Up to now the Marketing Council has had to consult the consumers’ committee in connection with any scheme. In terms of the amendment which the Minister is effecting here, the consumers’ committee will henceforth be asked for a report only when the Minister so requires. The consumer is an important link in the marketing of agricultural products. Therefore, without the co-operation of the consumer, any scheme is running the risk of miscarrying. We do not want a situation where the Minister is going to ignore the consumer completely. It is the considered opinion of this side of the House that it is better to have too much consultation with the consumer rather than too little. The Minister should please tell us what has given rise to this amendment. In terms of this amendment the Marketing Council may completely ignore the consumers committee, or only request a report from the committee when the hon. the Minister so requires. Be that as it may, I want to make an appeal to the Minister to use this amendment with circumspection and to induce the Marketing Council to consult with the consumer’s committee rather than not to do so. We do not want to create opposition and reluctance on the part of the consumer. The reasons for this are obvious. The Minister needs their support and co-operation, and this holds true of many of the schemes, in which the consumer plays a role, for the marketing of agricultural products. Therefore, the Minister must give us the assurance that it is not his intention to implement this amendment to the letter, but that he will consult with the consumer as far as is practicable.

At present the consumers’ committee only meets a few times per year, perhaps only three times per year. On the other hand, schemes are being changed all the time. For example, the Dairy Board may decide to exclude an area. The Act at present provides that in that case the consumers’ committee must be consulted. This is not always practical. At present the practice is to approach them by telephone. The Act at present provides that the consumers’ committee must be consulted, even with regard to matters which do not affect them. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the intention with this amendment is not to ignore the consumers’ committee completely. On the contrary, the intention is, in fact, to consult the consumers’ committee, but only where the committee is directly concerned.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

The amendment proposed by this clause to section 57 of Act 59 of 1968 provides that the Minister may in future determine the manner in which moneys which accrue to a pool more than three years after its accounts have been closed, may be dealt with. If we look at section 57 of the Act, we find that any other decisions that have to be made must be made either by the board in conjunction with the Minister or with the approval of the Minister. For instance, in sub-section (2) (b) we find that any balance in the pool after its accounts are closed, may “in the opinion of the board and the Minister” be dealt with “in a manner approved by the Minister”. In paragraph (c) provision is made for the transfer of any portion of the proceeds by the board “with the approval of the Minister”. But this amendment now gives this power to the Minister alone. Does the Minister anticipate that the board will already have been disbanded? Is that the reason why he is taking the power on himself alone to do this? Or would he consider not necessarily amending this, but at least giving us an assurance that if the board is still in existence he will at least consult with the board before making any decision in terms of this new power he is asking for?

This measure is being introduced simply to eliminate unnecessary costs and long delays. Experience has proved that control boards often have to keep the accounts of pools open for years, because arrears have to be paid in, and therefore I believe all control boards will welcome this measure, as they will now legally be able to close the accounts of pools after three years. It is simply so that if small amounts accrue to pools, for example, on insurance, their accounts have to be kept open and very small amounts, which it is sometimes completely impossible to distribute, then have to be distributed to various pools. Therefore I think all the control boards will welcome this measure, because it imposes a limit of three years on these pools.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

This particular clause was probed by my hon. friend during the Second Reading, but I do not think we really got a reply from the hon. the Minister. Let me make it clear that we are not opposing this clause, but there are just certain aspects of it that we would like to have clarified. The first aspect is this. Will this clause not have the effect of zoning producers and tieing them to particular processing plants? I refer particularly to Natal, where the dairy industry, which I believe particularly requested this, is important. There are two or more factories in close proximity to each other and in an area where producers produce on a semi-intensive, if not on an intensive, scale. So the farmers are reasonably close to two or more cheese factories. Of course the factories have competed for the produce of the various farmers because it is obvious that the factories are dependent on through-put and the larger their through-put, the more economic their operations become. So this situation has developed, where there has been competition between different manufacturers for the produce of the farmers. When this clause is approved, it will mean that no one firm can offer a more advantageous transport subsidy—let us call it that—or assistance in regard to transport costs, than the other. Will this not have the effect of compelling a producer to supply to the nearest factory? Is it the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister and of the Government that they want to tie producers to the nearest factory? In that way will it not have the effect of zoning the producers in a particular area to supply a particular factory?

The other question which arises is that this Bill does not apply to co-operative societies. Are we not creating a situation here where you will have unfair competition by an organization such as the National Co-operative Dairies, for instance? Clover Dairies has just been taken over by National Co-operative Dairies, so I cannot think of an example. But is this not going to create unfair competition between a co-operative society and a privately run factory?

I, too, should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question or two in connection with this clause. This clause now gives the hon. the Minister the right to fix rates for conveyance. No-one may increase or decrease them, and every producer has to fall in with the arrangement. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what will happen in the case of a butter or cheese factory which is situated in a Bantu border area and which receives the conveyance concessions granted to border industries. Those people are able to convey at a cheaper rate, because they receive certain concessions and the benefit of the concessions may then be passed on to the producer—the farmer who sends the milk or cream to the factory. What will be the position in such cases? Will they still be allowed to do so, or will there be discrimination between factories situated on the border of a Bantu area and, say, a butter and cheese factory situated quite a distance away? I think it is not perfectly clear precisely what the attitude of the Minister will be in such a case, and I hope he will explain the position to us.

I agree with the hon. member that the clause is not very clear. When I read the clause, it was not clear to me either, but the legal men say it has to be couched in such negative terms; otherwise it will clash with other provisions of the Act. This problem has arisen as a result of court cases between co-operative societies and private initiative. As no arrangement existed co-operative societies with the special privileges they enjoy, could compete on unequal terms with private enterprise. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) asked whether a farmer would henceforth be obliged to deliver his product to the factory nearest to him. No, not at all. The intention simply is to have uniform rates for conveyance in determining the price of, for example, cream or a dairy product. The Act reads that unless the scheme in question provides otherwise, a prohibition imposed under the power conferred by virtue of subsection (1) shall not apply to a co-operative society or co-operative company. That scheme may now provide for co-operative societies of companies to be included, just as private companies are, in the arrangement and that they should pay the same rate for conveyance. The price will then be co-ordinated, and I think the problem will then be solved. That will eliminate the possibility of court cases in this regard in future.

What is the position in connection with border industries which enjoy certain concessions in connection with conveyance?

If a certain concession already exists, it will have to remain in force. I do not think the idea here is to cover the position where exceptions have been made in the case of border industries; it is intended to cover the case where one is dealing with the cream of white farmers.

Sir, perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister should deal a bit further with the question put by my hon. friend, the member for Newton Park. We have the situation where certain rail rebates are provided for in terms of the Government’s border area development scheme. Take the case of somebody on the edge of a Bantu area like the Transkei where traffic going one way gets a rail concession, amounting to 10 per cent. On certain products I think there is a reduction of 40 per cent. Unfortunately the Minister of Transport is not here at the moment to tell us but, as I understand it, products travelling from the edge of the Transkei, for instance, further into the Republic are affected. How is this going to be adjusted? Is the hon. the Deputy Minister aware of this; is he going to take cognisance of this? I beleive that there is a possibility of trouble in that area now where two factories are competing and where one is taking advantage of this particular concession.

Mr. Chairman, I think the United Party sees unnecessary objections in this clause. Section 60 (1) of the existing Act was enacted for determining costs and section 60 (2) was included for fixing the grades, the quantities and the times of the year during which certain prices could be paid. In this new clause we have the following cost item which may be included in the calculations, i.e. conveyance. It authorizes the control board to take conveyance into account as a cost item. It is, after all, a basic part of the cost of producing any product. Therefore I can see no objection to it, because the power to solve the problems which hon. members on the opposite side see, still rests with the control board.

Mr. Chairman, here we have a real problem which may create difficulty in future. The hon. the Minister simply has to tell us that he will have the matter investigated and that he will give us a reasonable answer in the Other Place. He cannot leave the matter up in the air.

The matter is not being left up in the air; it is as simple as can be. It is clearly stated here, that it will be applied unless the scheme in question provides otherwise. If the scheme provides that they should all pay one price and should pay a similar rate for conveyance then all of them fall under the scheme. I cannot imagine that there are areas where some producers of butter will have an advantage over others. I am not aware of anything like this at all.

He will pay less in transport charges than a farmer who does not send cream or milk to factories in a border area.

It is out of the question that a producer of butter will have an advantage because he is going to supply butter in the border area. If only hon. members would realize that the intention of this is to treat everyone on equal terms and not to place some people in the position where they will have an advantage over others. This is the intention of the legislation. Now hon. members can search for points to criticize and tell me about matters of which I am completely unaware and which perhaps do not exist at all. My intention was not to make a controversy of the matter. Hon. members themselves know that private initiative maintained that they were on an unequal footing, and we want to rectify this. We want to give them the opportunity of competing on equal terms under the scheme, so that no-one will have an advantage over another. If such a thing exists in a border area, which I do not know of, the scheme can make provision for rectifying the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to add that hon. members are dealing with matters which have nothing to do with the Act and which in practice cannot have anything to do with it either. If they examine the advantages of border industries a little more closely, they will realize that the costs of conveyance paid by a farmer supplying milk to a factory have absolutely nothing to do with industrial advantages. Such a factory may qualify as a border industry, but they are now going to get the advantages on account of the manufactured product which is delivered elsewhere. It has nothing to do with the cost of conveyance which they would pay for the producer. I just wanted to drive this point home here, so that the hon. member can understand it, if the hon. member is able to understand it. We must take care not to bring something into the matter which obviously has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hop. member, has already had three turns.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, at various points in this Bill we find …

What are you talking about now?

Mr. Chairman, you know it is very nice to have this welcome from hon. members on my left every time I rise, but it does get a little bit much when you get the same inanities thrown at you repeatedly. We are trying to conduct a responsible debate handling matters of the State, but then we get this sort of inanity all the time.

The hon. member must come back to the clause.

I will come back to the Bill, Mr. Chairman. In various clauses of the Bill, of which this one is the first, we find certain amendments which introduce the words, “by any person, or any person belonging to any class or group of persons”. This reference to a “class or group” of persons is what is worrying me. This is something I cannot understand. I have tried to work it out logically in the various clauses in the Bill where these words occur and I have been unable to understand what is meant by “a class of persons”. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us some idea of what he is aiming at when he refers to a class or a group of persons. A group of persons I can understand, but not a class of persons.

Mr. Chairman, in clause 1 reference is also made to classes or groups of persons. In the marketing of, for example, rooibos tea, one finds the producer, the packer, the exporter and the dealer who are all classified into groups in order to be able to draft the Act in definite terms.

Is that a class of person?

Yes, it is a class of person and the classification is made in terms of their field of activity, whether they are, for example, in the packaging or the production field of such a product. It has nothing to do with Black and White.

No, I know that.

I thought the hon. member was afraid of that. I can tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) that we find in practice that the weights of eggs and fruit according to their grading have to be adjusted from time to time. So it may be found that a carton containing 82 or less oranges, cannot be exported. We shall now be able to issue a regulation which lays down that an orange of a certain size does not qualify for export. The Minister then has the power to state that it is not profitable to export such a product. This is all that this clause is about, and I can give the hon. member the assurance that there is nothing wrong with the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his explanation, but he still has not really answered my question. He quoted the example of oranges and I accept that—it is a question of grading. We have grading of fruit and of other products. I was talking about the classification of persons. The hon. the Deputy Minister almost got to the point where I could understand what he was saying when he referred to the producers, wholesale merchants, retail merchants, the consumers and so forth. Clause 1 also refers to a class, but in relation to any product and not to persons. In this clause, however, we now suddenly have the introduction of this phenomenon of a class of person. In a further clause of the Bill this phrase occurs again. The explanation given by the hon. the Deputy Minister does not really satisfy my query. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to leave the matter under this clause I can broach the matter again under a later clause where it becomes more apparent what my difficulty is.

Mr. Chairman, I think I did make the matter clear a while ago. When it comes to eggs, for example, the farmer himself does not pack the eggs. He gives them to another class of person, i.e. the packer. The packer then perhaps hands over the eggs to a distributor, i.e. to another class of person. Does the hon. member understand this now?

Mr. Chairman. perhaps I am going to succeed in explaining this matter to the hon. member. There are classes, i.e. various grades and types of a product. There are also certain classes of persons. In commerce, reference is made to various classes of persons; a wholesaler or retailer, or a processor, who deals with that product. In other words, they, too, are classified according to the different functions they fulfil in respect of the product. The “class of person” can therefore refer to the retailer or wholesaler, packer or consumer. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave this explanation. That is what this is about. Perhaps the hon. member understands it now.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to refer to the insertion of the proposed section 84F on page 15. As I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister, it is the intention to create one-channel marketing for unregulated products. In paragraph (b) the Minister provides that he may establish a control board for such an unregulated product. However, there is a point or two which worries us here. It is not so much the question of one-channel marketing alone, but also the question of what kind of product the hon. the Minister has in mind. One knows there are some products for which one cannot have a scheme. Therefore the hon. the Minister must have the power to be able to do so. But I think it is necessary for him to take this Committee into his confidence and to tell us precisely what is being envisaged. Then one will be able to understand why the hon. the Minister wants the powers to prohibit the sale of such a product in certain areas and to give the right to buy and sell such a product to certain people only. Unless he can tell us this, I believe that such a measure does not quite make sense. It can only make sense if he tells us what is intended by this.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asks for examples. I have in mind at the moment something like coriander or birdseed. We have already experienced problems with birdseed. There is a certain group of farmers at Port Elizabeth who have been faced with a shortage of birdseed for a period of five or six years. When there is a shortage of birdseed there is no problem. But now all of a sudden there is a surplus. The Bill now provides that instead of establishing a birdseed control board, birdseed may be integrated with some existing control board, for example, the Wheat Board, for the purpose of temporary relief measures. The sole objective is to aid the producer. Now the hon. member may think that this is going to give far-reaching powers to the Minister, and that there will be problems as far as price determination, etc., is concerned. This is a scheme which one must have. If there is a surplus of coriander, the Minister must have the power to approach existing bodies to request their assistance in bringing about orderly marketing during such a time of surplus. In that case they may store the product or try to sell it overseas. The hon. member must realize that this will only happen when surplus conditions arise. But, on the other hand, the hon. member should also realize that at present the European Common Market requires that if we want to sell a surplus product, we must have a body through which we can come to an agreement with the Common Market in fixing the price at which we shall sell that product. If we subsidize or sell it at a lower price than theirs, they have a special levy on that product. This is just in case it will be necessary. The hon. member need not be concerned about anything. The only object here is to help the farmers in the event of a surplus production of an unregulated product such as birdseed.

Mr. Chairman, one should read clauses 17, 18 and 19 together. Then one will see that in terms of clause 17 the Minister may impose a levy on a product, and that clause 18 envisages an advisory committee for unregulated products. In clause 19 we then have the further logical step that provision is being made for the fixing of the prices of unregulated products and for the appointment of agents. I think all farmers who have problems with such products, will welcome this measure. Here I have in mind, for example, the vegetable seed farmers who are few in number but who produce a large variety of products. They will now be in the position to approach the Minister and ask for the establishment of an advisory council, and for some arrangement to be made for their products after such an advisory council has been established. The Minister may then appoint another control board or an agent. In this clause reference is made to persons. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether co-operative societies may also be appointed to act as a control board for these products?

Mr. Chairman, paragraph (b) does not contain a new principle. In practice we have this principle in many other control boards. They also control many other commodities in addition to those for which they were established, and, for example, undertake the secretarial work involved. There is the case of the Mealie Control Board which also handles kaffir corn and buckwheat. The production of these commodities does not justify a control board of their own. Now this clause is making provision for a control board to control commodities which are not regulated. A new control board will not be established here.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to clause 3 which stands in my name on the Order Paper. This amendment, to an extent, is dependent on the amendment which is proposed to be introduced to the existing section 38 of the Act and which is being introduced by clause 4. In view of this, I move—

Agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister knows that we are not terribly happy with the provisions in this particular clause in regard to compensation for goodwill. From what the hon. the Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading debate, I do not think the Minister himself is happy. This question of goodwill is always a very vexed question. I will be the first to admit that among the members of my own profession, it is very unlikely that two people will ever agree as to what is reasonable and adequate goodwill. This does not, of course, detract from the value of the profession. There are two points I should like to raise here. Firstly, I do not know why the hon. the Minister limits the ceiling to one year. This is a strange clause. He does not fix the goodwill. He simply says that goodwill shall be determined but that the goodwill determined shall not be more than the net profit for one year. I do not know why the hon. the Minister does that. I think it will be generally accepted in commercial circles that in a good business one year’s goodwill is the minimum that might be paid.

