The principles of Paul Kruger are discussed, and then we are blamed in that regard. We will come across strange things yet. They will yet tell us that they established the National Party. The Republic and the national symbols will yet be theirs. We will have to take a firm stand. They are taking over everything which we on this side have done.

While they are saying that there are things which they have proposed and which we are now taking over, it is, after all, almost unthinkable and almost impossible that in a developing South Africa an Opposition cannot at least now and then propose something to which a government will listen. It is in fact a good Government that takes so much notice of its Opposition. Our people are alwavs being attacked for being so extremely sensitive to criticism. But we are listening carefully to the things they say. We are even prepared to listen to them in regard to the oil pipeline, fixed interest rates and import control. But there is something which is very important in the politics of South Africa. The voters do not only want to know whether a party happens to have a useful function to fulfil in this House. The voters do not want to know whether it atleast does not show up too badly now and then. They want to know where the alternative government is. They are looking for a government that can lead them in South Africa today and in the future. But when they only offer pipelines and a fixed interest ¡rate, is this all an alternative government should do? We are looking for guardians of the future of the white man in South Africa. We are looking for people who can stand firm against the demands of the outside world, as this Party and this Government have been doing for years. We are looking for people who can develop the economic possibilities of South Africa in the interests of all its population groups. We are not looking for people who are merely rushing towards integration, as the United Party is doing. But what happens if we ask them what their policy is? It is not mentioned, and if we ask them about it interestedly, they say we should not waste time. They say that they have explained their policy so many times already and that they do not want to discuss it again. It is strange that people who also have a solution to the problems of South Africa, are shy and unwilling to discuss the cardinal points in their policy. If one aspires to the Government benches, one should not speak about one’s policy. If one has a product for sale, one should not advertise that product, because one runs the risk that people might buy it. This is the attitude adopted by the United Party in regard to the basic political direction in South Africa. But we can understand it. Race federation still stands. White leadership over an undivided South Africa, “one nation in one undivided state”, that is, integration politics, still stands. We will give it to them on their plates every day, to see whether they want to speak about it or not. Then we are told how dangerous our policy is. I wonder, if we go into the matter a little, how dangerous their policy is?

That Senate plan of theirs.

We shall not even go back as far as that. Let us take the present race federation policy of the United Party. Just bear in mind, Sir, according to that policy all race groups are to get representation in this House, but a ceiling is placed on the political development of these people. They are going to retain the authority and the white leadership, because they are going to have “checks” and “balances”. But they will be saddled with the numerically superior, frustrated political masses in South Africa, and they will never be able to determine the timetable or the programme, because they will be bringing people into this House and will be giving those people a political taste of this Parliament, in which they are to be partners. But that partner does not get the same rights and the same political privileges as the other group in that partnership is getting. People who share the same fatherland and who are to form one nation, do not get equal rights in the political field. Then it is said that no segregation will be applied in the social field either. The segregration which is applied is to be based on common sense. The Leader of the Opposition said at their congress in Bloemfontein as recently as 1965: “The United Party offers a situation where enlightened Whites will lead and control an undivided South Africa and where social segregation will be applied where it is required by common sense”. It will not be done by legislation. People who get proprietary rights in the metropolitan areas of this undivided fatherland, are the people over whose heads a ceiling is to be placed. I say that frustrated political masses will take over the programme. They will take it over by force. The dangers of having such a partner are worse than the dangers a good neighbour on the border can bring us. We have already said that we should like to lead the Bantu peoples in South Africa to full independence, and we will help them along that road. But because human development is also involved in this, we are controlling the programme, because the development also depends on how those people can cope with and absorb responsibilities. We shall determine the programme, but there is something which is very important. Even if that programme should slip out of our hands, and we cannot determine the time, so that they obtain their independence sooner, they will still have full control over what is theirs, and they will not, at that time, also have control over what is ours! This is very important. The United Party should not be so scared of showing us its favourite child, race federation, here. We should also get some honesty as regards stating the one policy as against the other. If we have a product for sale, let us advertise it a little. We only hope that the buyers do not return it to them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Germiston has emerged as a new “verligte” of the Nationalist Party. He has emerged as a supporter of non-discrimination. It was interesting to note, however, that at the beginning of his speech when he was replying to my hon. colleague, and when he referred to The Observer and various associated matters, he was careful not to repudiate The Observer or Mr. S. E. D. Brown. He very carefully avoided that subject. He avoided it like the plague. But subsequently he has come out as a supporter of non-discrimination. Now I ask him directly across the floor of the House: Does he repudiate the South African Observer and Mr. S. E. D. Brown?

I made my speech on my theme. [Interjections.]

He ran away from that matter very carefully. My feeling is that he would have much preferred to stand up tonight to support Mr. Terblanche. It would have been more in keeping with what we know of the hon. member if he had done so and if he had objected, for instance, against a motor car called the Ranger, and if he had asked that if be called a “kruiwa”. [Interjections.] It would have been more in keeping with the political philosophy of that hon. member. But the hon. member for Germiston went on to refer to the quotation of Nationalist policy in 1951, and to say that, despite that quotation, the Nationalist Party had won elections in 1953. 1954, 1958 and so on. That is exactly our complaint, namely that they told the country one thing, they went to the country on the strength of that policy, the country voted for that policy, and then they abandoned that policy. They abandoned it and they now stand for a completely different policy. If we want to talk about “bolmakiesie”, Sir, I suggest that the hon. member for Germiston consults with the hon. the Minister of Defence. The hon. the Minister will tell him that the Nationalist Party not only turned “bolmakiesie”, but that its Prime Minister and its other Ministers stand up and say: “We believe in this”, but in the meantime they are planning quietly and their intention is to do just the opposite. If ever there was a somersault, then that was one. It was not only a somersault, but a planned somersault. This was a camouflaged somersault because they were not prepared to come out and say what they intended to do. Then that hon. member has the nerve to talk about somersaulting. If we ever had evidence that the Nationalist Party is today an ageing and a stumbling has-been, then it was this afternoon. This afternoon we had the spectacle of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, standing up here with a collection of clichés. There was nothing unusual about that. What was unusual was that even that hon. Deputy Minister ran out of cliches. Normally, at the end, when his time has expired he says that he wishes he had more time, but this afternoon we saw him sitting down tamely with minutes in hand, having run out of his usual clichés. When that hon. Deputy Minister runs out of his “gogga maak vir baba bang” stories and he cannot frighten a baby with his “goggas” any more, one must know that the Nationalist Party is really getting into a serious state. As for the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs with his cheap gibes this afternoon, I think that I must put him right. He sympathized with me and said that he was also tired this afternoon. He misunderstood what happened. My hon. Leader was referring to the Government and I looked across at them and I put my hand in my hands in shame, shame that South Africa should have a Government like that. That hon. Minister would do better if he confined himself to speeches at Randburg. There, at least, he was on the right road. He said there that the country is seething with discontent. How right he is! He said that the country is full of rumours and accusations that the Prime Minister is a “verraaier van die volk”. When has one ever heard of a Cabinet Minister who must stand up and accuse his own party members and his own party of accusing his Prime Minister of being a traitor to the people? A Minister must warn his people to stop talking about the nepotism, the concessions and the money making, because the Cabinet does not go in for those things.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I have heard that question since 1955. When the hon. the Minister of Planning thinks of a new question, he can write me a letter. Three weeks later the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will deliver the letter and I will know whether he has a new question. His question is “Sal julle toelaat dat Bantoes in die Volksraad sit?” I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that he is quite right when he says that the country is seething with discontent. It is not only against Cadillacs and nepotism about which the country is seething with discontent but also this new super de luxe aristocracy which has grown up in the Nationalist Party. It is this new self-lubricating, double exhaust pipe, balloon-tyred aristocracy. The people have it against this new Cadillac aristocracy which this Government has created. This new aristocracy is an aristocracy which has inherited the contemptuous attitude towards the ordinary person of the Cabinet and the Government of South Africa. This is what people are reacting against. They are not reacting because a Cabinet Minister is rich, but they are reacting because the Government of South Africa has developed a contempt for the affairs and the problems of the ordinary man. This is a contempt which is based on their self-satisfaction and complacency in what they regard as their permanent entrenchment in power. This is why the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs must stand up and warn people not to criticize the Government, because he knows that the people are getting sick and tired of this bureaucratic, overriding and arrogant attitude, the attitude that they have all the power, that they are the State, that they are the all-powerful and almighty, and that the people are there to sing to their tune and to dance to the strings they pull—to do what they say. The people are starting to realize that we have an aristocracy of “boeties and rapportryers” and that unless you belong to that super de luxe aristocracy you have no place in the concessions and the benefits whiah may flow from supporting the Government today.

I was asked previously “What about the difference between our policies?” I now want to say a few words in this regard. If anybody happened to read Dagbreek on Sunday, they would have seen that there is a new innovation in regard to Government in South Africa. We are now to have a column authorized and requested by the Prime Minister, where people can make suggestions on what is wrong with the Government and how the Government should rule. We have now reached the stageof government by suggestion box. There is going to be a little box in Dagbreek, and when people say that this is how we should be ruled, the suggestion will be put into the box and the next week that suggestion will be tried out. We are getting ¡this in legislation, namely legislation by trial and error. This admission that the Government has now got to have a public suggestion box to tell them how to rule the country is an indication of where they have got in the mismanagement of our affairs and the misdirection of policy. An ihon. member on that side asked what the difference between our policies is. It is very simple. The Government believes in self-determination and independence for the Bantu people. They pretend, of course, and create the illusion of believing in, separate development. If it comes to separate development I want to say specifically and unequivocally that we on this side of the House believe in separate development. The vast majority of people in South Africa believe in the separate development of the racial groups in regard to their social, residential, cultural and their other activities. It is part of the policy and the tradition of the South African way of life. We on this side of the House have never said that we do not believe in separate development. Of course we do. We laid down the pattern of residential separation, but there is one basic difference ¡between the parties. We both accept separate development in so far as it concerns social, residential, cultural and similar affairs. Where we differ is that the Government believes that that separate development should develop into total independence. We, the United Party, believe that that separate development should be part of one overall state controlled by one Parliament in which the leadership of the white man will be maintained. The Government believes in separate determination and self-determination where every group of people can determine their future for themselves. We believe in developing separately in our social, cultural and residential affairs. But we believe that the direction of the country should be in the hands of one Central Parliament.

There is another fundamental difference between the two parties. The Nationalist Party has set its eyes on the stars. It has developed some Utopia in the never-never of to-morrow, it chases a rainbow with a pot of gold, and has forgotten that there is a todayand a to-morrow right ahead of us. There are problems to be dealt with todayand to-morrow. The fundamental difference between us is that the United Party designs its policies to deal, not with a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but with the problems which face us now, tomorrow and the next day, the problems and the reality which we can see ahead of us. So, where the Nationalist Party holds out a policy of ultimate independence, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development places limitations on it which keep pushing it away like the pot of gold, trying to tell the people “do not worry, it will not happen. All these things must happen first”. He has nothing between todayand that never-never pot of gold. We have, Mr. Speaker, because we believe in local self-administration, local self-government for the race groups. We believe in councils which will administer their own affairs. So far both sides are at one. But we realize that there must be something more than that. The Nationalist Party adds to that the pot of gold of independence. We add to it the reality of this Parliament continuing to govern South Africa.

Supreme?