Goodwills are paid far in excess of one year’s profits, particularly in the case of super profits. Here the return on the capital invested is far greater than the normal return one could expect. It therefore would seem that the limitation of one year is really not necessary. The hon. the Minister is not obliged to pay two or three years’ profits if such a limit were to be provided. It is a limitation which is put on the determination of the goodwill. It therefore seems to us that the limiting period of one year’s profits is not essential. I do not know what the hon. the Minister’s reaction to this is. We want to move an amendment to this clause. It however all depends on the hon. the Minister’s reaction. Perhaps we should have the hon. the Minister’s reaction first. I should just like to reiterate the point. Goodwill has to be determined or assessed in terms of the proposed section 38 (3). But, if assessed, it cannot be more than one year’s net profit. I realize that if you agree on one year’s profit you do not have to have an assessment made. You do not need to have arbitrators and so forth. But assuming the hon. the Minister were to accept two years, if he feels that the figure for two years is too high, he has the goodwill assessed, but he gives a person the opportunity of recouping the real value of his goodwill.

What about your amendment on clause 4 which is on the Order Paper?

(Inaudible.]

I think you must move it because I am going to agree to it. Hon. members have obviously not done their homework.

Mr. Chairman, we certainly have done our homework. We intended to move this amendment but thought that we would deal with this question of goodwill separately before moving the other amendments. But if the hon. the Minister prefers to have all the amendments before him at the same time, then I am very happy to do so at this stage …

That is the first part of the clause. His is in the second part of the clause. I am a very logical sort of a person …

In order to assist this logical Minister I am happy to move our amendments at this stage. I therefore move—

I do not think it is necessary for me to argue this amendment at any length because the implication is quite obvious. There may be cases where an improvement is in progress but still uncompleted at the date of expropriation. I consider it to be only fair that an owner should be compensated even for a partly finished improvement. The second amendment, standing in the name of the hon. member for Green Point, is to omit subsection (2). We suggest that in view of the fact that the Minister in his Second Reading speech conceded that the present basis for arriving at compensation was sometimes unfair to owners, it seems reasonable that now that market value is being made the basis for compensation, to apply it also to expropriation proceedings which are still in progress at the time this legislation comes into force. It seems to be unfair that a basis for compensation admitted to be unfair, should be persisted with once this legislation becomes law.

I am quite willing to accept the first amendment of the hon. member relating to compensation for partly completed improvements. I can imagine that a house may be roof high when it is to be expropriated. Therefore I am prepared to accept this amendment.

As far as the omission of subsection (2) is concerned, I am afraid I cannot accept it because to do so would be unfair. Expropriations that are going on at the moment still fall under the existing Act. If this amendment is agreed to, it would mean that all expropriation processes going on at the moment should be stopped the moment this legislation becomes law. Therefore I do not think we can agree to it. It may entail an injustice either to the owner or to the other side.

As far as the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Parktown is concerned, the hon. member for Musgrave gave me a draft of a possible amendment in this connection just to give me a guide to what he wants. It is to the effect that in line 32, after the words “not exceeding” the following words be inserted: “the average net profit derived from such profession, business or trade for the immediately preceding period of three years”. I am quite prepared to accept this. Furthermore, I am even prepared to go further. But my only difficulty in going further is in cases where a business has been in existence for less than three years—for two years, one year, six months or whatever the case may be. I am prepared not only to say that it should not exceed the average of the last three years but, moreover, that it should not exceed the highest of the last three years. Such an amendment I will be prepared to accept. It will only be fair. I will ask the legal people to go into this and if we can word an appropriate amendment I am willing to move it in the Other Place or get one of his chaps to move it [Interjections.] What are hon. members laughing about?

You said “chaps”.

Well, hon. chaps then.

The only amendment about which we can argue further now is the one of the hon. member for Musgrave. I have said that I think it will be unfair to bring expropriations which are now in process in under this legislation when it becomes law. That is the only reason why I think we cannot accept it. It is going to cause a lot of administrative difficulties.

I should like to deal first with the question of goodwill. A situation may arise where under a group areas proclamation a business is allowed to remain in operation, while the residents of the area are moved. You can, therefore, have a grocery shop, for instance, continuing to operate in an area which has been proclaimed for another race group and in which the disqualified group has either started to diminish or has disappeared completely. This can happen over a period of time—even over years—that residents are moved out but businesses remain. In such circumstances the turnover of such businesses can drop considerably during the period prior to expropriation. Let me give the Minister an example.

When Greenwood Park was proclaimed a Coloured area, businesses were allowed to continue and were expropriated only later. Meanwhile, however, the normal customers of that business had changed and its turnover had continued to drop until at the point of expropriation it was considerably lower than it was say five years before. The Minister’s Department may remember this case because it was raised either with the present Minister or with his predecessor. It concerned a grocery shop in Durban (North) affected in this way. The turnover on which goodwill was based, was related to the turnover at the time of expropriation was very much lower than it had been before the proclamation of the area as a Coloured group area. Possibly this does not happen a great deal but it does happen nevertheless. Even the Minister’s willingness to accept the highest of the previous three years could mean that, although it will be fairer than an average, it will still be very much lower than the average for an earlier period, a period before the implementation of the group areas proclamation. Perhaps the Minister can take into consideration in drafting such an amendment the inclusion of a proviso which could cover a case such as this, the case of a business adversely affected through the movement of a population group.

Coming to the amendment the Minister feels he cannot accept, the position is that clause 4 will improve the present situation. That is so according to the Minister and we on this side of the House accept it. It will be of benefit to people whose property is being expropriated. Now if that is so and the Minister does not dispute that this is an improvement on the present legislation, then surely it is only fair that expropriations in progress at the moment should also gain the benefit of these improvements. I submit that you do not need to restart all your expropriation proceedings. You are merely bringing into operation here certain factors advantageous to the person affected.

If an expropriation has not yet been completed, I cannot see why it should need to be cancelled and why it should not be possible for these provisions which we are passing now simply to be incorporated into the negotiations. It does not necessarily need to delay them, but it could be detrimental to a person for instance in regard to goodwill, where there is an expropriation under negotiation at the moment based on a different formula from that which we are going to amend. Market value was not taken into account but it now could be taken into account and act to the benefit of the seller. I do not feel that the hon. the Minister has made out a case justifying the difficulties he says would arise if we deleted this proviso concerning expropriations in progress at the moment. I wonder whether the Minister could perhaps give us some more information on that aspect.

The hon. the Minister indicated in his reply that he intends to consider this matter in the Other Place. Might I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consult his colleague the hon. the Minister of Finance, because the Minister of Finance’s department has had a lot of experience in regard to this question of goodwill. I am sure the Minister of Finance will tell him that the Inland Revenue Department over many years have built up experience in the question of the valuation of goodwill. Goodwill has to be valued in the case of every deceased estate for estate duty purposes and the Administration of Estates Act provides that the goodwill must be valued by the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. A practice and procedure in this regard have been built up over many years. As the hon. member for Parktown has said, there is very little unanimity amongst accountants in so far as valuing goodwill is concerned, but over the years certain guide lines have been laid down by the Inland Revenue Department. On that they value goodwill, and the value of the goodwill is negotiated between the estate and the department. I think it would be a pity if we had two different bases for the valuing of goodwill in the same Government and for the Department of In land Revenue to have one standard and for the Department of Community Development to have another standard.

What is the standard applied by the Department of Inland Revenue?

It will take a long time to cover that, Sir. I can give the Minister five text-books on the valuation of goodwill, but I do not think that would do any good at all.

I am not reading five books at this time of the year.

I think the Minister will find that in general the basic principle is that you value the goodwill on the basis of the super profits. The basis is the profit in the business after taking into account the remuneration of the owner, if the owner is working full time, a reasonable rate of interest and the profit in excess of the salary of the owner plus the super profits, that is, the interest and profits over that figure. They generally take it over a period of three to five years. It is taken after examining the accounts over a period of five years. In doing that I think the Minister should take into account the advice given him by the hon. member for Durban (Point); where there has been a tendency for the turnover to fall and the profits to fall by reason of special circumstances due to the change in the clientele in that particular business, that should be allowed for. It is an involved subject, a subject which has exercised the minds of various Government Departments over many years, but I would say from experience over many years that the Inland Revenue Department has any amount of experience on which the Minister can draw and take into account when considering the question of the valuation of goodwill.

I do not think there is any quarrel amongst us on this question of determining what the amount for goodwill should be. We want to arrive at a fair figure for goodwill. I am quite willing to discuss with my department the suggestions made by the Chief Whip on the other side. But our difficulty in this matter is clearly illustrated by what has happened in this Committee. I put down something here to which the hon. member for Musgrave moved an amendment; I went so far as to suggest an improvement to his amendment. What I suggest to the hon. the Chief Whip on the other side is that we accept the clause as it stands at the moment. I do not think that we can accept this amendment as it stands because the legal people have not gone into it. What I suggest therefore is that we accept this clause as it stands, and I will definitely go into the matter to see whether we can improve the clause in the Other Place. With regard to the point made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) I agree with him to a very great extent that where you are in the process of expropriation, as you are at the moment, it is a bit tough on the people concerned that they should be treated in a different way as laid down here But I must honestly say that I feel that where you have a law which lays down that expropriation must take place according to this particular formula, expropriations which are in the process of taking place, should be dealt with according to the law as it stands at the moment. I cannot say that I feel very strongly about it, but it seems to me that that would be the right thing for both parties concerned and I think we should leave it as it is. With regard to his argument about three years, there may be cases under the Group Areas Act where it takes longer than three years to finalize the matter; it may take three or four or five years. But I think if we take the highest profit in the last three years, that would be a fair way of settling this, and I am quite willing to move an amendment to that effect. The hon. member wants to go back five years. Where do you draw the line? I think this is a fair settlement.

Sir, there are two questions that I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister arising out of his reply. I think I should deal with the second one first, namely, this question of people being moved out. We have had a practical example in Durban in the last few days and the hon. the Minister knows about it. In the Warwick Avenue area his department has recently given notice to all the Indian people living in that area, but he has indicated that the businesses can stay. Sir, this is seriously going to affect the profits of every one of those businesses. The Indian people are going to be moved out—their customers are going to be moved out. How long is it going to be before a decision is taken with regard to the businesses there? I hope the hon. the Minister is right in saying that it will be inside three years, because this sword of Damocles that is hanging over their heads must be removed; they must have some certainty as to what is going to happen.

As far as Warwick Avenue is concerned they have full certainty because that has been declared a white area.

But do they know when they are going to be moved out?

As soon as alternative accommodation is available.

This is the whole point that the hon. member for Durban (Point) raised here.

Then I want to come back to the question of goodwill and the assessment of goodwill. Sir, we have heard from two accountants on this side of the House this afternoon. I want to differ somewhat from them, although I accept the fact that they are the experts, who usually advise people like myself; I am only the businessman; I am the person who has to pay or who has to accept the amount of money which is involved. I feel that to base goodwill on one year’s super profits or even on what is shown in the balance sheet is a most unsatisfactory way of determining goodwill. I want to say that I would not accept for my business goodwill based on one year’s profits.

I have agreed with that.

Very well. The hon. the Minister said that we all realized how difficult this question is. I want to put another suggestion to the hon. the Minister which he can consider. His Department is not the only Department which is concerned with expropriation of property and the taking over of businesses from the public. There is also his colleague the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. They are taking over businesses and properties in the Bantu areas to which goodwill is attached and they seem to have arrived at a formula which has been generally accepted by traders and others who have to sell their properties. It is very hard to arrive at exactly what that formula is, because, for some reason or another, the Department is a little coy about separating the amounts they offer for compensation. Therefore we are not exactly certain what amount is being paid out. However, the talk amongst traders is that this is based on three times the average net profit over the last five years. This is the super profit, after allowance is made for managerial fees, etc., to which the hon. member for Pinetown has referred. But this is one government, whether it is this department or whether it is the department of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development which is involved in taking over properties. Would it not be advisable that this all should be put on the same basis. Should one person, because he is selling his property to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, be on a better footing than somebody who is selling his property to the Department of Community Development? I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would consider this because, as I have said, in my discussions with businessmen who have been paid out by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, they had generally been satisfied with the arrangements. I wonder if the answer does not perhaps lie there.

Mr. Chairman, since I addressed the hon. the Minister a few minutes ago I have received a reference to “The Law and Administration of Estates” of Meyerowitz, Fourth Edition, page 166. It says this:

Then Lindhorst, the tax authority, says the following:

I thought it would be worth while to have this on record. Since I addressed the hon. the Minister on this matter, the hon. member for Gardens has given me these references, which fully support the argument I advanced to the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to accept the amendment which I have moved, namely to omit the word “completed”in line 21. I am also pleased that the hon. the Minister is prepared to consider a revised wording for the valuation of goodwill. Possibly at this stage we can hardly take it very much further and therefore we shall leave it to the hon. the Minister or to one of the hon. Senators on our side in the Other Place to move a suitable amendment after discussion with the hon. the Minister and his Department.

I would like to go back to the other amendment which I moved, which is the omission of subsection (2). The hon. the Minister admitted in reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point) that it would not cause the department a great deal of trouble to change the basis of compensation in respect of expropriations which are in progress from the old method to the new. I would, in fact, go further and suggest to the hon. the Minister that it will make it a lot easier for his department, although his department may have in some cases to pay more. The present basis is, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out during his Second Reading speech, a complicated one. It is the municipal value plus 30 per cent or, as he put it, “die koopprys wat die eienaar daarvoor betaal het plus ses persent per jaar vanaf die datum van koop tot die datum van onteiening”.

That basis is completely unrealistic now.

That is what I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister. Under present-day conditions this is completely unrealistic and the hon. the Minister said that himself in his Second Reading speech. I do not want to quote the whole sentence but he said the following in relation to this whole basis: … nou heeltemal onrealisties, gemeet aan hedendaagse standaarde. There is no doubt that it is. It is an unrealistic basis for valuing compensation, although it is correct to say, as the hon. the Minister said, that normally where a law is amended, cases that are being dealt with at the time the law is amended under the Act before it was amended, should be dealt with under that Act as it was before it was amended. This is the normal procedure, but I do suggest to the hon. the Minister that in this case there is every reason to give to those persons whose cases are in the process of being resolved the benefit of a simpler basis of valuation and one which is more realistic. I would urge the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment which I have moved and to omit subsection (2).

Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the last matter raised by the hon. member for Musgrave I want to tell him that I have discussed it with my department and that they think it can be done. It can be done in the way the hon. member suggested without the difficulties I foresaw when I spoke earlier. He must leave the whole matter to me and if it can be done I will again discuss it with him and will effect the necessary amendments in the Other Place.

As far as the hon. member for Pinetown is concerned, I am informed by my department as follows:

What the hon. member suggested in his speech, is therefore what the department is actually doing in arriving at a fair price when expropriating land. We are really doing what the hon. member asks us to do.

Not in the definition.

Then the hon. member must explain his suggestion again.

As far as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is concerned, I can only say that I agree with him entirely. I have been working on this matter for a long time and I can give him the assurance that this matter is now being investigated by the Government. I know there are many different formulae regarding expropriation. There must be about fifteen or twenty of them. Every department expropriates land differently, the provincial authorities in a different way and also the local authorities in their own way. I also think it is very unreasonable people to-day do not know where they stand in regard to this matter. It is my personal opinion, and also something that I am now pressing the Government to do, that a proper formula for expropriation of land should be found. I am at one with him that we should work in that direction. Obviously, it is not going to be so easy. We are now trying to get done to what we call “market value”. I think the hon. member for Parktown will agree with me that market value is a very difficult thing to determine. But I think that I have now met all the objections to the clause as it stands. I am willing to accept the one amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave. I agree in principle with the last one, namely that those matters that are under consideration at the moment, can be dealt with in the same way. I will move an amendment to that effect, I shall discuss it with him later on, and we can then come to an agreement on that.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to point out one thing to the hon. the Minister. He has told the House that in valuing goodwill, they follow the principle adopted by the Receiver of Revenue. This is fine, if one does not put a limitation on it. The clause reads “an amount equivalent to the assessed value of such goodwill”. If one left it at that, everything would be fine. Then one can use the formula of the Receiver of Revenue, and that would be the figure. But it is qualified by “not exceeding the net profit”. Even in the amendment which the hon. the Minister has been good enough to say he is going to accept, it is still limited to one year’s profit.