This Parliament supreme, this Parliament should be controlled by the white man and be the voice and the power of civilized control, in the hands of the white man, continuing to govern South Africa’s affairs. But this again is the difference between us. We believe that there must be a channel of communication, which that hon. the Minister and his Government deny. They say that communication must take place only through officials. We say that the communication must take place through two channels. This, I believe, South Africa has largely missed. We believe that there must be a Select Committee of this Parliament, liaising with a Select Committee of each of the non-white groups. There must be a link, a channel of communication, an element of federalism between this supreme Parliament and the councils of the different race groups. We believe that that federal link of the Joint Select Committee, the Select Committee of this Parliament, with the Select Committees of the Bantu, the Indian and the Coloured, creates a coming together, a method of communication, a federal machine which enables the non-white people to participate in the machinery of Government without taking control of the machinery. Then we believe, in addition, that the non-white people should have a voice in this Parliament, whereby they can express their views, so that Kaiser Matanzima does not have to stand up in the Transkei and demand more white land, while the hon. the Minister had to repudiate him in a different body. These views must be brought together in the Parliament which governs all South Africa. So I say that the basic difference between the parties is that both of us accept social and residential segregation, self-government and control of their own affairs by each race group. But we recognize that that must go hand in hand with the control of this Parliament. But the Nationalist Party has nothing to replace what we have in the Select Committees and political representation, nothing but inevitable frustration, head-on clashing frustration with the non-white groups. They have held before them the carrot of ultimate indeDendence, but it is pushed further and further away by the Government as they get nearer toit. We have warned them that that frustration will take away from them the power to control the timetable and the end. If the hon. the Minister applies what he held forth as the conditions for independence to his own Government, he will realize that it no longer will have any power and effect. Because if they are true—I do not have time to quote them—to their promises of no nepotism, no bribery or corruption from the lowest clerk to the highest level, ability to provide jobs, all the points he listed, then on every one of them his own Government falls down. So, either his conditions are an illusion, or the independence is an illusion. I prefer the description of my hon. Leader, who says that the whole policy of the Nationalist Party is “one great, giant illusion”. It is one illusion, trying to create a feeling of security, while in point of fact the Nationalist Party is undermining and destroying the security of the very civilization which the white people of South Africa have established in this country.

Mr. Speaker, it was with amazement that I listened to the hon. member for Durban (Point). We know the hon. member as a person who cannot be serious in this House. We know the hon. member as a person who tries to be humorous wherever he can. I want to tell him that we have a good sense of humour and that we enjoy his jokes and his frivolity. But I want to say that the problem with which we are faced at the southern extremity of Africa involves more important matters than these jokes which the hon. member for Durban (Point) made here. The party on this side of the House would not be worthy of the name “National Party” if we were to act in the flippant way in which the hon. member for Durban (Point) and some of his friends acted. Then he comes forward with the astonishing statement that the United Party believes in apartheid.

No, he never said that.

The words which I wrote down as having been used by hon. member …

You heard one thing and wrote down another.

Now I must ask hon. members: Do they believe in apartheid?

Separate development, I said.

I ask: Do hon. members believe in the development of each along his own lines?

Yes.

Do they believe in parallel development?

I said socially, residentially and otherwise.

The hon. member used the word “separation”. He said they believed in separation. Now I ask: What was the issue at every election since 1948? Was it not the hon. members on the opposite side who from time to time accused this side of the House and our leaders that we wanted to drag the question of apartheid, the colour question, into politics? Is that not so? They must not capitulate to-night. The hon. member for Germist on said that they would still claim to have established the National Party. I hope that they are not all going to say to-night that they are crossing over to the National Party. Heaven forbid! If they were to do that, they should rather come over one by one, because we cannot absorb all of them at the same time.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that Matanzima was demanding more land. I now say here to-night that there are going to be few countries in the world from the year 1968 onwards which are not going to try to obtain more land. I go further and I ask, is this U.N. interference in the affairs of South Africa and of South West Africa, the interference of the world in South Africa and on the Continent of Africa, without any ulterior motive? We must be realistic and keep in mind that we had a world population of 3,400 million people on the 1st of January, 1968, and that within 38 years this number of people is going to double itself to 7,000 million. Then the question arises, how many countries will have to look for and try to seize additional land in order to continue to exist in future? Of course this must happen and therefore we cannot blame them for this.

Then you just put your yellow curtain up a bit higher.

I want to come to the hon. member for Newton Park. In speaking to him, since he had a great deal to say about the so-called disunity amongst Afrikaners—he did not speak of disunity in the ranks of the National Party, but in the ranks of the Afrikaners …[Interjection.] Now the hon. member for Orange Grove comes forward with an interjection, and now I ask the hon. member for Orange Grove, and I may just as well ask the hon. members for Yeoville and Newton Park, who are all Afrikaans-speaking, whether they belong to one single Afrikaans organization? Let them get up and name me one. But then they are the people who have a great deal to say about Afrikaner unity, yet they are conspicuous by their absence in Afrikaner organizations. What right do they have to come and say that here? [Interjections.]

Are you a member of the Broederbond?

Are you a Rapportryer?

I am a Rapportryer, yes, but the hon. member for Orange Grove must be very stupid to think that I would tell him if I were a member of a secret organization, but if I were to tell him that I was a member, I think I would rise in the estimation of that hon. member. But what I want to impress upon hon. members opposite is that they who do not move in Afrikaner circles should keep their noses out of this. I find it strange that the United Party should use people such as the hon. members for Newton Park, Orange Grove and Yeoville, the Afrikaansspeaking persons amongst them, to stir up and foment this so-called quarrel in the ranks of the Afrikaners. I say it is detestable of the hon. members to lend themselves to that. [Interjections.]

We had them in the Anglo-Boer War as well.

The National Party Government is attacked from all sides, and here it is attacked within the country itself by its opponents. It is also attacked from the whole continent of Africa.

Hear, hear!

Now I hear hon. members say, “Hear, hear!”. They are taking delight in the fact that the Government of the Republic of South Africa is attacked from all sides, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition was the first to say, “Hear, hear!”.

Especially from within the ranks of the party itself.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition can try to back out as much as he likes. We are not only being attacked from the continent of Africa, but also from the outside world.

Shame!

There is also the accusation that the National Party Government has deviated from its course. There is the accusation that we have deviated from the original policy of the National Party The United Party even says that we have stolen its policy. Just imagine, Sir, a strong party like the National Party steals the policy of such a weak party, a policy which has in fact led them to bankruptcy! Imagine stealing such a policy! But the question to me this evening is: What is of importance in 1968? What is significant in this year? This you have to answer by first establishing for yourself what your problem is in the year 1968.

A Nationalist Government.

And once you have established what your problem is, you ask your self: What is the solution to this problem with which you are faced? And then you ask yourself whether the National Party Government satisfies the requirements for the solution of that problem.

Not at all.

I shall not look to the hon. members opposite for an answer. They can supply the answer to themselves. They can give the answer to their own consciences when they go to bed to-night. They can ask themselves what their approach is to the problems of 1968. When I ask myself whether the National Party Government meets the demands made upon it, then I say immediately that the solution to the problems of 1968—and I say this with all due respect— is not necessarily to be found in the answer given by the late Dr. D. F. Malan in the past, and not necessarily in the answer given by the late Adv. Strydom, nor in the reply given by the late Dr. Verwoerd, but that the problems of 1968 have to be solved by the present Prime Minister, Mr. B. J. Vorster, and this National Party Government.

That is the dead hand of the past.

What are the main demands made upon the hon. the Prime Minister and this Government? In the first place, can they offer security to South Africa and its people? If we take note of what is raging over the continent of Africa, if we know what the opinion of the world is, then the question arises whether this Government can offer security to this country and its people. In the second place, are they able to resist the storms which are raging on the continent of Africa? And thirdly, do they succeed in ensuring peace within the country itself? Are they capable of maintaining and even developing the economic growth for all sectors in the Republic of South Africa? My unequivocal reply is that the Prime Minister and this Government have withstood the test in every respect. We had a special occasion here this afternoon. The newspapers, and especially the English-language Press, said that the Leader of the Opposition was going to make a major speech this afternoon. Yes, yesterday the newspapers said the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was going to make a major speech and an attack on the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government. But, Sir, we have heard the squeak of a mouse this afternoon. I was amazed that the Leader of the Opposition spoke for more than an hour and touched on this and touched on that and passed lightly over everything, but said nothing. If the hon. the Prime Minister should take part in this debate, I can assure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he will get a thrashing which he will not forget soon. [Interjections.] I was surprised that a Leader of the Opposition could put up such a performance on such an important question in such an important year in the Republic of South Africa.

Reply to me on the manpower shortage.

As rgards the major problem of our relationships there are only two ways open to South Africa. On the one hand one has—call it what you will— segregation, separate development, parallel development, or apartheid.

No, apartheid is dead now.

You can call it what you will. This you have on the one hand. On the other hand you have integration. It may be retarded integration. It may be integration to-morrow, or it may be integration to-day, or it may be integration the day after to-morrow. I think that of the Opposition side it is only the hon. member for Houghton who is honest and who says she wants integration to-day. But the policy of the hon. members opposite who want to shy away from this word “integration”, will lead to integration to-morrow. The hon. member for Durban (Point) posed here to-night as the highpriest of apartheid and said that the United Party accepted “separate development”, but as soon as I say “apartheid”, then he says no, he did not say that, but he accepts “separate development”. But then they say in the same breath that if they were to come into power they would place Coloureds or Whites in this House to represent the Coloureds. Where is your apartheid then, and where is your separate development then? [Interjections.]

We find it in the synods of the churches. Are you then opposed to the churches?

I say here to-night that if you admit a Bantu or an Indian or a Coloured to this House, it is the thin end of the wedge. If you were to do this, it would mean the end of the Whites. Then what the hon. the Deputy Minister, Mr. Blaar Coetzee, said, i.e. that you would then have a black Prime Minister in South Africa within ten years, would come true. That is the ultimate outcome of the United Party’s policy, and they cannot get away from it.

Do you really believe that, Henry?

What is this policy of separate development? Where does it come from? I shall tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) where it comes from. It is a direct result of the traditional way of life of the people of the Republic of South Africa; it is a direct result of the customary pattern of living of the people of this country. But now I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) where the policy of integration comes from.

It comes from Sakkies Fourie.

Does it bear the stamp “Made in South Africa”, or can one say “It may be a product of Israel”? It is an overseas product which has blown over to South Africa. It does not derive from the people of South Africa; it is foreign to the people of South Africa, foreign to the customs and practices of the people of South Africa, and I warn hon. members opposite to-night against the risk which they would be running if they were to transfer these things to the Republic of South Africa with its mixed population. They are running a risk and the writing is on the wall for them. You dare not allow it if you are interested in the survival of the White man, in the first place, and in the survival of all the non-White population groups in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, where does this policy of integration come from? I say it comes from overseas.

United Party policy.

An hon. member went back to the year 1892 here. I am not going back as far as that, but I want to go back a long way. It is very strange that the late General Smuts and the old South African Party accepted segregation …

What did I say to-night?

What did hon. members on that side say when Jan Hofmeyr was one of their leaders?

Have they ever repudiated him?

What did they say when, he came forward with his new line of thought? Where did the South African Party stand when they formed an alliance with the Unionist Party in South Africa; where did they stand in regard to apartheid or segregation? Sir, the hon. member for Waterberg indicated here this afternoon where the late General Smuts had accepted this policy of segregation; I want to read it out to hon. members and I want them to know that at that time the South African Party felt the same as the National Party did. I want the United Party to cast their thoughts back to-night and to sit still and think where they come from and realize that their party stems from the same source as this side of the House. I quote what General Smuts said in the House of Assembly on 2nd June, 1920 (translation)—

This is still United Party policy today.

It is strange that hon. members on that side, after all these years, after all the controversies, should come here to-night and, without turning a hair, accept this same policy through the mouth of the hon. member for Durban (Point).

It is right.

The hon. member says it is right. I want to ask the United Party whether they are prepared to follow the road of segregation from now on. Are they prepared to accept segregation in respect of representation in this House?

Where have you been all night? You know our policy.

They are quiet as mice. Are they prepared to accept segregation in respect of university training?

We have made our policy clear.

Sir, the hon. statesmen of the United Party sit over there and they cannot reply to this. I ask them: Do they accept the policy of segregation from now on?

According to our definition.

Do they accept segregation within this House of Assembly? I ask the hon. members of the Opposition to come forward in this year 1968 and to tell us where they stand, because here in my hands I have the policy of the United Party.

The sixpenny policy?

They say here—

Can such people be the bearers of the segregation idea? Can one reconcile these two things? If they tell me to-night that they do not know where they stand …

Then they will be speaking the truth.

… then we shall ask them to go home and consider these matters and to come forward with their sincere conviction and tell the people of South Africa where they stand, because this political struggle is not about frivolous matters; this struggle is about the continued existence of people, of nations, at the southern extremity of Africa. I say that it is their duty, even as an Opposition, to come forward with positive ideas; to be the bearers of this idea of the continued existence of the white man and of.the various population groups here at the southern extremity of the continent of Africa.

The hon. member for Klip River took pot shots in all directions and I almost do not know where to begin.

He blew the lid off.