I have now agreed to make it the highest of three years.

But it is only one year. The highest of three years is still one year.

If you want the average of five years, it will be lower than the highest of three years.

No. The Minister must consider the matter further with his officials. He must remember that even in the formula that we have been discussing, which is the highest annual profit of the three years, one is still taking one year’s profit only.

But now what do you want me to do?

I just want the hon. the Minister to know that when he says that the department is using the formula used by the Receiver of Revenue, he may be using the formula, but that formula is subject to a ceiling. From my experience, and I am sure from that of the hon. member for Pinetown as well, if we can get away with an assessment of goodwill for one year, we would never argue. But it is the old story. When the Government has to assess it for their benefit, they will not give us a ceiling of a year. They say “No, we want five years”. But when they want to purchase, they want us to have a ceiling for a year. I think perhaps if the hon. the Minister will discuss this with the revenue people, he will see what we, the public, have to pay by way of goodwill. Then he might get a very good idea what he as a Minister should pay as goodwill.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to go back to the question of omitting subsection (2). I should like to be quite clear as to what I understand the hon. the Minister has in mind. As I understood the hon. the Minister, he agrees that, in the case of expropriations which are in progress, the compensation which should be paid, should be based on market value, as is proposed in terms of the new amendment. Is that so? The hon. the Minister nods his head. In view of that, I am quite happy to leave it to the hon. the Minister to deal with the matter in the Other Place, and I withdraw the amendment which stands in my name, namely “to omit subsection (2)”.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment introduced by this clause is dependent on the new section 38 introduced by clause 4. In view of that, it may be convenient if clause 9 were to stand over until clause 3 has been dealt with. It is a similar amendment with a similar effect. Therefore I move—

Agreed to.

Clause 13.

Mr. Chairman. on behalf of the hon. member for Green Point, I move the amendment which stands in his name on the Order Paper—

1. (e) by the insertion after subsection (5) of following subsection:
2. “(5A) Any conditions imposed in terms of this section shall be restricted to—
   1. (a) the provision of alternative accommodation to the satisfaction of the Minister in respect of occupants of dwellings proposed to be demolished; and
   2. (b) the date when such demolition may take place”.

The effect of this amendment is to limit the powers which are being taken by the hon. the Minister under the amendments which are proposed in this clause. We on this side of the House agree that the hon. the Minister should have powers to impose conditions if he refuses a demolition order. However, as was discussed during the Second Reading of this Bill, the powers to impose conditions are really related to two things. They are related to finding alternative accommodation for the occupant of the property or giving him time to find alternative accommodation, if he does not fall within the category of those persons who are entitled to the benefits of housing under the National Housing Act. The amendment which we propose is intended to limit the Minister’s powers to the provision of alternative accommodation and to the date when demolition may take place. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I would have been quite happy to accept this amendment except for one aspect. I think the hon. member for Green Point will agree with me on this point. This amendment will limit my powers to the extent where I shall be able to say that demolition can take place on condition that alternative accommodation is found for the people who occupy the building which is to be demolished. I must be satisfied that they have found alternative accommodation. However, there is another power which I want. If I give them permission to demolish on condition that the occupants are rehoused, it will be in order and the building will be demolished. But then I have no power to say what type of building should be erected in the place of the demolished building. The hon. member will agree with me that the whole purpose of this clause is to give me the power to give permission that a building may be demolished in order to erect a bigger and more expensive block of flats on condition that reasonable accommodation is found for those people in smaller and cheaper flats. The only power I want is to be able to say that the owner may not erect a block of offices and shops only on that particular piece of ground. I must have the power to give permission that a building may be demolished provided that reasonable accommodation is found for the occupants of that block of flats and to lay down that there must be a certain percentage of flats in the new building that shall be erected on that particular piece of ground. That is the only reason why I cannot accept this amendment. If the hon. member agrees with me that I can go as far as I am now telling the House as to the power I do want, I am quite willing to make this alteration, I, however, want to make it clear that all I want is the power to say that a building may be demolished under certain conditions. I really only want two conditions. The one condition is that before demolition the people affected must be rehoused. Secondly, a certain square footage of the new building must be for living, units.

Mr. Chairman, I must agree with the hon. the Minister that this additional power is necessary. Where a block of flats is demolished and offices are built in its place, there is accordingly, of course, a decrease in residential units. Frequently changes must take place where flats are replaced by hotels. That is one of the problems. A block of flats is demolished, and in its place a five star hotel is built. The five star hotel is of value to the tourist and the travelling business man, but it does not help the ordinary person or holiday-maker to obtain accommodation. If the hon. the Minister does not have some or other similar power, it is possible in a constituency such as mine that all the accommodation will disappear and that I shall be saddled with a lot of five star hotels.

The chances that you will then lose your seat are good.

The difficulty is that the hon. the Minister hopes that I shall lose my seat. Unfortunately I must disappoint him. Even though there are flats, hotels or houses, I shall still obtain the support of all the people residing in the constituency. The hon. the Minister has had experience of that, because he did me the honour of coming along there and helping me to be elected with a larger majority.

Is it then the hon. the Minister’s suggestion that he move a similar but broader amendment in the Other Place? Or is it merely an undertaking on the part of the hon. the Minister that he will not exceed these powers. Could the hon. the Minister explain this to us.

It actually depends upon hon. members on the other side. If hon. members are satisfied that they can trust me with these powers, as ought to be the case, then I need not move an amendment. However; I want to suggest that the hon. member for Musgrave withdraw this amendment so that we may deliberate on that again. I cannot see that terrible powers are being given to me.

The Minister does not have too many powers.

Precisely. I do not think I have too many powers. That is why I think that the clause can remain as it is. But if the hon. member for Musgrave withdraws his amendment, I shall give serious consideration to this matter. I shall discuss it with him and with the hon. member for Durban (Point), and see whether it is necessary to make any changes.

Mr. Chairman, I think it would be better if we Tather discussed the matter. Even though we may trust the hon. the Minister, he himself intimated that we should not remind him of his dirty past. Who knows what can happen in the future? To-morrow an unblemished present can be a dirty past. I think it would be safer if we discussed the matter with hin.

Mr. Chairman, while we do agree that the hon. the Minister at times is a very reasonable man, we would prefer to see his powers limited if only due to the fact that this legislation could well be administered by somebody else in the future. So I shall withdraw the amendment standing in my name on the strength of the Minister’s assurance that he is prepared to review this and to see to it that an amendment along these lines is introduced in the Other Place.

Seeing that there might be a slight possibility that the hon. member may one day occupy this position, I think we should apply it more strictly!

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to clauses 3 and 9 standing over.

Clause 3:

This clause propose to amend section 31 of the Principal Act. Section 31 of the Act deals with the acquisition of land by the commission, land for housing purposes. It provides that the commission with the written approval of the Minister may purchase, expropriate or otherwise acquire any land which it requires for the purpose of constructing a dwelling or of carrying out a scheme. Thereupon follows two provisos, the second one of which this clause proposes to delete. It is important to bear in mind that this proviso requires three things to be done. It provides that the Minister shall not approve of the expropriation of any land unless he is satisfied that three things have been done. The first of these is that the commission is unable to purchase such land on reasonable terms, i.e. the land that is being expropriated. We have no objection to this portion of the proviso being deleted, because in terms of the amendment accepted by this committee when we accepted clause 4, the whole basis of compensation has now been changed to one of market value. Consequently it is unnecessary that the Minister be satisfied that private negotiations have taken place and have not been satisfactorily concluded. As I say, we are quite satisfied with the deletion of this portion of the proviso. But we see no reason why the other two things the Minister should be satisfied about before approving an expropriation should also be done away with. These other two things are, firstly, that no other suitable land is available and, secondly, that the commission is unable to purchase other suitable land on reasonable terms. In his Second Reading speech the Minister said—

It is the word “geskikste” that I want to stress. The Minister continued—

In other words, the hon. the Minister is saying that by the time the commission or a local authority comes to him for his approval of an expropriation they have, in fact, satisfied themselves of these two requirements prescribed by the proviso. Well, if that is the position, it seems to me that it will not be impossible or difficult for the commission to satisfy the Minister in regard to these two things. The fact that the owner is getting market value for this land, does not necessarily mean that he is not prejudiced. To argue that would be to interpret prejudice in a very restricted way. As an owner I may like my particular home or property, I may like its situation and therefore may not want to move. The fact that I am getting market value for my property will not necessarily satisfy me if I feel that way about my property. I think some obligation should be placed upon the commission and upon the local authority to ensure that other suitable land is not available and that it is impossible to purchase other suitable land on reasonable terms, before there is approval of the expropriation of a particular piece of land. The expropriation of land in this instance is usually done for the purpose of a housing scheme. That being the case, another piece of land a mile or even more away may be just as suitable. You may have the situation where you have two pieces of land which are suitable for the type of house which the commission or the local authority has in mind. In one case the owner does not want to sell because he likes to stay there, whether he gets the market value or not. In the other case the owner may be quite willing to sell. In such a case, there ought to be some obligation upon the commission or upon the local authority to take the piece of land of the owner who is willing to sell in preference to the piece of land of the owner who is not. I do not think it would make the position of the Minister difficult if the latter two portions of the proviso are retained. I can quite appreciate the case the Minister tried to make in his Second Reading speech, which is that when you have to negotiate with an owner over a long period, over whether or not he is prepared to sell his property and at what price, the department may be put in a difficult position because adjoining owners may get to hear about it and immediately put their prices up while the owner of the property which is the subject of negotiation tends to be unrealistic about the price. Thereby the whole question of the acquisition of suitable land particularly for the purposes of the National Housing Commission is made difficult and leads to the commission having to pay more than it would otherwise have to pay for suitable land. So I appreciate the problems, but I believe that if the first portion of the proviso is omitted, that would resolve this difficulty. In other words, the commission or the local authority is then in a position to expropriate a particular piece of land whether they can get agreement on price from the owner or not. They then pay market value in terms of the amendment which we have just passed. But as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, in arriving at their decision to expropriate that particular piece of land in preference to others in the vicinity, they have investigated the question of the relative suitability of available pieces of land and they have investigated the question of whether it is possible to get other suitable land on reasonable terms. So we on this side of the House think it would not make the position of the Commission unduly difficult if they are required to satisfy the hon. the Minister in regard to the second and third portions of the proviso. That is why I would urge the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment I have moved.

The hon. member has not moved the amendment yet.

I beg your pardon, Sir. I therefore move the amendment to clause 3, which stands in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I assume that the same arguments as have now been advanced for the hon. member for Musgrave, hold good for his amendment in clause 9 in regard to the local authority. The object here is to save time. The object is to expedite the whole process of expropriation and of town planning, etc. We have now learnt from experience that if we do this in the way laid down by the Act, one finds that on reaching the end of the process one is always left to the mercy of the owners. One does not obtain the land at the prices one should like to pay. I honestly do not think that there is very much in the amendment which the hon. member moved here. I must say that I find a very pleasant experience that the hon. member for Musgrave, of all members, should plead that I be granted more powers than I have at the moment. I want to surrender some of my powers to the Housing Commission and to the local authorities. Now, I must say this frankly. Take a local authority such as Cape Town. Once they have selected a site for a township—they have already investigated the matter and everything connected with it, and now they approach me —then I have to grant or refuse approval. What this amounts to in actual fact, is that I have to carry out the same investigation again; then it is a double investigation. That is why it is my honest opinion that there is not much merit in what the hon. member said. Even if such cases as were mentioned by him did occur, it would still be the position that in the final analysis I would still have to approve the expropriation. I am most appreciative of the confidence the hon. member has in me, and I think that it is in fact quite justified that he should have confidence in me, but I, in turn, have so much confidence in the Housing Commission and in the local authorities that I am of the opinion that once they have disposed of this task, all that is actually left for me to do, is merely to grant formal approval. For that reason I am not satisfied that I should accept this amendment, nor the one to clause 9. I hope the hon. member will content himself with that.

I hope it was a slip of the tongue by the hon. the Minister that when describing the reason why he is opposed to this, he said: “Hulle kan nie die plek kry vir die geld wat hulle wil betaal nie”. Surely the whole issue is what is the value of the ground, and not what the Government wants to pay for it. That is what we are afraid of.

No, that is not what I said.

The Minister clearly said “for what they want to pay”; “we cannot get it for what we want to pay”. The whole object of putting safeguards in and the whole object of our argument here is to ensure that the seller or the person who is being expropriated gets not what the Government wants to pay him but what is a fair market price. When the department or the Government expropriates it is our task to see that the person whose property is being expropriated receives a fair and just compensation.

That is laid down in the formula.

But the hon. the Minister says that the reason why he does not want any limitation here is that you can be negotiating, but the owners can be difficult, and that you cannot buy at the price you want to pay them. I hope that was a slip of the tongue and that it was not a reflection of the department’s attitude that they want to buy as cheaply as they can.

But there is a formula laid down for expropriation.

Yes, but the formula is very flexible. We are improving the formula with the specific object of protecting a person whose property is being expropriated. When the Minister, after laying down a formula, then says, “we cannot get the property for what we want to pay,” that indicates an approach which I believe is wrong, and I hope it is not the approach of his department.

Sir, the only motivation which the hon. the Minister has given the Committee for wishing to remove this proviso is that it is going to save time and enable him to do things more quickly. I really think it goes much further than that. The second proviso which is proposed to be deleted in this clause, and this is in respect of the acquisition of land by the Commission by expropriation …

Or the local authority.

The second proviso provides that the Minister shall not approve of the expropriation of any land unless he is satisfied that the Commission is unable to purchase such land upon reasonable terms, that no other suitable land is available to the Commission and that the Commission is unable to purchase other suitable land on reasonable terms. Sir, this further proviso was put into the Act by this Parliament in 1966 and it was considered then to be a reasonable proviso, not just for the reason that it gives the hon. the Minister more power, but it gives the Minister a yardstick by which to measure whether or not he should approve; otherwise the Commission could just say: “Look, I would like that land there; I could put up a nice housing scheme there and I am going to expropriate it,” for no really good reason, thus upsetting the rights of all the landowners in that area. That could happen; I do not say it has.

But I still have the final say.

Yes, the hon. the Minister has the final say but it was decided in 1966 that when the hon. the Minister exercised his final say, he should be guided by these factors in the interests of existing land-owners, which is reasonable. Sir, it seems to me that this goes even further. As the Act stands at the moment, if there is an unreasonable expropriation notice served upon land-owners in any part of a city, this in effect gives landowners the right of appeal to the Minister, for if in fact an unreasonable expropriation notice is served on them and it is unreasonable in the sense that the person who have the expropriation notice served on them knows that there is in fact other suitable land available at a reasonable price, they can then appeal to the hon. the Minister and say: “Look, there is this land available and we ask you not to approve of the expropriation.” That is what it is in effect because the hon. the Minister admits himself that he is in fact very busy; that these matters keep coming to him and that he has to keep on approving of them and that he is snowed under with this work.

Sir, this is an added reason, I think, why the hon. the Minister should accept this amendment. We would not like to see the proviso go at all, but if we are going to get rid of it, then perhaps that one aspect, which is part of the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave, could go. Otherwise you are throwing away that right of appeal to the Minister; otherwise there is no yardstick by which to measure whether the Minister should approve of the expropriation or not because this will no longer be a reason why the Minister should not approve. The other point is that the hon. the Minister is the responsible person and I think it helps the hon. the Minister himself. He is responsible for making every decision. It seems to us that if he is limited in making that decision in the sense that he has to be satisfied by the Commission before he will sign that expropriation, it is also a protection for the hon. the Minister. Therefore I hope he will accept this proposal.