He began with the hon. member for Durban (Point) and accused him of frivolity and subsequently he devoted almost a quarter of an hour of his time to refuting the arguments which the hon. member had advanced. He put words into the mouth of the hon. member for Durban (Point). He said the hon. member for Durban (Point) had said the United Party stood for apartheid. Sir, it is a long time since I have heard a member on that side of the House speaking about apartheid. That word has disappeared since 1959; today it is a swear word. To-day we speak of peaceful co-existence and separate development, but not of apartheid, but now the hon. member for Klip River, who became a Government Whip the other day, is again on about the “apartheid” of 1948.

Soon it will be “baasskap” (white supremacy) again.

When the hon. member had finished with the hon. member for Durban (Point) he continued and attacked the hon. member for Newton Park because the latter had spoken about the differences existing in the ranks of Afrikanerdom. If the hon. member for Newton Park had used the term“Afrikaner ranks”, he most definitely had the “ranks of the Nationalist Party” in mind. Sir, do the hon. members for Klip River and Primrose, and other members on that side, want to deny that differences do exist in the ranks of the Nationalist Party? The hon. member for Primrose spoke only last week about white supremacy as being the policy of that Party. That is a term which I have not heard for a long time. The hon. member for Klip River struck out in the same direction this evening.

Who is boss on your farm?

Yes, there we have it again. We are speaking of the differences which exist in the ranks of the Nationalist Party. There are some of them who do not want to accept the view of the hon. the Prime Minister and who speak of white supremacy. In this regard I am referring to those who are extremely rightist, the former leader of the Broederbond, the Rapportyers, and so on. Then on the other hand you have those who are extremely leftist, who want to fragment South Africa and give sovereign independence to Bantu States, and then in the middle there is a group of confused souls who do not know which way to fall. This is the position todayas far as the members of the Nationalist Party are concerned. We need have no argument about that. But. Sir, I do not want to dwell on that for long. The hon. member for Klip River speaks in one breath about apartheid and then he suddenly turns around and speaks of this momentous year, 1968. Sir, according to the hon. member, the policy which is being implemented at present is not the policy of the late Dr. Malan, nor that of the late advocate Strijdom, nor that of the late Dr. Verwoerd. The man who is determining the policy for 1968 is the present Prime Minister, Advocate B. J. Vorster. Is he not giving the lie to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, because the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has told us that the policy of the Nationalist Party is the same as it was in 1959? [Interjections.] Then it still is the policy which was shaped in 1959 and which envisages independent Bantu states. In that respect no change has taken place; the policy has remained the same over the past 10 years. That is where the essential difference lies between this and that side of the House, and everyone knows it. That is the deep-rooted difference between this side and that side about which the hon. member for Klip River spoke; it is the deep-rooted difference as regards race relations. The policy of this side of the House, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) stated, is indeed separate development, but not sovereign independent Bantu states within the borders of the Republic.

You want a piebald Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the prerequisites which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development recently outlined here for the independence of a Bantu state. There is an essential difference between the approach of this side of the House and the approach of that side of the House to matters concerning colour, to the question of living together or living separately. I should like to quote what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development stated were the prerequisites for the independence of Bantu states. He spoke in the first place about the question of administrative experience, the question of financial arrangements, the question of integrity in conduct, the question of democratic conduct, the question of the provision of employment to the inhabitants of such an independent state, the question of co-existing peacefully with neighbouring states; he dwelt on that for a long time. He continued and said (col. 6658)—

I fully agree with that.

The hon. the Minister speaks about a long and difficult process which has to be undergone. If that is so, then, in all reasonableness, I want to ask this question which I intended asking the other day when my time expired: Are we not implying here that Lesotho and Botswana have not undergone this long and difficult process and that their independence is consequently of such a nature that we cannot trust them or that they cannot administer themselves? What are we implying here with the words of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development? Is he not imnlving here that these states, that are trying now, to the best of their ability, to administer themselvesproperly, were granted independence before they were mature enough for independence? Sir, we boast that these states are good neighbours of ours. We very much want their representatives in this country; we entertain them well when they come ¡here; we invite them to a dinner in one of our best hotels. There are states which we want as good neighbours. But a long and difficult process towards independence has been laid down by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration as a prerequisite. In all reasonableness I want to ask, for how long do we expect to be able to control the time-table for the progress to full independence of the Oiskei and the Transkei, which is already partly independent? For how long will we be able to resist the pressures on the part of a Transkei which says that it is already as developed as Botswana and Lesotho? Why can Botswana and Lesotho obtain independence and act in a responsible way and not the Transkei? For how long are we to keep the people in a fool’s paradise? Here we find the reason why the difference within the Nationalist Party already are so deep-rooted. Throughout the years the Nationalist Party has been drugging the nation—first apartheid, which subsequently fell flat on its face; and now the separate development of Bantu states to full sovereignity. The people outside simply do not believe this any longer; they have already become immune to these drugs—hence the deep-rooted differences and the fact that the nation no longer has any faith in the Government.

Who says so?

I say so.

Where do you hear that?

Everywhere in the rural districts; virtually on every platform these days. It is there, within the ranks of the Afrikaans community. Lesotho and Botswana obtained their independence and todaythey are good neighbours of South Africa. But do we have reason toassume that when the Transkei comes to the end of its “difficult process”, it will be an equally good neighbour as Lesotho and Botswana? Geographically they, are in the same boat—surrounded by the territory of the Republic or that of other welldisposed states. But the Ciskei and the Transkei have hundreds of miles of coastline and that makes a difference. But does the danger not exist in any event that they will not be equally good neighbours as Lesotho and Botswana? The pressure for independence on the part of the Transkei is already in evidence and it will grow more intensive each year. We shall not be able to stop it.

If we emancipate them correctly, the relationship will also be right.