Mr. Chairman, I quite appreciate the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Durban (North). He may be quite correct in theory, but I inserted this at the instance of the local authorities and at the instance of the Commission. They say that the fact that the provision is as clumsy as it is at the moment, handicaps them to such an extent that by the time this matter has been earned through, the prices are soaring and then they simply cannot do it in the most economic manner and at reasonable prices. I must tell the hon. member frankly that if the authorities of Cape Town were to say that they had to lay out a township at a certain place, why should I tell them that they have more suitable land at other places? If there are instances of people being treated unfairly, there is in the final analysis still an appeal to the Minister. For that reason I do not see why we should preserve this provision, which is very clumsy at the moment. That is why I am afraid that, unfortunately, I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has said that the main reason why the proviso is being deleted is because the Commission and local authorities have told the hon. the Minister and his Department that the present procedure is a very cumbersome one and while it is being carried out prices tend to rise with the result that by the time the matter is finalized the Commission or the local authority has to pay a lot more for suitable land than it would otherwise have paid if there was a more streamlined procedure. I accept that this is partly correct under the present procedure. The present procedure is to some extent cumbersome and it has the effect, as the hon. the Minister has suggested, of increasing the prices while the procedure is being carried out. But I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the reason for the delay under the present procedure is that, as the Act stood before the amendment of clause 4, it was necessary to negotiate with an owner for the purchase by private treaty of his property before any expropriation could take place. In other words, one of the things the Commission had to do before effecting an expropriation was to negotiate by private treaty for the purchase of the property. It is that negotiation which was long-winded and which was the main reason for the rising of the prices. That could be done away with if the first portion of the proviso was deleted, as we are suggesting. If that portion of the proviso is deleted, it is not necessary when you want to expropriate Mr. A’s land, to negotiate privately with him in regard to the price.

That has always been done.

Does the hon. the Minister mean that expropriation is done first?

In all forms of expropriation that is done. You first see if you can come to an agreement with the owner of the land.

Yes, that is so, but under the proviso before the Commission was able to get an expropriation order, the Minister first of all had to be satisfied that the Commission was unable to purchase such land at reasonable terms.

In other words, the Commission had to negotiate backwards and forwards with the owner in order to be able to prove to the Minister that it could not purchase the land on reasonable terms. It was very often this negotiation backwards and forwards which caused the trouble and delay to which the hon. the Minister referred. If the Commission is not required any longer to enter into private negotiation before an expropriation, that would do away with the period of delay which caused the problems referred to by the hon. the Minister. I would point out to the hon. the Minister that in order to ascertain whether there is other suitable land available to the Commission or to purchase other suitable land on reasonable terms, the Commission would first of all investigate the area of its own accord to see what land is available of the size it requires. It may require a 50-acre area, a 100-acre area or a 1,000-acre area. The Commission then decides whether the available land is going to be suitable for its purposes. That does not involve any negotiation at that stage. It is only an investigation by the Commission or the local authority. Having reached that stage, the Commission or the local authority can then simply go to owner A or owner B and say: “ I want to purchase your land and I consider the price to be so many thousand rand in the case of A and so many thousand rand in the case of B.”

The owners are then given a certain time to accept or reject the offers and the Commission knowing whether the owners are prepared to accept or not, are then in a position to decide which properties they must go for in the way of an expropriation. On that basis a lot of the delay and the cumbersome procedure which exists at the moment is done away with. I therefore suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he simply accepts the deletion of the first portion of the proviso and keeps in the other two, the Commission or local authorities will not be prejudiced in the way that they are at the moment by having cumbersome procedures and inordinate delays which push up the prices. I would therefore urge the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment which I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, this is really an important matter of principle. One does not normally expropriate land except as a last resort. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that expropriation is a distasteful form of acquisition of land and that the State should only use it as a last resort. That is what we thought in 1966. We would like the whole of the proviso to remain, but the hon. the Minister has mentioned the difficulties local authorities have.

The amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave is designed to meet that difficulty, so that there is, nevertheless, some requirement that the hon. the Minister must be assured by the Commission or the local authority that there is no other suitable land which can be bought at a reasonable price. Then and then only is expropriation applied. The difficulty that I have is that the hon. the Minister says that before expropriation, there is always some sort of discussion between the land owner and the Commission or the local authority. That is so at the moment only because of the existence of the further proviso. In other words, the further proviso makes it necessary for that compromise and those discussions to take place, and for the local authority or the Commission to say to the Minister “Look, we have tried everything; we have failed”. Then the hon. the Minister can order expropriation. That is why in 1966 this Parliament decided that that further proviso should be included.

I wonder whether you supported this measure. You do not want me to look up Hansard?

What is that?

Did you support this in 1966?

Well, I am not in a position at this stage to criticize an enactment of this Parliament, as the hon. the Minister knows.

Here we are in the process of amending it.

What I am doing, is trying to praise this aspect of the law, because I am not allowed to criticize it.

That is what frightens me.

I would not at all be surprised, and it seems to me more likely, if this further proviso was included as a result of an amendment suggested by this side of the House. That seems to be more likely. But nevertheless, there it is. It is there, as I say, for that purpose. This what enables the hon. the Minister to say, as he does, that there are always discussions and negotiations before expropriation takes place. But what is the effect of the removal of the whole of this proviso? The effect is that expropriation is now going to become the rule. If you want land, you will expropriate, because you will not have to satisfy anybody, or yourself, that there is no other land available, or that the people concerned are not prepared to sell at a reasonable price.

In the last instance I am going to meet you.

I know, Sir. The hon. the Minister has indicated how busy he is with all the many applications that come to him for his consent. So he looks at it and they say “That is the land we want, and that is what we are going to get”. If the hon. the Minister’s case is now that in fact he has, nevertheless, to approve and that he will always want to be assured that the land could not be bought at a reasonable price from the land-owner, that is quite a different matter. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would indicate if that is his case.

When land is expropriated it means that the two parties could not come to an agreement. Then they must still satisfy me before expropriation takes place. I cannot see any objection. It is just a clumsy piece of legislation and we are just trying to streamline it. That is all.

Mr. Chairman, it is not as easy as that, because section 31 of the Act, which is being amended here, reads as follows—

Now that is the Commission. There is no reference to the local authority.

That is in clause 9.

Yes. The first proviso relates to mining land in which case it has to be done in consultation with the Minister of Mines. The further proviso provides that the Minister shall not approve of the expropriation of land unless he is satisfied, in the first place, that the Commission is unable to purchase that very land being expropriated on reasonable terms, and secondly, that no other suitable land is available to the Commission and it is unable to purchase other suitable land on reasonable terms. In other words, but for that further proviso, there is no need whatsoever for any consultation whatsoever to take place before expropriation takes place. It is only that further proviso which is here being removed which provides that there shall be further consultation because the section provides “notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained”. The effect of removing this proviso is then, in respect of acquisition of land for housing purposes, by the Commission, to make expropriation the rule of thumb with no obligation whatsoever to have any prior negotiations before expropriation. No one has to be satisfied. The hon. the Minister says that he still has to sign it. That is correct. It cannot be expropriated without the hon. the Minister’s consent. As I understood the hon. the Minister, he said that he was nevertheless still going to do this and he has to be satisfied and—I hope I understood him correctly—that he would not sign an expropriation order unless he was satisfied that an attempt had been made to negotiate for the purpose of the property with the land-owner concerned. Is that what the hon. the Minister said?

It is quite clear. I think if these people have any objection they will certainly come to me.

Yes, but the point is that the hon. the Minister indicated that before he would sign an expropriation order he would want to be satisfied that in fact negotiations had taken place and the landowner was unreasonable.

But surely it would come to my attention if there was any unreasonableness on the part of either the local authority or the Commission?

Yes, but say they did not even negotiate with the landowner and just said that they were going to expropriate?

Even if they say they are only going to expropriate, that still means negotiation. They must still make an offer.

No, they do not have to discuss it. They just have to serve a notice of expropriation upon the landowner concerned. They can do that in terms of this amendment. If this proviso is removed, there will be no obligation whatsoever on them to negotiate with the landowner. I would be pleased if the hon. the Minister could explain that to me while I stand up, because this is my last turn to speak.

If the expropriation notice should be served on the landowner concerned without any previous consultation, surely that landowner is entitled to come to me and say that the local authority or the Commission was unreasonable?

Yes, he has the right to appeal to the hon. the Minister. But he has no right under the law to appeal because the section concerned reads: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law.”

I am streamlining this matter.

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue. The hon. member must proceed with his speech.

It is not a case of streamlining it. It is a case of taking away the guarantee from the landowner that he will not be expropriated unless he is unreasonable in his negotiations with the commission. This right that any landowner should have, namely that he will not have his property expropriated without having the opportunity of treating with the Commission and negotiating with them a reasonable price, is now being taken away. If the hon. the Minister’s case is that in considering each of these cases he will not sign an expropriation order unless he is satisfied that prior negotiation had taken place and the landowner is unreasonable, then we should leave this proviso in. There is therefore no reason why we should not have it. The hon. the Minister says he is streamlining this. What does it come to? How does one streamline it? If there is going to be negotiation before expropriation, why should the proviso not be left in? That is what will happen anyway. Now that the proviso is deleted, it means that it is more streamlined because there is no need for negotiation before expropriation. That is the only meaning that can be placed upon the hon. the Minister’s explanation in respect of the removal of this right that should be there in respect of every expropriation by any Government body in respect of any land whatsoever.

You want me to duplicate the work of the local authority and the Commission. That is not necessary.

This is my last chance of speaking on this Clause and I hope the hon. the Minister will explain what he means.

Mr. Chairman, I am not at all happy with the hon. the Minister’s explanation. The hon. the Minister has said that in practice this would not work to the disadvantage of any owner, because if he is dissatisfied he can come to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has based much of his support for the amendment which is proposed, namely the deletion of this proviso, on this fact. But with respect to the hon. the Minister an owner would not have that right. If he wishes to see the hon. the Minister and the Minister is prepared to see him, well and good. But this is no legal right. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Durban (North), no legal right is given to any owner to appear before the Minister once this proviso is deleted. Once we delete the proviso the Commission is not required by this section to satisfy the Minister that no other suitable land is available to the Commission nor will the Commission be required to satisfy the Minister that it is unable to purchase other suitable land on reasonable terms. There is something else in this connection that I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister. There is the case which I mentioned to the hon. the Minister and which he accepted was a possibility where there are two or three properties which are suitable. In the case of one of them the owner may not wish to sell while in the case of the other the owners are prepared to sell. But say the Commission for some other reason decides to expropriate the one of the owner who is not prepared to sell. How is that owner going to put forward to the Minister his objections? I would be pleased if the hon. the Minister would pay attention to this.

I am listening.

I say this because how is he going to know that the Commission wishes to obtain the Minister’s approval to expropriation. The Commission is not required to tell the owner that they are going to expropriate his property. They simply investigate these various properties. Say that they decide to expropriate one of them. They would ask the owner whether he wishes to sell and the owner would refuse. The Commission does not then have to say that if that owner does not sell it will apply to the hon. the Minister for permission to expropriate and that such an owner could make representations to the hon. the Minister. They can then simply go to the hon. the Minister in terms of this section and ask his permission to expropriate. At that stage the owner has no knowledge of the possibility of expropriation. He has no knowledge of the fact that the Commission is seeking the Minister’s approval. He therefore does nothing. He then gets an expropriation notice and that is the first time that he will know that the hon. the Minister’s approval for expropriation has been sought. By this time the approval would have been granted. Does the hon. the Minister suggest that at that stage the owner can come to him and put up a case? I am sure that the hon. the Minister, being so busy on all sorts of other things, will say to him that in terms of the Act his approval was sought, that he has granted that approval and that the matter was therefore at an end. Or does the hon. the Minister suggest that after getting an expropriation notice an owner may then come to him personally with his objections and seek to have that order reversed? If that is so, that ought to be written into the law because there is no provision in the law for an appeal to the Minister by an owner who receives a notice of expropriation and is thereby aggrieved. I hope the Minister will clarify the situation because if this is what he intends, that an owner may come to him after getting an expropriation notice to put forward reasons to the Minister to justify the withdrawal of the expropriation notice, this is something which ought to be written into the law.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, this clause contains exactly the same principle as the one with which we dealt in clause 3. I hope the Minister is prepared to reply now to some of the questions we raised when dealing with clause 3. I do not want to repeat all the arguments now. But perhaps the Minister can give some indication of the procedure he proposes to follow in cases of expropriation by local authorities. For instance, is he going to satisfy himself that there have been prior negotiations before expropriation and is he going to make provision for the right of appeal by an aggrieved person to the Minister?

Order! The hon. member has not moved any amendment.

If the Minister is prepared to reply at this stage, it is not necessary to move the amendment now.

If the Cape Town City Council, for example, has selected a piece of land on which it wants to establish a township, particularly at this stage when there is such a scarcity of land, they should be, according to the hon. member, compelled to approach me again in order to ascertain whether alternative land is not available or whether the position is not this, that or the other. In other words, I have to do the work that has been done by the City Council over again. I am satisfied that the people who know best are the local authorities and for that reason I simply cannot see why this clumsy procedure has to be followed. What is more, the local authorities do not want this. Hon. members are always so concerned about the privileges of local authorities. But what hon. members want now, is for a local authority, after it has approved a certain piece of land, to approach me first in order to find out whether I am quite satisfied. But if any serious mistakes have been made in the course of that process, representations will of course be made to me. In any event, I still have the final say. Mr. Chairman, I really do not think it is necessary for us to listen to the same protracted arguments we had in regard to clause 3.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

The effect of the amendment introduced by clause 9 is similar to the effect of the amendment introduced by clause 3. Clause 9 proposes to amend section 66 of the Act, a section which deals with the acquisition by local authorities of land for housing purposes. Clause 3 dealt with the acquisition of land by the Commission for housing purposes. The amendment I have just moved and the amendment we have moved on clause 3 are, consequently, identical in effect. I do not propose to spend any time in justifying this amendment apart from saying that we think that, as with the Commission so with local authorities, it is unreasonable that all three portions of the second proviso should be deleted. The first portion can be deleted in view of the fact that the basis for compensation has been changed now to one of market value. But we see no reason for removing the requirement that the Minister be satisfied that no other suitable land is available and also the requirement that the local authority is unable to purchase other suitable land on reasonable terms.

Order! As the amendment moved by the hon. member is similar in substance to an amendment previously negatived by the Committee, I am unable to accept it.

On a point or order, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is similar in substance but it deals with an entirely different situation. Under this clause a local authority is doing the expropriation whereas under clause 3 it was the Commission. My submission is that if you have allowed the amendment to clause 3, you must also allow it in respect of this clause.

I have already ruled that this amendment is similar in substance to the one previously negatived by the Committee. I therefore cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Does the hon. member now want to argue with the Chair?

No, Sir. I am standing up to speak. I have not said that I am rising on a point of order. The Minister says local authorities do not want this provision requiring of them to keep on coming to the Minister. Well, that may be so. Is the Minister then perhaps prepared to accept another amendment, to the effect that instead of the further proviso requiring them to go to the Minister, we have another proviso to the effect that no expropriation shall take place until the local authority concerned has in fact satisfied itself that the owner is unreasonable—in other words, it must first negotiate with him— or has satisfied itself that there is no other suitable land available somewhere else—in other words, about the same guarantee as applies at the moment? Such an amendment I think will be reasonable and will to a large extent meet our objections.

Does the hon. member want us to provide that instead of the Minister satisfying himself, the local authority should satisfy itself of these things?

Yes.

In that case, I think I can accept such an amendment. I suggest that the hon. member draft such an amendment and either give it to me to move in the Other Place or get one of his party members in the Other Place to do so. At the moment I cannot see any objection to such an amendment.

That is a very reasonable and wise decision on the part of the Minister. We shall certainly draft such an amendment and hand it to him for incorporation in the Bill in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, for a moment I thought it was necessary for me to withdraw my amendment but I now realize that it has been ruled out of order and therefore does not appear any longer on the Order Paper.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

The hon. the Minister gave certain undertakings in the Second Reading stage regarding the renaming of streets. He pointed out that he wanted this power in order to change streets which were perhaps peculiar to a race group which had previously occupied the area and which had been replaced by a difference race group, thereby rendering those names inappropriate. We have unfortunately, however, had experience from some of his colleagues in regard to the question of naming and renaming streets. We have had it in regard to Defence at Voortrekkerhoogte, and we have had it in regard to the Railways. Now I do not want to suggest for a moment that the hon. the Minister is going to change Mohammed Ali Avenue to Blah Blah Road, or anything of that nature, but I do want to ask him how consultation will take place with the Administrator, and particularly with the local authority, which is not referred to in this amendment. There is reference here to the Administrator, but in most cases the local authority will be the body concerned, such as in Chatsworth, such as some of the streets in the Redhill area of Durban and the Riverside area of Durban, where streets have names which will be inappropriate for white occupation. How and to what extent will consultation take place with the local authority, in that case Durban, in regard to the renaming of any streets before the hon. the Minister exercises his power? I can assure him I am not asking for a Vause Raw Road, as was suggested that there be a Vause Raw Airport the other day.

I just want to tell the hon. member that he can quite appreciate that this is not merely a question of renaming streets whose names will be quite inappropriate in such a restored area. I just want to draw his attention to the fact that, when one has such an urban renewal area, one may find that there are entirely new streets. Existing streets may be built up and one may find that there are entirely new streets, and the object here is merely to grant the Development Board the power to assign names to those streets. If it will satisfy the hon. member in any way and if he wants to move an amendment to the effect that we should do this after consultation with the local authority or with the provincial authority, I shall be quite willing to do so. This is merely a practical measure for renaming streets in an appropriate manner. In a Coloured area one does not want streets with names which are offensive to them, just as little as one wants the reverse to be true. But the other important matter is that in these urban renewal schemes streets are being built up completely and that entirely new streets are made, and this is merely a practical proposal for assigning names to those streets. The hon. member for Durban (Point) does not want me ever to name a street after him, and as a gesture to him I promise that I, too, shall never name any street Blaar Coetzee Street.

Sir, I rise to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would consider accepting the following amendment: In line 40, after “Administrator” to add “and local authority”.

I have no objection.

If there is no local authority involved, then obviously there could be no consultation but if there is a local authority then that local authority would be consulted. I know that in most cities there is a committee which deals with this. Need I proceed?

No, I will accept that amendment.

I move accordingly—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

When this debate was adjourned I was putting a case to the hon. the Deputy Minister in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park to the effect that the subject of this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. On that Select Committee I think we would be able to deal with things at a higher level than certain members of this House are able to do at the moment.

Just what do you mean by that?

The hon. member knows what I mean. Sir, as I pointed out to the hon. the Deputy Minister, we have had representations from large producers who are worried that this legislation, in terms of which the Minister will be able to protect the small producers, may be to their detriment. I have had representations from small producers and from their organizations to the effect that this legislation is aimed at the small producers and that they will be squeezed out in favour of the larger producers. I have also had representations from housewives’ associations and from individual consumers. They are worried that both the Government and the Opposition are introducing legislation to protect the inefficient producer of table eggs at the expense of the housewife who will have to pay more for eggs. Sir, I want to say that it would be a tragedy if control of the table egg industry were to fall into the hands of a small group of large producers where monopolistic conditions would develop. This has not as yet developed. If we are to continue in the way in which the table egg industry has developed in this country during the last few years to the point where this year, it is estimated that the Egg Board would have to subsidize the export of eggs at a loss of about R3 million, then only one thing can happen. The levy on eggs must go up; this must adversely affect the consumer and this must adversely affect the country as a whole. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister does not want this to develop any more than I want to see it develop. We are agreed that a degree of control is necessary. We must have control. The argument now is what form that control should take. In the hon. the Minister’s introduction to the Second Reading he referred to a committee which he will consult before making decisions, I wish to quote him from his Hansard:

Is it the intention of the Minister to take the members of the committee entirely from the Egg Control Board? Will packer-producers or packer-traders not be represented on this committee? Will there be no representation for consumers on this committee? This question remains unanswered by the hon. the Minister and I submit that this House requires answers before it agrees to this measure which is before the House.

Now, to come back to the question of monopolistic conditions. There is a possibility that this may develop, particularly in Natal. We have the situation in Natal that over-production has virtually been negligible, but there has not been any real need for the control of production. There has been no need for control of production because the producers themselves have voluntarily restricted the increase in production? However, large and vested interests have come into the market and we find that this pattern is developing. From production figures for the month of July of the last three years, (we have not received the figures for July, 1970, as yet,) we can see the following pattern: In July, 1967, the egg surplus in the controlled area of Natal amounted to 65 cases of 30 dozen, which is negligible; in 1968 the surplus was 960 cases out of a total of 21,361 surplus cases which had been produced in the Republic. That was also negligible. However, despite the advertised programme of this large industry, we found that in 1969 the surplus in July, 1969 in Natal had risen to 2,844 cases, which is an increase of over 200 per cent in the surplus production only. Comparative figures for the other months show virtually the same trend, namely an increase of 150 to 200 per cent in the surplus production over a period of one calendar year, over the period 1968-’69. I will concede that these large industries which have come into the egg production business have not had to sell their eggs to the board. They have in fact not sold their eggs to the board. However, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that these large surpluses which were bought by the board were occasioned by these industries gate-crashing the market. It was argued by one particular industry that they were entering into an over-produced industry because they felt that the question was one of under-consumption and not over-prodduction. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister if we can stimulate consumption in South Africa, let us do so. In passing, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility of subsidizing our surplus eggs to the under-privileged people in South Africa rather than to export them and subsidize them to the producers in the other countries outside. I know I cannot proceed any further in this vein under this Bill, but I just leave it as a thought for the hon. the Deputy Minister’s consideration. But what have we found in regard to this question of under-consumption? This particular concern also said that it would hold prices at a lower level and that they will, therefore, increase the consumption of eggs. The Natal Commercial Poultry Producers’ Association has maintained the retail price for large eggs at 30c per dozen. This has been maintained continuously over the last two or three years. Eggs which are supplied by producers of the Natal Commercial Poultry Producers’ Association to various supermarkets are being sold in those supermarkets to-day, not as loss leaders at 28 and 29c per dozen. What is the position with those particular eggs which are produced by these large concerns who have gate-crashed the markets? These concerns maintained that by holding prices at a lower level they would increase the consumption of eggs. Those eggs are to-day distributed at 32c per dozen for large eggs, 2c per dozen higher than those that are sold by the distribution of the producers of the Natal Commercial Poultry Producers’ Association. This is the first argument in favour of control, namely that the consumer is not going to pay more for his eggs.

There is another angle as well. It concerns the R3 million by which we have to subsidize export of the surplus eggs. If we could bring the surpluses in South Africa within manageable proportions, surely the levy of 3c per dozen which is to-day paid by the consumer, can be taken off the price of eggs? Once again the consumer will benefit. Regarding the type of control the hon. the Minister is asking for now, I want to refer to what he said during his Second Reading speech. He said “Die voorgestelde beheer sal derhalwe geld net ten opsigte van produksie-eenhede van 10,000 of meer lêhenne.” Is it really the intention of the hon. the Minister to control only those units of more than 10,000 hens? There is a danger in regard to this. The hon. the Minister referred to “production units”. I want to put one of the fears which have been expressed to me, namely that these large organizations can establish, as has happened overseas, a number of production units of up to 10,000 birds each. Has the hon. the Minister thought of this? Will he be able to control this sort of development? Instead of an organization having one unit of 100,000 birds, it will then have ten units of 10,000 birds each marketing through one agnecy, which will virtually be one unit of a 100,000 birds.

The backbone of the poultry industry in South Africa is those producers who have between 6,000 and 8,000 birds. These are the men who are working as one-man farms. This is as many birds as one man can handle efficiently on a small holding. These are men who are making their living out of it and if the hon. the Minister is serious about not controlling units under 10,000, I wonder if we are not going to have just as much of a surplus developing with people having between 6,000 and 8,000 birds. I do not think it is necessary for me to labour these points about eggs. I think that all members of this House are agreed that a measure of control is necessary. The argument that has gone across this floor has been over the question of what form that control should take. We argue that the producers themselves should control their own industry, in the same way as the wattle and sugar producers control their own industries. The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head again. We have raised many arguments and there were also many raised by hon. members on his side of the House It is for this reason that I think the best thing that can happen to this Bill to-day, is that it should be referred to a Select Committee, a Select Committee which can hear all sides of the argument. I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister on Monday night about whether he has had any representations from consumers or from packer-traders? I do not believe that he has. I believe that these people would like to make representations to him in regard to this matter. I asked again that the hon. the Deputy Minister reconsider and accept the amendment of the hon. member for Newton Park and refer this Bill to a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in this House I sympathize with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). It is very clear that he is in favour of control, but he is hiding behind the excuse of a Select Committee, because he must save himself politically in the eyes of the big producers.

I am actually standing up specifically to reply to certain legal objections which the hon. member for Durban (North) raised in respect of this Bill. He acknowledged openly that he knows nothing about eggs, and then he did quite an egg dance in respect of certain legal provisions. His first objection was briefly the following, and I quote—

I deny this allegation by the hon. member most strongly. There is only one definitive principle contained in this Bill, i.e. the restriction on chicken egg production and relevant matters. The so-called “complete abandonment of any powers that Parliament ever had”, as he put it, is nothing more than a snide reference to the powers the Minister is requesting in clause 2 in order to make regulations for the promotion of the objectives of this legislation. But it is surely a recognized principle that an Act which is being placed on the Statute Book only forms the framework, and that it is rounded off further by regulations. What is more, we learned this from the Opposition’s predecessors when they were still in power, particularly as far as agricultural legislation is concerned. I shall not discuss these statutory provisions, but I just want to refer briefly, inter alia, to the following measures. As long ago as 1917 such an Act was passed in respect of agriculture, the so-called “Agricultural Produce Export Act” (Act No. 35 of 1917). I am referring to section 6 of this Act, which empowers the making of regulations for the promotion of the objectives of the Act. I shall now refer to another Act which the predecessors of the Opposition introduced as a Government, i.e. the Marketing Act (Act No. 26 of 1937). I am referring to section 43.

But to return to more recent times, I want to refer them specifically to section 9 of the Wine and Spirits Control Amendment Act (Act No. 23 of 1940).

You must listen to this now, Mike.

Yes, I am listening, but he is wrong.

No, Sir, I am not wrong. It was the hon. member who was wrong. Section 9 of this Act was inserted in 1957. This section specifically empowers the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Minister, to make regulations to control the production of wine. Mr. Speaker, this statutory amendment was passed in 1957. And the Opposition accepted it in toto. In other words, an Act which was being passed for similar circumstances, i.e. to counteract the over-production of wine, was passed at the time. Now the hon. Opposition comes along and objects to legislation which has precisely the same objectives. In addition to that, the hon. member for Durban (North) maintains that the hon. the Minister does not at this stage know how to deal with the situation. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself will most certainly furnish a reply to this, but I simply cannot imagine an hon. Deputy Minister coming to this House with prepared legislation without having thrashed out the matter in full detail with, in this case, the South African Poultry. Association and the Egg Control Board. Then, too, the hon. member for Durban (North) also objected to the wide powers which are, being allotted to the hon. the Minister in this legislation. I have already referred to the powers which Ministers had in terms of other legislation in regard to the issuing of regulations. But as far as this matter is concerned this legislation is fair in all respects. It is not only the Minister who will have powers in this connection. There is an officer who issues permits, there will be a committee which will make recommendations in regard to these permits, and in the last instance there is the right of appeal to the Minister. These are, in my opinion, all the elements necessary in such a case for efficient legislation. In addition, the hon. member for Durban (North) objected to clause 2 (1) (g), in terms of which regulations can suspend a statutory provision or the common law. This may perhaps sound like a far-reaching provision, but it is, in fact, a reasonable and necessary provision under these circumstances. Inter alia, it is the purpose of clause 2 (1) (g) to suspend the proviso to section 29 (2) of the Marketing Act. This suspension will enable the envisaged committee to make final recommendations in regard to restrictions directly to the prescribed officer. Without the suspension applications will have to be referred by the committee to the full-scale meetings of the Egg Control Board. This will definitely not be in the interests of the producers, and will be conducive to much delay. The hon. member for Durban (North) also objected to clause 2 (1) (j). He alleged that any person who committed a deed which, in the opinion of the Minister, obstructed the objectives of the Act, was committing an offence. But the hon. member is completely misinterpreting this provision. He is insinuating that the Minister, after an offence has been committed, can determine whether such a deed is an offence or not. That is not the case. Clause 2 (1) (j), read in its proper context, merely stipulates that the Minister may, in the regulations, define deeds which, in his opinion, will be an offence. A person’s deeds are then interpreted in terms of the written regulations issued, and these will be judged by a competent court and not by the Minister.

Read it again.

No, I have read it very carefully. The hon. member for Durban (North) is wrong in his interpretation of this paragraph.

The hon. member for Durban (North) also objected to clause 7, which grants. exemption to officials and others, provided they are acting in good fath. Here, again, the hon. Opposition is also being altogether illogical. I want to refer them to regulation 16 of Act No. 23 of 1940, the Wine and Spirits Control Amendment Act. Here the same type of indemnification is being granted by way of regulation. The Opposition voted for it at the time. Now we are granting that indemnification, not by way of regulation, but by law. Now the Opposition is objecting to it. That is all I want to say as far as the hon. member for Durban (North) is concerned.

I just briefly want to make certain general remarks about the Bill. As far as egg production in this country is concerned, we have a control system with a guaranteed floor price. As a result of his control system the risk of rapid expansion is not as great as in the case of a free system. Consequently surpluses increase alarmingly. I want to mention two figures to illustrate this. In 1965-’66 the Egg Control Board purchased 450,479 cases of 30 dozen eggs each. In 1969-’70 they were already compelled to purchase 668,294 cases of surplus eggs. The deficits, as a result of these purchases, increased as follows: In 1966-’67 it was R1,641,000. The provisional estimate for 1969-70 is at present R2,144,000. This rapid rate of increase indicates in what an impossible position one is going to place producers if this Bill must be referred to a Select Committee, and there is a further year’s delay in respect of the legislation. To aggravate the position further, the present market in Euromark countries is extremely poor, and the position, with respect to the exporting of surpluses, as far as the Republic is concerned, is very bleak. That is why very urgent steps are necessary to deal with the position.

In addition I want to refer to the threat which certain powerful companies are now creating in the industry. I want to mention certain cases. I shall not mention names, but I have 100 per cent proof for the facts I shall state. I want to mention the case of one company which had 300,000 laying hens. According to Press reports this company wanted to expand the number to one million. This means, of course, 700,000 extra laying hens. Let us view the implications for the industry of this one company’s envisaged expansion. 700,000 extra laying hens means an extra 400,000 to 500,000 cases of eggs a year, of which the major portion will be surplus. If the Egg Control Board were to purchase an additional 500,000 cases, this would mean an additional deficit of R1,750,000 a year in exports, calculated at R3.50 per case.

In addition I want to make the statement that in many cases the increasing of surpluses is economic folly. We could sooner sell and export products such as maize and fishmeal directly, rather than to use them in egg production and then to sell the eggs at a great loss. Then the question is asked about whether large surpluses are not in the consumer’s interests, and once more I want to say that, according to long-term calculations, uncontrolled production is not in the consumer’s interests. At present one has a normal levy of ½ cent per dozen, and a special levy, to cover losses, of 2½ cents, but larger surpluses would mean larger levies, and a portion of these levies will have to be carried by the consumer. It surely goes without saying, and the argument has already been used, that if one allows large companies to expand without control, they will create monopolistic conditions at a later stage, and this would also be to the detriment of the consumer.