We can only be good guardians to them when we concede to their demands for independence as soon as they are on a par with other countries in Southern Africa which have already obtained independence. Surely that is the duty of a guardian, namely that if one has become the equal of another who has already obtained independence, one should also obtain one’s independence. Therefore, the time to emancipate them is when they have reached the same level of development as Lesotho, for example, and that they have already done. But this is precisely where the danger in the policy of the Nationalist Party lies. Mr. Speaker, surely there is no turning back on this road. Once we have promised them independence and they have reached that level of development which in their own eyes is equal to that of a neighbour who already has independence, how can we refuse to grant them independence as well? And when they have obtained independence, what makes us think that they will be equally dependent on South Africa, economically and otherwise, as Lesotho and Botswana? Are we so naive as to think that foreign states will not try to gain a foothold there? There are great powers, and not only communistic powers, which would give anything in the world to gain a foothold here, here on the southern tip of Africa, which is so important and where we are the guardians of the sea route, something which they would like to be. I say that we shall not be able to stop the independence of the Transkei. Will the Transkei, with its long coastline, not be the apple that everyone would like to have —not only Russia, not only Communist China, but also America? Do you not think that these countries will try to gain a foothold here in Southern Africa? It is in this policy of the Nationalist Party for the emancipation of these areas to independent Black states that oui danger lies. I find it strange that the two hon. Deputy Ministers who deal with Bantu affairs find it peculiar when one draws attention to the danger to the Whites which is inherent in the emancipation of these non-white states. But what do they care? They are committed to such a policy, and although they are trying to implement it, they are getting no further, because from those areas there is still an uninterrupted flow of Bantu to the white cities. And it is still increasing. There is no point in argung about that—the numbers of Bantu in the Republic are not decreasing. Here in the Republic the Whites represent only 17 per cent of the population and in addition the ratio between Whites and non-Whites as far as large families are concerned is very much in favour of the non-Whites. On these grounds we know that the ratio will steadily become more unfavourable for the Whites and even more favourable for the Bantu. It has been stated here repeatedly this evening that we cannot do without the Bantu in our industries; that we cannot run the machine of the State without them. Even our Government Departments cannot do without them. Milk and bread cannot even be delivered without them; we cannot even bring up our children without them. In the meantime their numbers here in the Republic are increasing more and more. This is where the problem lies: By giving the majority in this country citizenship of another country which they do not even know, one is cultivating in them the most fertile ground for dissatisfaction.

Do you want to grant them citizenship in the Republic?

But they are here, and have been throughout the years. We say, give him a piece of land here on which he can build a house, and he can share in the allegiance to South Africa, and can help to defend her and grow to love her.

You therefore want to grant them the right of ownership?

As far as his own house is concerned. I am not speaking about fanms now. I shall come to that later. But the emancipation which is spoken about on that side of this House, means that he will possess nothing, will be without a vote and will therefore be fertile soil where all manner of isms can take root.

I now want to say something about the Ciskei. The other day I had the opportunity of talking to the hon. Minister about the Ciskei. It is an area which stretches from Queenstown right down to the sea. It cuts through 14 white districts of which the Bantu in the Ciskei own about 750,000 morgen and in whioh there are 129 Bantu farms, that is, in the white districts and not in the Ciskei itself. For how long does the hon. the Deputy Minister think that the Whites and the Bantu there will be satisfied with the uncertainty which prevails there in this regard? For how long will the} be satisfied if they do not know whether further exchanges or consolidation are to take place the following year or the year after? For how long does that hon. Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development expect both the Bantu and the Whites to be content there under this policy of uncertainty? I do not even want to speak about the Western border of the Ciskei. I have just been referring to the eastern borders. No one knows where the western borders of the Ciskei are, and no-one knows where they are going to be. We know that Grahamstown too has mow been declared a border area, and we are beginning to think that with a little more consolidation and buying, Grahamstown too will soon border on the Ciskei. For. how long are decisions going to be delayed without the public being told where they stand, both Whites and nonWhites? For how long must this uncertainty continue? How long will it take before the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who is sitting over there, will proceed with the consolidation programme without vacillating and speaking of this long road towards nationhood which lies ahead, without speaking about all these prerequisites for the attainment of nationhood? The programme and the timetable are no longer in the hands of that Minister, of that hon. Deputy Minister, or of the Government. The timetable was taken from their hands long ago. The desire for independence will become so irresistible next year and the year thereafter, that the Transkei will have to get it and not long after that the Ciskei will follow, and then it will not be very long before the others will also follow. This is what I find so strange. When we speak of the policy of the United Party, hon. members opposite attack it and call it integration. During the past two, three or four weeks the word “integration” has been used very freely by that side. We know very well why they act in this way. It is no longer segregation now but integration. Four or five weeks ago this party was accused on advocating white supremacy. They said that this side wanted to retain white supremacy, that this side did not want the Bantu to develop to a stage where they would have representatives in this House. They said that we were white overlords. that we wanted to play at white supremacy. But now the hon. member for Primrose says that that side wants to be the white over lords while this side are the integrationists. The same applies to the hon. member for Klip River. One after the other they say that this is the integration party. Why do they say that? Is there an election in the offing?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is limited, I have only two minutes left. At the moment that party is bankrupt as far as slogans are concerned. Apartheid is dead, separate development is dead, the independent Bantustans are dead, the flag is also dying because they are no longer ever able to induce a feeling of enthusiasm for the flag. Now they are harping on the integration policy of the United Party and that is all they talk about. We know as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow that at the next election their slogan will be the separate development of the Nationalist Party and the integration policy of the United Party, and that notwithstanding the fact that we have explained over and over that we do not have an integration programme. As a matter of fact, there has never been integration in this country, nor will there ever be. The white nation has maintained itself here as a white nation for more than 300 years, and has done so with a large Bantu population all around it. With the threat which that holds, the nation will ensure that there will be separate development. It will never be otherwise. We shall never integrate, there is no question about that. But these accusations are levelled against us. As long as we have this ostrich (“volstruis”) policy, this policy of the Government of hinding its head in the sand, our problems will noit be solved. [Interjections.]

I am serious, Mr. Speaker. They hide their heads in the sand and pretend not to see the danger. They must admit that this is a multiracial country and we must accept it as such. We shall have to learn to get along and to live together; we shall have to learn to adopt ourselves. We on this side of the House have sufficient faith in the strength and initiative of the white man, but that side of the House does not. That side no longer believes in the superiority of the white man. Their fear of the white man no longer being able to maintain guardianship over the Bantu is so strong that they are now running away from this idea and laying down in legislation that they should be separate. We shall have to realize that this country is a multiracial one and that we must live together as members of different races. We on this side have the fullest confidence in the strength and guidance of the white man to maintain the situation here. As long as we believe this, we shall be able to live together in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London (City) merely supplemented the ten minute speech he made under the Bantu Administration and Development Vote. In that speech he referred to a picture of the future as regards border industries, but according to what he said here tonight, the Bantu homelands and their development has met with sudden death. According to him these stories are merely witty sayings on the part of this side of the House. According to the hon. member there is no such thing as a Bantu homeland any more; there is simply not one single border industry in the entire Republic of South Africa. According to him there is simply no planning. That is why the hon. the Minister of Planning and the hon. Deputy Ministers are having such a hard time in this House, whilst that side, including the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, realizes fully that the Government is in fact making a success of the homeland development. The Opposition can accept the fact to-night that homelands and their development, as well as border industries, are a success already and are going to be a major success in the future, in spite of what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said here the other night. He referred to slavery or conditions very close to slavery. The can accept that the Government’s policy is a major success already. The town the hon. member for Durban (Point) tried to disparage the other night, i.e. Brits, will yet be one of the finest examples of border industry development in the entire country. That whole region in which the Tswana homelands are situated, will be a symbol of what can be accomplished through the development of homelands.

Would Rustenburg not have been better?

No. Brits and Rustenburg are a region. I am not as dense as the hon. member for Durban (Point) is. He thinks there is only one spot in South Africa which can develop, but I believe that the whole of South Africa can develop on a regional basis. I believe that even his banana region should develop. But that side is so bigoted in their views; they think only the metropolitan areas should be developed, only the areas near Johannesburg and other cities should develop. They simply cannot accept that South Africa is now developing on a sound basis.

The hon. member for East London (City) wanted to suggest here to-night that South Africa had no future under the National Party. He even referred to an “ostrich”(volstruis)policy. I do not know what a “volstruis” is, but I do know about a louse. An ostrich (volstruis) is something which hides its head, and I think the hon. member for East London (City) should occasionally disappear under his bench because of the statements he has been making here in regard to the future which will affect posterity and about the future with stability and a great deal of responsibility which we want to bequeath to our descendants.

A “volstruis” is a Nat backbencher with his head buried in straw (st root).

It is a greater honour to be a backbencher on this side than it is to be an Opposition frontbencher of the calibre of the hon. member for Durban (Point). I find it pleasant to sit here with my colleagues, with the cockroaches, as they are called. It is much more pleasant than it is to be on that side. There is just one thing the hon. member for Durban (Point) must remember, and that is that we on this side are inspired with principles. We on this side are not sitting here as political opportunists who engage in all sorts of glib talk outside this House. That side has dual standards, but the hon. member for Durban (Point) is inclined to have five or six different standards. He is a real drum major. The hon. members sitting in my immediate vicinity are junior members, but we came here for the purpose of serving our country and our people. If the hon. member did not come here for that purpose, then it is his own affair. Even if he speaks disparagingly of these backbenchers, it still remains a great honour for us to serve the National Party under the leaders we have.

Is that why you published a book to say what you have done?

I am not ashamed of that book which was published at about the sixty-sixers; on the contrary, I am exceptionally proud of it.

I want to make it very clear to-night that there is a difference between this side of the House and that side, and the greatest difference, the difference the general public is aware of, is the fact that this side of the House is fully aware of its own responsibilities, whereas that side has no regard for the sense of responsibility which an Opposition ought to have. They do not even have a sense of responsibility towards the public outside. A party which does not respect the individual’s sense of responsibility can never govern this country. I shall prove that. A party whose political actions are irresponsible, which wants to climb on to the bandwagon every now and then only to find themselves on the refuse cart, is not accepted by the general public. That is what we have been experiencing over the past 20 years.

What share did they have in the development of this Republic? The achievements attained by this side of the House runs through the past 20 years like a golden thread, and what do we find on that side? Nothing but barbed wire and a crow’s nest made from barbed wire. The only respect in which they have been consistent, no matter how disguised and politically distorted it has been, has been that their policy would eventually be one of integration. Let us not lose sight of that. Recently we celebrated the 20th anniversary of National regime. How did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition act? There was an opportunity for doing something worthwhile for the people outside. He could have been magnanimous enough merely to congratulate the Party, but he was not. In the Sunday Timesof 19th May we find a report under this heading: “Graaff invites Nats to look at U.P.” When we look at the Party opposite, we must look at their history. What did their Leader say according to this report? He said: “The time has come to kick the Government out.” The report starts as follows: “If the Government had grown too big for its boots …”

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member has apparently grown too big for something else. The report continues, “… too sure of itself, so arrogant that it despised the ordinary man and his troubles, and even suggested that it could do without an Opposition, then surely the time had come to kick it out, the Leader of the Opposition, Sir de Villiers Graaff, said yesterday.” Then ithe hon. the Leader said the following as a reason why that side was getting weaker—

Why don’t you get your figures right?

Here I have the report; I am showing it to you.

Order! The hon. member for Durban (Point) should not make a farce of Parliament.