In addition, I want to acknowledge the argument that large industries do not necessary produce more efficiently and more cheaply. Here I once more want to mention a specific case, the case of a large company in the broiler chicken industry which also has other big interests. According to their financial statements, they have for years been writing off a R30,000 annual deficit on their broiler chicken industry against their enormous profits in other spheres. They are therefore not obviously so efficient. But in my opinion large companies, at times, also create unreasonable competition with the ordinary bona fide farmer in other respects. I want to mention here the case of a feed company. Without showing any profit on its eggs, it is still making enormous profits on its feed. The proposed control will not be oppressive. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already intimated that up to 10,000 laying hens will not be subject to permission, and limited expansion of 10,000 hens a year will automatically be granted. This control, which the Minister proposes, reflects a much more reasonable position than that in New Zealand To tell the truth, New Zealand is, as far as I know, the only other country where there is total control; and if we compare this Bill, and the proposed implementation of it, with the position in New Zealand, we have very reasonable and enlightened legislation which the hon. the Minister is bringing before the House. In New Zealand, where there is full control, that control is much more drastic. It includes, for example, all small units, and the annual increases that are granted are very small; and they apparently have a ceiling of 20,000 laying hens. They are also very severe as far as their penalty clause is concerned. In New Zealand the fine for a violation is five dollars per laying hen, which in principle and in amount is far more drastic than the penalty clause we have here.

Taking all the circumstances into account, I think that the chicken farmers and the consumers, and all the interested parties, ought to be grateful to the hon. the Minister and the Department for the legislation he is coming alone with here, and we ought to pass the legislation.

The hon. member for Kroonstad objected to the objections raised by my hon. collague from Durban (North), and he mentioned certain agricultural legislation introduced by the United Party and the old United Party in the past, and he drew comparisons between that legislation and the legislation that is before us to-day. I can assure him that nowhere in any of that legislation will he find a clause where the common law is suspended without reference back to this hon. House. Secondly the hon. member knows as well as I do, or any other hon. member of this House, that the clauses in the Wine and Spirits Act were introduced at the request of the wine producers, therefore by the farmers themselves. So, the argument does not hold water, and in addition it is a committee that fixes the quotas in the wine industry About the objections to clause 2 (1) (j), I just want to state that when it comes to the word “powers” the Minister can delegate his powers to a committee, a board or an inspector. But how can he delegate his judgment? It is all a matter of the delegation of power, and it is impossible to transfer one’s judgment to another body or to another person. In addition, the hon. member also spoke of the position in New Zealand. We on this side of the House also consulted egg producers, and they gave us certain information. This is contained here in a letter, and I want to quote from it—

And now I come to the point—

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has studied the minority report of Mr. Oosthuizen, the minority report on the combatting of surplus production, dated 2nd April, 1970, because a very comprehensive study was made here. I do not want to quote it all, but there are certain extracts that are of importance. One of these is in paragraph 10 of the report and reads as follows (translation)—

Sir, this gentleman stated the case very comprehensively. I do think that there is, in fact a problem in South Africa, as the hon. member for Newton Park and all our other speakers on this side have said, and this is the question of big businesses. Because what can happen to big businesses, even under this Bill? I want to quote further from this letter which we obtained from a leading producer. He states here in the same letter from which I quoted a moment ago—

That is what can happen. Mr. Speaker, let us now look at the Bill itself. In clause 2 (1) (e) provision is made for an appeal to the Minister. I feel that this is really inconsistent with clause 2 (1) (g), because in terms of 2 (1) (g) the Minister has the right to suspend the provisions of one or other law or of the common law in general. These are things that can happen if the Minister is in a bad mood one morning when the appeal is brought before him. If one reads the clause correctly, he is really obtaining more power here than the Bureau for State Security. That Bureau does not have the right to suspend the common law. In addition, in terms of clause 3 the Minister may designate persons as inspectors who are subject to the Minister’s control, in order to do various things. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not already have this right through the Egg Board and in terms of the Marketing Act? Is it necessary to pass additional legislation? I feel that those rights already exist to a certain extent, and that under the Marketing Act they could be expanded by a notification in the Government Gazette.

Sir, now we come to another point, and here we come closer to the core of the argument. Clause 2 (1) (f) provides that the Minister may confer upon the Board—I take it that is the Egg Board—in addition to its powers under any other law (presumably the provisions of the Marketing Act) such powers as may in the opinion of the Minister be necessary for the purposes of this Act. In this Bill provision is being made for a committee; provision is being made for powers for inspectors and for certain powers for the Minister. The only place in the Bill where the Egg Board is mentioned is in clause 2 (1) (f) and in the definitions. Who is going to exercise the control? Is it going to be the Minister himself; is it going to be the committee; is it going to be the inspectors, is it going to be the Board or is it going to be a hotch-potch? We in South Africa are inclined to appoint too many committees and too many boards. As I see it, this whole egg business could hatch out a lot of ostriches. In addition, does the Marketing Council have no say when we have to issue special legislation conferring powers on the Egg Control Board? Does the Marketing Council then have no say over this system that was requested? If that is the case, it is not defined here, and that being the case, I feel it to be a motion of no confidence in this Council, which has done so much in the past for the agriculture in South Africa. Let us take a brief look at the preamble of this Bill. It is to provide for the restriction of the production of eggs in certain circumstances and for other incidental matters. If we look at the preamble of the Marketing Act, which will also have to be applicable in this case, we see that it was introduced to make provision for the regulation of the production and sale of agricultural products; for the establishment of certain boards in connection therewith, and for grading, etc. It may be argued that there is a difference between the words “regulation” and “restriction”, but as I see it one can also restrict in terms of the word “regulation”. If we look further we shall see in the definitions of the Marketing Act that “controlling board”, “producer”, “agricultural product” and even “egg” are defined there. We know that the Bill under discussion deals with the control of egg production, in other words, the combatting of egg production. We know that an Egg Control Board has already been in existence for many years. However, nowhere in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s introductory speech did he explain to us how this Board was going to fit into the new system that is now being requested. Nowhere did he tell us that the Egg Control Board wanted this legislation. Neither did he say whether it was going to be the Board or the committee which was going to implement this measure, and whether the Egg Control Board as such was going to obtain representation on that committee, in case it is, in fact to be the controlling board. Except in that one clause there is no reference anywhere to representation, liaison or co-operation with the Egg Control Board. It is not mentioned anywhere. One would think that this committee, when it is established, would work in close co-operation with the Egg Board, and that the Board itself would be more explicitly defined in the legislation. It is perhaps also a question of no-confidence in the Egg Board, or perhaps it is because the hon. the Minister feels dissatisfied with what the Board has done in the past. In terms of the Marketing Act the hon. the Minister could have made all the regulations necessary, and appointed all the inspectors necessary, by way of notification in the Government Gazette. He could have amended the present scheme and promulgated new and additional regulations.

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

I do not have time for questions. Here we now sit with legislation that is ignoring that Board altogether. I almost want to say that it. is treating the Board with contempt. Is the Egg Board then going to be done away with? If the Board is going to be done away with, this legislation is definitely proof of something that goes deeper, something of national significance, something, which, from the nature of the case, is a motion of no confidence in the National Government itself. I have already mentioned that the Minister has the right in terms of the Marketing Act to amend this scheme and to promulgate new regulations by way of notification in the Government Gazette, but he also has additional rights. The Minister also has the right to veto nominations for appointments in any control board. He has the final say about who will be appointed to these boards, not only as a member of the Board, but also as director. If a board does not carry out its functions in full, I see it as a question to which the Minister will have to reply.

Where in the Marketing Act is production controlled?

The Marketing Act is there to make provision for the regulation of production. Can control not be exercised under the word “regulation”?

No.

It can. And it is also being done, not only by the control boards, but even by certain co-operative societies as well. It is being done by way of a quota system. I shall also mention one to the hon. the Deputy Minister, i.e. United Dairies, which uses a quota system for which the farmers asked. There is no special legislation to implement that quota system.

That is a quota system.

But it is still controlling production. That is, in fact, one of the methods being used, and it is, in my opinion, altogether unnecessary to bring this legislation before the House. I agree wholeheartedly with the motion of the hon. member for Newton Park, to the effect that the entire matter be referred to a Select Committee in order to gather further information.

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Newton Park and also to other hon. members on that side of the House I asked myself who the Opposition was actually wanting to bluff. They all say that in principle they are in favour of control, but immediately after that they oppose it. The hon. member for Newton Park said that on that side they were in favour of control, and that they wanted to protect the small producer, but then again he spoke of a Select Committee. Another hon. member spoke of a letter from consumers which stated that they wanted cheap eggs. In reviewing the speeches of hon. members opposite, I am amazed that people can speak so divergently. Why do hon. members opposite want to delay this Bill with a Select Committee? What is their purpose in doing this? Let us now be frank. They want to do so in order to give those producers who want to expand the opportunity to do so. After all, it takes a few months before a Select Committee issues its report. By then those companies would already have expanded and this Bill would no longer be of any use.

Did you not freeze the production?

We froze the production in February, but that cannot be continued while a Select Committee is sitting on this matter. Hon. members opposite know for themselves what happens in practice. When this Bill is approved by a Select Committee, these companies will say that they have already ordered equipment and that we must make concessions. I know precisely what happens in such cases and who visits those people. We are now talking very frankly, and I shall mention the names in a moment. And now the hon. member for Albany actually asks whether the Egg Control Board asked for this legislation! There are one or two large producers on the Egg Control Board who are opposed to the legislation. I am here to protect the smaller man. Let us understand one another now. The hon. member for Newton Park also asked how the Egg Control Board was composed. After all, the producers are in the majority on the Egg Control Board. The hon. member asked whether the Bill was being introduced at the request of the producers. Does the hon. member think that this Government would put forward such legislation if the Poultry Association and the Egg Control Board did not want it? And now the hon. member actually asks one whether the egg producers want this Bill! I ask again, who does the Opposition want to bluff? They want to pose here as people who want the legislation. They must remember that we are also going to discuss things with the farmers. We. are now coming to the stage when we are going to do straight talking. We are going to tell the farmers that this Government’s standpoint, is that if it says it is going to take over control then it does not do it half-heartedly.

The hon. member for Durban (North) delivered, I might almost say, a terrible swansong here on the impossibility of interfering with the rights of Parliament. He said that we wanted to make a regulation in a dark little room in Pretoria, and not here in the light of Cape Town, in Parliament.

Is that not true?

Good heavens, Mr. Speaker, the entire Bill deals only with eggs. We are not interfering with the rights of Parliament. But what did the United Party Government do in 1940 with the Wine and Spirits Control Amendment Act? I read in section 9—

That is stated in the Wine Act, which was introduced in 1940 by the then Minister of Agriculture. It is identical to this measure. Now this is allegedly being done in a dark little room in Pretoria.

That was during the war years!

Yes, that was during the war! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) stood up here last week and said, “I asked for this Bill”. Can the hon. member believe that he said, “I asked for this Bill”?

Did I not?

The hon. member now says: “Did I not?” He asked for the Bill. He says so. Two years ago the hon. member made a plea here for a levy on chicks. Does he remember that? During this sitting the hon. member asked me three times: “When are you coming along with that Egg Act?” That is what he asked me. But he never once intimated to me that he wanted this Bill. They are people who are sitting on a fence and who incline towards the big producer on the one hand, but when it comes to the poor small farmer they are his pals. That is the kind of argument that is being used here.

Order! What does the hon. the Deputy Minister mean by “pals”?

Chums!

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Kroonstad. I regarded him as my legal representative to-day, because one by one he clearly refuted those allegations made by the hon. member for Durban (North). There are certain of the matters in respect of which we shall furnish hon. member with replies in the Committee Stage, particularly in respect of the hon. member for Albany’s question about the composition of the committee. We shall reply to them on those matters, but in every instance the Egg Control Board is consulted in the matter. It is in no way our intention to move a motion of no confidence in the Egg Control Board. After all, they are asking for this legislation. One must take the entire control board into consideration, and not only one big producer.

It is not necessary to waste time on this matter. I want to thank the Opposition, and everyone on this side of the House, for the opportunity they gave me to tell the small producer, the man who cannot afford to add more than 10,000 hens a year to his unit. “Man, we have come to light with positive legislation, no matter how drastic it may be. We have one task, and that is to protect the man who inherently makes agriculture his fundamental task, his work and his livelihood, against the powerful, moneyed companies that will engulf and swallow up the small man and cause a monopolistic condition to develop.” For that reason I say thank you to the Opposition for having opposed this Bill wholeheartedly, and for the fact that it is on record that this side of the House is there to protect the agriculturist, and not the large companies.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that I shall move tomorrow that the Committee of the whole House on the Egg Production Bill have leave to consider the advisability of making provision therein for establishing a committee with the power to restrict the production of eggs.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout yesterday. May I say that I think some of the remarks made by that hon. member were most unfortunate. They were not only unfortunate, but in my opinion at least one of his remarks was not in the best interest of South Africa.

I refer to the following words in his speech—

I think this remark was unpatriotic, uncalled for and decidedly not becoming to a frontbencher and a shadow Minister on that side.

That is nonsense and you are a fool.

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

Is it unparliamentary? Then I withdraw it.

If he had taken the trouble to ask for it, the hon. member could very easily have obtained the correct information concerning the Minister’s visit to London. The hon. member later tried to get away from his nasty remark by saying that he was referring to the impression which had been created in the Press. His real words, however, are very clear, where he stated that they had certain misgivings—“ons het ernstige bedenkinge”. I think the hon. member Owes the hon. the Minister and South Africa an apology. If he is not prepared to do this, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should get up here and repudiate his shadow Minister in the interests of South Africa. Hon. members on that side are always very sensitive to accusations from this side that they are not very careful about creating the right image of South Africa and when their patriotism is challenged. But here we have the example of a very unpatriotic remark made by that hon. member, and if it is not repudiated it will surely be used against him in future.

What I did not like about that hon. member’s speech was the element of bitterness it contained and, more important, the personal attack he made on the hon. the Minister. Does the hon. member expect from this Minister that he should get up here to tell this Committee and the people of South Africa that because of outside pressure we have to abandon our traditional way of life and that we have to prepare ourselves for integration and for a political set-up of one man, one vote? If that is what the hon. member expected from the Minister, he will have to wait a very long time. But the total impression left by that hon. member’s speech is that that is exactly the type of statement he would make should he become Minister of Foreign Affairs, because that is the only type of statement that would alleviate external pressure.

No, this Minister is the last person to deserve such a bitter personal attack, because everybody in this House as well as everybody inside and outside South Africa knows that South Africa could never wish for a more capable, a more tactful and a more dedicated Minister of Foreign Affairs. What he deserves is not negative criticism, but respect and gratitude from everybody in South Africa, because what we have achieved in so far as progress in our international relations is concerned, can mainly be attributed to his dedication, his ability, his sound judgment, his dignity and his personal charm. Wherever he goes he is admired and respected and he wins friends for South Africa. It is a well-known fact that through his personal efforts we have gained the friendship and the co-operation of most of the South American countries, I sincerely hope that for many years to come South Africa will still be fortunate enough to. have the benefit of the excellent services of the hon. the Minister.

Sir, there is one more remark made by that hon. gentleman to which I want to refer. He said, inter alia—

Sir, I think that that remark too is not to the benefit of South Africa. I wish to draw that hon. member’s attention to the fact that as far as the policy of this Government is concerned, the white man is not to hold a position of dominance over the black man. In theory and practice our policy of multi-national development is very emphatic on this point. Almost all the different non-white nations have already been put on the road to self-determination …

And the Coloureds and the Indians?

… and as soon as it is practicable and desirable to do so they will become independent nations. No, Sir, it is in terms of that party’s policy that the white man will occupy a position of everlasting dominance over the black people of South Africa. That is something that hon. members on that side will have to explain to the outside world should fate be so cruel as to allow the Opposition party to form the Government of this country. That is the albatross, Sir. that we on this side do not want on our shoulder.

Sir, I wish to associate myself with the Minister’s appeal to the young people of South Africa to take a keener and more active interest in the external relations of our country, especially as far as the speedier and stronger implementation of our policy to establish friendly relations with African states is concerned. This I regard as, our most difficult but also as our most important task in the new decade. If is a task which call for the patience, the tact and the wisdom of the older generation but also for the courage, determination and the vision of the younger generation. Sir, what finer, what more noble, what more challenging, task can we entrust to the young people of South Africa than to ask them to come forward and to assist us within the framework of our policy to render assistance to the black people of Africa and thus win friends for South Africa?