In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggested that all those people who had left the country, were supporters of their side. In that case I interpret this statement to mean that all those people who did not have a love of this country—and in English they have an old proverb about rats deserting a sinking ship— left the Republic of South Africa because they thought that something terrible would happen here, that we would be swamped by the Blacks here and that we would be massacred. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tells me that all of them were United Party supporters—and those were his own words—then I am profoundly shocked at hearing that that was the basis on which those United Party people left our country. Let us be realistic to-night and act realistically. Over the past 20 years South Africa has attained major achievements, not only in the international sphere, but also in the national sphere. Internationally, South Africa’s achievements have been such that we are acknowledged throughout the world todayas one of the greatest international powers in proportion to our population. After all, the hon. Opposition is aware of the fact that at present the rand as a currency is thé currency all over the world. If there is supposed to be such a danger as the one the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggested this afternoon when he said “our economy is in danger”, how is it possible that under those circumstances we still enjoy this tremendous confidence abroad? Take the emergency issue. What happened several months ago when loans were negotiated overseas? A consortium of German and French banks granted us an international loan of 60 million francs (R15 million). Internationally South Africa has attained achievements on all levels. Reference was made here this afternoon to the very high cost of living and to inflation. But not once in this debate todaywas inflation used as it was done last year. But I want to show you, Sir, how South Africa’s cost of living compares with that of other countries. Calculated on an index figure of 100, the position over the period 1958 to 1965 was as follows: South Africa, 114; Australia, 116; the Argentine, 117; United States, 109; Belgium, 115; Germany and Switzerland, 118; Britain 121; Norway, Sweden and Austria, 125; and the Netherlands, 126. the only country that was lower than South Africa was the United States of America. At the price they are paying for our gold, this is quite understandable. The cost of living in South Africa as compared with that of other countries, is amongst the lowest in the world. In a few countries in which there has been a rapid growth rate in respect of the gross domestic product, i.e.Japan and a few other countries, the cost of living has risen to such an extent that it has become quite disproportionate. But here we are dealing with a Government which has been fully aware of its own responsibility in regard to the development of South Africa. We are dealing with a Government which has taken precautionary measures against unrestrained inflation. Let us take the other Great Powers. What are the tragic consequences we see in countries abroad to-day? What are the consequences in Britain? Thousands of Whites are unemployed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke here todayabout the danger to our economy and the danger to the worker. What white worker in South Africa is unemployed? And what is the position in Britain? In Britain they are taken out of employment and forced not to work. By means of the fiscal and monetary measures timeously taken by the hon. the Minister of Finance, South Africa has taken precautionary measures against the dangers which affected other countries. You know, Sir, if a statement is made about the labour future of South Africa in such a flippant and irresponsible manner as was done here this afternoon, it is shocking, for the worker outside has confidence in this House of Assembly and in these leaders. When the hon. the Prime Minister asked the workers of South Africa for greater productivity in order that inflation might be curbed, and when he acted honestly and sincerely towards them, the workers of South Africa performed the greatest feat that can be performed. In our attempts at combating inflation by means of higher productivity last year, they assisted us to such an extent that it is possible for us today to take pride in the fact that we are to a very large extent keeping inflation in check. For the information of my hon. friend, the member for Standerton, I can say that this also applies to the agriculturists.

Hear, hear!

A great deal of danger lurks in the statement that was made here this afternoon, namely “the rate for the job”. In other words, why should it be necessary to gamble with and bandy about the interests of those Whites who stood by South Africa, who were prepared to make sacrifices for South Africa and who, unlike the hon. Member for Durban (Point), did not want to lie back idly but were sincere in their intentions here in South Africa? Why should these people be used in an attempt at embarrassing this Government? What is happening to the sense of responsibility of people when even the hon. The Leader of the Opposition—and I do not even mention the hon. Member for Durban (Point), for one can expect that from him —makes this statement about the rate for the job, and says that there must be a fixed minimum salary for Whites. They want to use this statement in their bluffing campaign, but if they were to come to power, it would mean the end of the white worker in South Africa. I just want to say that they would not repeat the statements they made in this House todayto the Whites outside, whom we know. Contemptuous reference was made this afternoon to what the hon. The Leader of this House had had to say about his experience with workers. The hon. Opposition must realize that they will never have in their ranks a person who has so much experience of the workers as has the hon. The Leader of this House. When they act disparagingly here towards those persons who represent these people in this ‘House, they are also acting disparagingly towards the workers of South Africa. The workers of South Africa must be protected in the future. We are living in a world of changing circumstances. What is the present position in regard to the workers in South Africa? If one were to allow the colour bar to disappear, as those hon. Members want it. What would become of them? The development in South Africa must take place in a scientific, purposeful and stable way, and not in a haphazard way. We must develop South Africa for the future in order that we may bequeath something worth while to posterity. One cannot merely proceed in the manner to which those hon. Members referred, if a wealthy, white South Africa is the object one pursues.

It is entirely irresponsible to talk of a wealthy, white South Africa. Hon. Members on this side were quite correct: Rather a white and poor South Africa than the multi-coloured South Africa the hon. Member for Durban (Point) wants. South Africa has a destiny, and we on this side believe in that. South Africa believes that the white man is here for an exalted purpose. That is why we have achieved so much over these past 20 years; we did so because we did not abandon our principles. It was not only in the economic sphere that we did everything. Much more important is the fact that we have always set moral fibre, norms and principles as an example.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. Member for Durban (Point) will never be able to wind or unwind me; he cannot impress me. The hon. Member thinks that he knows the language of the worker of South Africa. I challenge the hon. Member to repeat these things to the white workers of South Africa. They will reject him time and again. The United Party has already been rejected time and again. An hon. Member said to-night that one of these days they would pretend to have established the National Party. I want to say this tothe Opposition: They did not establish the National Party, but through their irresponsible conduct over the past 20 years they have caused the National Party to grow from strength to strength. ‘Even if they tried todayto disguise their intentions, even if all of a sudden they tried to climb on to the bandwagon as though they also believed in separate development now, it would avail them nothing. When all of a sudden the hon. Member for Durban (Point) said to-night that he had always believed in separate development, it was the greatest shock imaginable to us, for there is simply no such thing. That hon. Member has repeatedly referred disparagingly to “petty apartheid”. The hon. Member for Bezuidenhout is always referring to petty apartheid. As regards the hon. Member for Orange Grove: If it is not the S.A.B.C., then it is petty apartheid. We on this side of the House concern ourselves with major problems. It is with the full realization of my own responsibility that I say to-night that it is tragic to realize that one is dealing here with an official Opposition which does not realize its own responsibility. A sense of responsibility is an essential as regards the future of South Africa. The sooner hon. Members opposite realize that they, too, have a responsibility, ‘that they ought to act in a responsible manner, that they should not always try to act in a disparaging manner, and that they should put a stop to all these political distortions of theirs, the sooner they will perhaps be afforded the opportunity of becoming a party again. But by carrying on in this way there is no future for them, merely a faint, drab. Bushveld track. But they are very much afraid of the course which is being followed by the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. Member, who has just sat down, is so worried about the future of the United Party. He should be very glad about what is happening, according to him. It is amazing how this country, according to that hon. Member, has developed, despite this Nationalist Government. This country does not have to thank the Government; the Government must thank the country, for what it has done for the Nationalist Party. The development which we have heard about tonight, as I said, has come about despite the lack of responsibility on the part of the Nationalist Party. Hon. Members are talking about responsibility. Who shows responsibility? It is this Opposition which has shown responsibility at all times for the safety of the State and the security of all the people in the State. This side is the party which has shown responsibility.