Should our young people ignore the Minister’s appeal they may find in a few years that it may be too late to save this country for themselves and for their children. We know that a develish and ruthless campaign of hatred is being conducted against South Africa by communist-inspired organizations. I am convinced that there is a very close relation between our continued existence as a white nation in this country and the success achieved by the hon. the Minister and his Department in counteracting this unreasonable crusade of hatre against South Africa. The communists not only realize the strategic value of the Cape in their scheme for world domination but they also realize that South Africa, together with Rhodesia and the Portuguese provinces, is the bastion of the South which stands between them and complete communist domination of the whole of Africa. [Time expired.]

Sir, in his remarks the hon. member for Algoa referred to two points which I think require comment. The first of these is his reference to the rôle of the Opposition in this House when Foreign Affairs are discussed. This is a point with which I will be dealing at some greater length and I leave it there for the moment. His other remark was that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had made a bitter and personal attack on the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and I heard nothing that was bitter; I heard nothing that was personal in his remarks. He criticized the hon. the Minister. I no doubt will also make some remarks which are critical of the hon. the Minister, but I have the highest regard for the hon. the Minister and I would be most offended if anyone suggested that my criticisms of his policy were inspired by bitterness or personal animosity. I think we must distinguish between these two things.

Sir, in his speech last evening the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs made several statements of significance. His statement on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and his other statement on terrorism we greatly welcomed for they showed a real awareness of the two most critical attacks at present being launched against South Africa, and a determination to face up to the facts.

In dealing with the third point at some length, that is, the attempts to isolate South Africa, the hon. the Minister showed in our view a rather less realistic approach—what might almost be described, as a sense of complacency—which caused us some concern, There was in our view a tendency to create delusions about South Africa’s place in the world, or its place in relation to isolation, by the careful employment of selected facts and special quotations. I refer, for example, to his reference to Mr. Peregrine Worsthorne of the Daily Telegraph. Mr. Worsthorne is a commentator of a most conservative newspaper in England, and his remarks were to the effect that the racial war was not only about morality but that it was also being used in the struggle against the West. Well, Sir, this is an entirely unexceptionable remark; we go along with it but it really does not prove the hon. the Minister’s point at all which was to the effect that we are not being isolated. He quoted Mrs. Doxey as a Canadian. My information is that she is a South African working in Canada. On this point I could also quote remarks by Mrs. Doxey which prove precisely the opposite of what the hon. the Minister was trying to prove last night. He took a remark by President Nixon out of its highly critical context to prove that in fact the opposite was true, and by and large I thought it was a piece of patch-work which was designed to prove something which is really not the case. We all know that there is a danger of South Africa being isolated, and I thought that to speak with complacency about this was entirely wrong and even harmful.

Sir, before I examine the statement further I should like to recall the hon. the Minister’s approving remarks about what he called the responsible attitude of the Opposition in its approach to foreign affairs. It would obviously be a great advantage to the Government if it could depend on the Opposition never to criticize its conduct of foreign affairs. In this way there would be removed from the area of domestic dispute a most important field of public policy where, in the eyes of many students of international affairs, the effectiveness of this Government’s conduct is by no means beyond doubt. It is certainly true that the official Opposition have never sought to weaken such good relations as South Africa still retains with other countries, and it is equally true that the Opposition never seeks to embarrass the Government in any constructive attempt it may make to improve such good relations. In this sense there is obviously no conflict of purpose, and while one cannot speak of a bipartisan policy, for that would clearly imply some degree of continuous consultation or common councils which do not exist, it is entirely right to say that we do make common cause with the Government in its constructive endeavours. The Government is therefore fully justified in counting on the support of the Opposition in advancing South Africa’s foreign interests and in defending South Africa from foreign attacks. This does not for one moment mean that the Government should count on our silent acquiescence when it fails to advance South Africa’s interests or when it inadequately defends them against attack. So it was that the hon. the Minister felt it right to make what I will quite mildly describe as a rather abusive qualification regarding the Opposition. He denied that the Opposition was entitled to state its concern about South Africa’s isolation. He prefaced this by referring to the need for both young and old in this country to be aware of the dangers which threaten us. I quote from his Hansard:

He went on to say:

Then, speaking of South Africa’s isolation, he said:

This seems to us somewhat of an understatement in the light of the statements which not only the hon. the Minister has made, but which other hon. members have also made in regard to the dangers which threaten South Africa. When the Opposition draws attention to the danger of isolation as one of the main threats with which South Africa is faced, the hon. the Minister attacks the Opposition and their attitude in the following, way, and I quote:

That means you enjoy it. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister claimed that we should all be well aware of the dangers, but he denies the right of the Opposition to say so. He concedes that the Opposition acts responsibly in its approach to foreign affairs, but he claims at the same time that we take pleasure in South Africa’s isolation. The accusation is both contradictory and unjust. It is clearly inconsistent with the whole philosophy and outlook of this side of the House, so much so that I do not propose to waste any more time on it.

What I want to say to the hon. the Minister is that if he habitually uses such offensive words, whether deliberately or inadvertently, to those who support him in a common cause, then heaven help our diplomacy! We insist on our right to conduct this debate and to speak frankly in the interests of South' Africa, because foreign affairs is a most important field of public policy. I wish to emphasize this point, for there still seems to be a widespread belief that foreign affairs is separate from domestic affairs, that foreign policy is concerned with secret things which happen elsewhere. that we should not discuss these matters in Parliament and that our international relations are extra-territorial matters which bear no relation to our internal welfare and prosperity. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the hon. member fop Von Brandis is a faint shadow of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Just as other hon. members on that side do, he sees South Africa’s position only through very dark glasses. Apparently he had not progressed very far with his speech before I had to reply to it, but I got the impression yesterday evening when I was listening to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that they only see problems for South Africa in the future. The National Party on the other hand sees the seventies as a challenge to make a final breakthrough, particularly here in Africa.

The sixties began with steps to isolate us, particularly after Sharpeville. The seventies, however, began on a very favourable note, i.e. an historic visit made by the South African premier to an independent black state in Africa, Malawi. I say therefore that the National Party really sees this dawning decade as that decade in which a breakthrough can be made and must be made in our relations with African countries. We must expect that the type of onslaught which is being made to-day by U Thant and the type of resolutions which are being adopted when the meetings of the Organization for African Unity take place, or by the Colonialism Committee, will occur because these people are in fact realizing that South Africa is making a breakthrough in Africa. They are doing so because the success of our foreign relations is becoming apparent to them. For that very reason we must expect that the attacks against us will become all the more intensified. The test however, is not the attacks which are being made, but whether we are really isolated and whether we can really be isolated. The interest in the Republic of South Africa is also based on the fact that here in our own fatherland and in Southern Africa, we find ourselves in a position which is in fact a reflection of the world’s position. We are dealing here with a developed nation as against less developed nations, which is a world problem. We are dealing here with a small white minority as against a large non-white majority. This ratio is also a world problem. That is why we must expect that what happens in the Republic of South Africa and what happens in other parts of Southern Africa, and particularly; too, our relations towards independent black countries in Africa will continue to stimulate the interest not only of our enemies, but also of our friends. Our methods and our success in creating peaceful coexistence here in the Republic of South Africa and in Southern Africa will be followed with close attention by our friends and our enemies throughout the world. It may possibly indicate what the future of the world is going to he and whether it is going to be possible for developed nations to have a method of coexistence with the under-developed nations. This will indicate whether it will be possible for the white minority in the world to live in peace with the far greater non-white majority.

Our primary objective is not to establish good relations with independent States in Africa solely for the sake of the propaganda value. Our objective is to have those good relations because they are absolutely necessary for us. They are necessary for us in the first instance because we want peace here in Southern Africa. We do not want communistic intrusion here. We will then be able to utilize our joint forces to do what is necessary and in that way to create a high standard of living for all our people. Our second objective is, however, to take a collective look at those problems which are collectively being experienced in Southern Africa and then to apply our collective energies to deal with those problems and to try in this way to create for all the different nations living together here a higher standard of living.

I just want to point out, briefly, certain of our collective problems. I have already mentioned that it is our common problem to see to it that communist intrusion does not take place here in Southern Africa. I think the best way to combat Communism in Southern Africa is probably to ensure prosperity here. For that reason the best mode of attack against communistic intrusion is to try to establish a high standard of living for all nations in all countries here at the southernmost point of Africa. We can only achieve a high standard of living if we all realize, not only those with whom we already have friendly co-operation, but also a state such as Zambia, that it is in our own interests to ensure that our own people have a higher standard of living, that every country should also join its own forces with those of other nations that are already on the road to peaceful co-operation.

In the first place I want to point out that we have one collective problem in this sense that all of us are producing for the most part primary products, whether agricultural products or minerals. Having to find an outlet for those minerals and those other primary products on the world markets is therefore our collective problem. Even if we did not purchase from one another and in this way create an economic community, we could nevertheless through co-operation, by supporting each other, also as far as marketing throughout the world is concerned, do one another a service; for Zambia, too, will have to realize, with the proper discoveries which are being made in the Republic of South Africa, as well as those which have been made in the past, that it would also pay them to co-operate with South Africa in the future marketing of this product in the world. It is also a fact that trade blocs have come to stay: The European Trade Bloc will most certainly not cast its net further afield to include all the countries here in Africa as well, nor the Latin American or Central American countries. That is why it is in the interests of all nations situated here at the southernmost point of Africa to move slowly in that direction, so that we may ultimately perhaps be able to have a trade bloc here as well, so that we can confer on a collective basis When we are trying to find a market for our products in other trade blocs in the world.

I find it gratifying, if we consider the import and export figures of South Africa for the first five months of this year and compare these to those of the first five months of last year, to see that our imports from Africa have increased by 40 per cent, by far the greatest increase as far as our imports from all quarters of the world are concerned. I think this increase is more than twice as much as our increase in imports from any other part of the world. But as far as our exports are concerned, we find that for the first five months of this year, compared to the exports of the first five months of last year, there has been a decrease of approximately 6 per cent. This is the only decrease which South Africa had as far as its exports to all parts of the world are concerned. This means that South Africa is in fact favouring its friends here in Africa, actually in order to create a market here for them, and also in this way to support them, because many of these products South Africa could most certainly have obtained from other parts of the world as well.

I also want to point out that as far as means of communication are concerned, it is essential that there should be co-operation here in Southern Africa. Not only does South Africa envisage exporting iron ore on a large scale to other countries, but Angola is already engaged in exporting iron ore from Mossamedes to Europe and Japan.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when my time expired, I was dealing with the situation in foreign affairs, and in particular with the relationship between foreign affairs and domestic affairs. I said that to believe that there is no relationship between domestic matters and extra-territorial matters is to misunderstand the whole nature and significance of foreign affairs and to be completely unaware of the nature of the shrinking world in which we live.

The world is rapidly shrinking in the sense that there is an ever-increasing flow of people, materials and ideas across national frontiers. Rapid communications are creating a world in which distance is reckoned not in kilometres or in time, but simply in the cost of getting there. And the cost is of little significance for the prosperity which is generated by this intercourse, by the global markets, and more than justifies, and indeed, demands, that increasing individual contacts should take place and that closer organizational links should be forged. As the world shrinks in size, so are foreign relations broadening in scope and context. The international bridges are being shortened. But as they are being shortened. But as they are being shortened, so are they being widened. They are being prepared to admit a volume and variety of traffic undreamed of a generation ago. Foreign policy is therefore concerned with the regulation of affairs which extend far beyond but also deep within the national frontiers.

Even though these new dimensions are now fairly universally accepted, there nevertheless remain three principal ways in which foreign policy might be described, three different ways in which countries respond to this challenge. The first of these is by a policy of isolation. I refer here not to the policy which some others attempt to practise against us, but to its internal counterpart, where some people within our country wish to cut off all contact with the world outside. We are all aware of the body of opinion which believes that South Africans can live in isolation from the rest of the human race; that every foreign contact which may modify our present way of life is harmful. We have heard some such views during the debate on tourism. These people believe that any compromise with the outside world involves an unacceptable loss of sovereignty.

Here I would like to pay a tribute to the hon. the Minister for the part he is playing in moving away from such policies. I have had the pleasure of being closely associated with him in foreign affairs in London and elsewhere. I can attest, despite the few remarks I felt obliged to make earlier, to the considerable effort both he and his Department have made to retain and to reconstruct South Africa’s links with the outside world. I hope, therefore, that he will regard my further remarks, critical though one or two of them may be, as support for his best endeavours and as an attack on those things which may frustrate his efforts.

I have referred to the isolationist view. The second category, which I shall call the negative defensive attitude, is one where a country accepts that it is inevitably a part of the world community but where it reacts to international events in an essentially negative way. Such a country is well aware of what is going on around it. It knows that it may be affected by these events but its immediate reflex is to take cover. Its reactions may take such forms as an obsession with a purely legalistic defence of its domestic jurisdiction, a withdrawal from international organizations; an exaggerated sensitivity to foreign criticism accompanied by the censorship of foreign ideas, an irrational fear of television and stringent visa and passport controls.

The House has heard a great deal about tennis players, cricket players and jockeys. I do not propose to go into all that. I want to talk instead about a South African playwright whose inability to attend his play in New York has been made known in America to millions of people through television and the newspapers and is recalled nightly to hundreds of people at the theatre. Here we have a case where the political disfavour in which the playwright may find himself is apparently insufficient to justify any prosecution or public censure. But it is nevertheless sufficient to warrant an infringement of his personal and artistic freedom. This, I believe, has brought South Africa greater harm than could be repaired by 10 million dollars of State Information money. This sort of thing imprints an indelible image on our foreign affairs. The foreign policy of a country which is prejudiced in this way by the actions of, shall we say at random, the Ministers of the Interior, Police, and Sport and even by utterances of the hon. the Minister of Mines, is in constant trouble. In these circumstances the diplomatic activity of such a country tends to be characterized increasingly by formal protest, stereotyped defensive postures and the ritual gestures of protocol.

The third category of foreign policy to which I should like to refer is what I would call “the positive constructive”. It recognizes the shrinking world which I have described and seeks ways in which our country may benefit from the great commerce in people, in trade and in ideas. It approach is essentially constructive for its purpose is to pacify disputes, to remove obstacles, to open the way to a wider and more productive human intercourse. Where its own interests conflict with others, it unceasingly seeks to negotiate settlements which allow both parties to disengage peacefully and honourably from the dispute. Now, we must admit in all frankness that there are unfortunately very few countries where foreign affairs are wholly conducted on this basis. Yet the standard I described is by no means utopian for it is a standard no higher than that which ordinary civilized people try to observe in the conduct of their personal affairs. There are hopeful signs, notably in Western Europe—the European community—and in countries such as Japan, where these standards are coming to be accepted as the main theme of their diplomatic intercourse with the rest of the world. If their attitude becomes more general there will be far less need for other far more utopian plans such as a world parliament, the abrogation of national sovereignty and an international police force to punish transgressors of the law of nations. It is these things which are truly impracticable in the climate of our times.

Be that as it may, the fact is that the foreign policies of most countries contain elements in varied degrees of these three kinds of approach, namely the isolationist, the negative-defensive and the positive-constructive. It is by the extent to which the Government in the conduct of its foreign policy is able to emphasize the third of these, to move from the second to the third and to abandon the first, that the Opposition will judge with growing approval the conduct of our foreign affairs. [Time expired.]

Earlier this evening the hon. member for Von Brandis levelled criticism at the hon. the Minister to the effect that he was, in his conduct here in the House, being complacent about or indifferent to the dangers threatening us. In addition he also spoke to-night about the negative attitude which we are adopting in respect of the threat from abroad and he also mentioned that it was the domestic policy of this country which was primarily responsible for the growing pressure against, and isolation of this country. I should like to give him the assurance that the speech made by the hon. the Minister yesterday evening was the most positive speech we have ever had on our foreign policy, and not only the most positive, but also a speech which inspired every member on this side of the House and convinced us further that we were acting correctly at home as well as abroad.

I should like to describe to these hon. friends and everyone in the House the symbolism of the National Party and this Government’s policy in respect of Africa in terms of a painting which hangs in that dining hall we have all just left. The painting is hanging there against the wall and as you all know, it represents the first Cabinet of the Republic of South Africa. Every time I look at it I cannot stop thinking of what it means for us in regard to Africa. In the first place it is the Cabinet which personifies or symbolizes the Government of this country, that is South Africa, in all its facets. And after they had finished discussing matters of domestic importance, the late Dr. Verwoerd stood up and walked over to the map of Africa and held his outstretched hand over that map while he looked directly at the present Prime Minister standing to one side, apart from the others. His hand was there; it was not a fist, and when you look at that painting again, you will see that there is little shadow and that Africa is depicted there in one colour, without any shadows. And then he addressed these words to his colleagues: “This is your task, and this is as we see Africa.” I want to return to a quotation from a speech made by the late Prime Minister on 15th September 1961 at the inauguration of the J. G. Strydom building for engineering in Pretoria, when he said the following—

And then he went on to say—

And then he said in conclusion—

And this is what I see in that painting, goodwill and friendship, and what we are giving —and this was the directive to the Cabinet members—is to help those nations in Africa with friendship by means of a double highway two-way traffic. We can help them. Beneath his arm is the Minister of Transport. It is essential to have contact with all these countries, and in the first instance communication is necessary. Through his presence there it symbolizes that means of transport must be established to keep contact with those countries through the air, by sea and also by land. He looked further and saw the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and Agricultural Technical Services there. We who have developed far, have this to give those people, knowledge in this age of population explosions, to help those people through an exchange of knowledge and through advice. And so, too, the Minister of Economic Affairs is involved in this and we are already seeing the fruits of that in the joint effort with certain states in Africa in the Cabora-Bassa scheme and the Kunene scheme on the left hand and the right hand of Africa. And that is our task. As our present Prime Minister so rightly said, too, we are of Africa, we are an irremovable part of Africa, and we who have enjoyed the blessings of Africa over the years, must also pologh back part of these blessings. But the reaction of these Africa countries are not all the same. You have heard the hon. the Minister mention that unabated attempts are being made to take positive steps to demonstrate our goodwill and friendship towards other states who do not yet want to accept us.

I should like to suggest to-night to these Africa states, since the Organization for African Unity is at present meeting, that they should give serious consideration to inviting the Republic of South Africa as well to become a member of their organization, and I shall tell you why. If we examine the first article of the manifesto of the Organization for African Unity, we find the following—

With that we agree—

And characteristically it does not say “member states” but “of states”. And thirdly—

And with this we have no fault to find. This is part of the manifesto of that organization and you can judge for yourself how far they have deviated from this. In view of this course we are adopting in regard to Africa, there are in my opinion four challenges which we here in the Republic must take up. The first is that Africa as well as the Western world must be convinced that the Republic at present and in future is an irremovable part of Africa. This the Western world and Africa must know; secondly, Africa and the Western world must be convinced that the domestic policy of the Republic need not mar mutual relations with any country whatsoever. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, having had a fairly extensive visit both overseas and as a member of our parliamentary deputation to Malawi last year, perhaps I might be allowed to make a few comments under the hon. the Minister’s Vote. I do want very much to endorse what the hon. member for Von Brandis had to say when he made a plea for a more open debate on the subject of external affairs and also to endorse the validity of his statement that domestic policies inevitably, whether we like it or not, affect our external affairs and our relationships generally with the outside world. The hon. the Minister knows how often members of Parliament, when they go overseas, are called upon to make public speeches of one kind or another or to give lectures about this country and our affairs. In the present climate of world opinion that is by no means easy, and I do not think that anybody in this House accepts that it is. There are two aspects of our policies which genuinely moderate people overseas, who have not the slightest desire to interfere in our domestic affairs and are happy to be friends with us, find it impossible to ignore or explain away. I have found this over and over again. I want to bring these two points to the attention of the hon. the Minister in all good faith and not in any attempt to be subversive or to run down the country. First of all, some aspects of our punitive security laws are things which worry our genuine friends; I am not talking about the lunatic fringe; we should forget about them. Our genuine friends are very worried about some of these punitive security laws and, secondly, about the worst aspects of our more aggressive forms of petty apartheid. Sir, I mention these because there is no doubt whatsoever, for what my experience is worth—it may not be worth a great deal but I put this to the Minister in good faith—that these things have a profound effect upon our relations with a great many countries and a great many Western countries. Sir, I understood from the hon, the Minister’s speech last night—unfortunately, as he knows, I had to go to a meeting in the country—that he made a plea for top-level diplomatic activity and for external affairs to be dealt with largely on that level. Sir, I do not entirely agree with the hon. the Minister any more than my hon. friend, the member for Von Brandis did. You see, Sir, some of our best friends, people who are genuinely our best friends, people with whom I talked for many hours while I was overseas can find no possible justification, when they are trying themselves to defend us, for these two things: the worst aspects of our security legislation and the worst aspect of our petty apartheid legislation. Their reaction does have ramifications which go much further than many people realize. I am sorry to have to say this, but it is very difficult for some of us ourselves to put up an adequate defence for things like holding witnesses in communicado, in prison cells, foR180 days, subject to intensive interrogation, and things of this kind, knowing perfectly well that no charge need have been brought against them as witnesses, or against anyone else for that matter, during this period. I found that I was challenged on this type of issue everywhere I went. I genuinely tried my best to meet this type of challenge but the things that shock so many people in the Western democratic countries are, apart from the initial shock at people being imprisoned without a charge being brought against them, the fact that they have no access to their families or their lawyers and that there is nothing to prevent the period of detention being renewed, not by the Attorney-General but by a member of the Police Force. People asked me over and over again what I had to say about this and whether any charges were in fact proved against these people and what the procedure was. When I was faced with a direct question I had to admit that at present there is no obligation upon the Police or the State to prove anything in the case of the detention of witnesses of this kind. Neither was there any obligation on the authorities to make public how many people are kept languishing in prison under these powers and for how long. I will be quite candid with the Minister when I say that I tried to put up the best possible defence I could but I found it an increasing embarrassment when I had to deal with this type of challenge. My motive in raising this matter this evening is not an unscrupulous one and I hope the hon. the Minister will accept that.

That brings me to another issue, which is how our Information Department, together with the Department of Foreign Affairs, handles certain matters which are of importance to South Africa. Just take the figures which annually appear in the report of the Department of Prisons. Overseas this is dealt with by the Department of Information, but there must be a link between the Department of Information and our diplomatic officers wherever they happen to be stationed, When I was in London last year there was a letter almost the entire length of the London Times and it was written by the Archbishop of Canterbury, a good man by the name of Ramsay, Canon Collins of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, whom you may write off or discard and others …

But those are all friends of yours.

Do not be ridiculous. They had a long column which dealt with our prison figures and I was incensed when I read it because I knew very well that it would be possible, if one had the details, to break down those figures into something which is not necessarily a justification of the entire picture, but at least to break it down and so present a much fairer picture. This is correct, and the hon. members know that, or at least ought to know that, because similar figures have been tabled this Session. Of course the overseas Press are not going to break them down; they are certainly not concerned to do that and they have all sorts of motives for reporting them that way. Has any effort been made to put this record straight, either through the Minister’s Department or did he use the influence he has on the Department of Information? We know that out of approximately 500,000 people who were sentenced last year, more than 92 per cent were sentenced for only up to six months, of which more than half, i.e., 266,000, were people who served sentences of one month only. Now, to people from overseas who have inferior motives—others do not necessarily have inferior motives—the time factor is either not known or it is deliberately ignored. Thus it is suggested in the overseas Press as the hon. the Minister must know, that close on half a million prisoners are lying in South African jails with little hope of release, although that is not the true state of affairs at all. We know that picture to be false, but unless it is contradicted, it can be disastrous for our relations with people overseas. I had a battle of words with the London Times because they refused to publish a letter of mine on another issue but I will leave at that. Nevertheless, they did not even have the grace to publish my letter when I asked them to as a statement of fact. I wonder whether enough is being done by our people from the Department of Information who are linked up with the Department of Foreign Affairs overseas, to correct this kind of impression. I do suspect, and I do dislike saying this, but it is one of the realities we have to face that many members of the foreign Press overseas will no longer accept corrections of this kind when they come from Government sources. I think it is a very great pity. The hon. the Minister knows, and we all know, that the majority of these prison sentences are for statutory offences in connection with Bantu people who are probably ignorant of the many laws which control their domicile and conditions of employment. We have serious reservations about that, but that is not under discussion under this Vote. Arising out of this sort of case, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister that this type of news item, which is often, falsely portrayed and not broken down as it should be, should be given serious consideration and that he should revert to the previous arrangement whereby the Departments of Foreign Affairs controlled the compilation and the dissemination of information regarding South Africa overseas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to something the hon. member for Von Brandis said, namely that the official Opposition has never sought to embarrass the Government in its good relations. Although I am not prepared to accept that statement without qualification I would like to place on record that when I was in London with two members of the Opposition, namely the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Durban (North) about a year ago, they never embarrassed me at any stage. As a matter of fact, they clearly stated our differences to those people and while I was under rapid fire, as it were, I was helped very much by the two hon. members. As a matter of fact they went out of their way to state that although they disagreed with me, probably violently, on most of the questions that were raised, they did accept our good faith in our attempts to do what we are doing in Africa and Southern Africa to-day.

It is in the spirit of that acceptance that I wish to make the following remarks. [Interjection.] I realize of course that the hon. member for Houghton would not accept my good faith at all, but the other two members were prepared to do that. It is in this spirit of acceptance that I make the following remarks. When Mr. Macmillan, the erstwhile Prime Minister of Britain, made his “winds of change” speech in Cape Town, many South Africans, including myself, were very annoyed about it, not so much about the contents as the time, place and circumstances in which his speech was made. In that particular speech Mr. Mcmillan indicated that in the period following the 1960’s the continent of Africa would undergo profound changes and that South Africa would not be unaffected by the changes that were to follow. As far as the facts were concerned it was, of course, correct. When the speech was made in 1960, I think it was in February, there were approximately 25 independent African states. In the previous year, 1959, there were only alproximately ten. Now there are at least 43 independent African states. In other words, we have to accept the facts of history, namely that the movement in Africa was and is towards more independent African states. What Mr. Macmillan, however, forgot was the fact that the white men of Southern Africa were not of Europe, but were men of Africa itself and that they were men who also had inalienable rights. He forgot that they were men who had certain achievements to their credit, that they were people that were and are not expendable at all, and that they did not have any idea of capitulation in this part of the world at all. That being so, it means that to avoid violence we must come to some accommodation between Black and White. It is my submission and my contention that the present South African Government realizes that and is making provision for just that.

In the limited time at my disposal I wish to make the point and I will attempt to substantiate it that our Government with its policy of freedom for the Bantu peoples is actually in line with modern constitutional thinking and in harmony with the spirit of the times. In other words, we can categorically say to those members of the United Nations Organizations who are not bigoted by Communistic agitation and Communistic ideology and by black power chauvinism that in actual fact South Africa does not fly in the face of world opinion and is here in the southern portion of Africa laying the foundations for more independent African states.

While we are doing this certain questions do arise and foreign diplomats have posed certain questions to me, They ask, for example, whether the homeland policy of this Government is feasible and if we believe that it can work. Our answer to them is that we sincerely believe that it can work. In believing that it can work, we are not alone, but in good company. When I say that we believe it can work, we are in good company. Has Britain not given full independence to six of her erstwhile dependancies, three of them in close proximity to South Africa and three virtually within the confines of the boundaries of the Republic, namely Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho?

It has also been asked where we intend establishing the homelands. Again I would like to point to Britain. Britain has established these independent states within the boundaries of the old protectorates, in other words, within the divisional boundaries of the old protectorate areas where the bulk of their people are living. Likewise South Africa intends granting independence eventually to our Bantu peoples in their traditional geographic entities where the bulk of their people live.

Where are the boundaries?

The point is also made that many of these people live within the white Republic. That is so. I must concede that, and I concede it immediately. I hear an interjection, and I concede it immediately. Thousands and thousands of black people who actually could be in their homelands are living within the urban areas of our cities. But let me remind hon. members that there are thousands of Basuto, Swazis and Bechuanas who were born, have grown up and live also in the white Republic of South Africa. None of them has ever even suggested being granted political rights in the Republic. This is a fact of Africa. I will again concede that this is a peculiarity to Africa. If I had to go and live in Germany, or if I were born there, I would probably become a German citizen. I concede that. But I say this is the one difference between our constitutional position and historical constitutional positions. We must never forget that ex Africa semper aliquid novi, “out of Africa will come always something new”. This is the conception. This distant citizenship is the conception that is new in Africa. It is our contribution to constitutional development and philosophical thinking.

Now what is the difference between the independent black African states within our boundaries and our homelands? The real difference is, of course, that the three independent states mentioned—I want to confine myself to those three that are virtually within the boundaries of South Africa—are completely independent. That is the main difference. Our homelands are actually at various stages of constitutional development on their way to independence. This in itself, I may remind the House, is a British constitutional idea. Did the Cape Parliament not pass through various constitutional stages to responsible government? Did the Union Parliament itself not pass through various stages of constitutional development to complete freedom? Why cannot our homeland states pass through various stages of constitutional development to complete freedom? I say again that we are in line with British constitutional thinking.

I want to say that we do not live in isolation in South Africa. The African states among us, and surrounding us, our own Bantu homelands, and the Republic, are all economically, in my view, interdependent upon each other. Thousands of Basutos, Swazis, Bechuanas and Malawians work in our country. By so doing, they help us—I concede that—because we have a labour shortage. But we also help them. We give to their independent states, a certain amount of economic viability. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to go back to the point I was dealing with before I finished previously, it did seem to me that amongst people who are primarily our friends overseas, it is the question of the rule of law and the whole Western judicial tradition of which we form a part about which they are most concerned. It is this that fills them very genuinely with a sense of outrage and distress. It was of little avail for me, for instance, to point out the dangers of terrorism and the infiltration of terrorists across our frontiers that are so extended that it would be a superhuman task to patrol every yard of them. People continued to point out to me—and this was something which I found quite impossible to refute—that the scope of the Government’s arbitrary powers with regard to the detention of people by no means stopped at terrorists. They knew perfectly well that this applied to members of the South African population also. The effect upon our foreign relations is profound when local residents, particularly, can be put away in a manner which causes considerably delight to our enemies and considerable and very genuine distress to our friends. It also causes very great distress to those of us who go overseas with the idea of being ambassadors for our country.

I want to finish by raising the question, very briefly, of petty apartheid. This I found increasingly difficult to justify, particularly the more punitive aspects such as police investigations and prosecutions under the Immorality Act, and the ramifications and very genuine human distress caused by investigations under the Population Registration Act. There are very many people as the hon. the Minister knows, overseas who are perfectly willing to accept that for purposes of communal living distinctive groups of people are often happier living in their own communities. That point is not really seriously at issue. I found it very hard however to justify the break-up for instance, not of slum communities in terms of the Group Areas, but the break-up of communities where people had mutual interests and had been happy together for a long time and then suddenly found themselves in these great amorphous colourless de-personalized townships outside our cities. Although the hon. the Minister is not responsible for this policy, this is the type of thing I found myself up against over and over again. People would ask me, wherever I was, why we carried out apartheid theories so far that they virtually outlawed any kind of meeting across the colour line, even by people in the professions and at university level, with a few exceptions, in our churches and at our diplomatic functions. Despite the fact that Cabinet Ministers—and I want to bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister—wine and dine with visiting Coloured or African V.I.P.s here in the Republic, they refuse and have done for years to attend any United Kingdom or United States diplomatic functions where the leaders of South Africa’s own non-white groups, whom this Government itself is very busy building up, are present. Where does that take us? The insult to our own people is quite clear. The illogicality of the Government’s actions internationally, I think, does us great harm. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this position cannot be reviewed. I think it is high time that it was.

Finally, with regard to Malawi, the Parliamentary Association’s visit to Malawi last July was an unqualified success. Mr. Speaker led it with great distinction. Our money there is well spent. We have very valuable friendships in that country. It was, as I have said, the first people-to-people confrontation between South African Whites and Blacks from Central Africa. The impact was very great indeed upon world opinion generally. I spoke of our visit with great pride wherever I went overseas. I know that the whole deputation, including the Government members, felt that indeed nothing had been lost and that very much had been gained by this visit. There is a sense in which we did pioneer work for the Republic. Need that be lost? Can they not be invited to send a parliamentary deputation here in return to prove that the generosity, open-heartedness and hospitality of the Malawi people can be more than matched by our own hospitality and friendliness in the Republic? I leave the idea with the hon. the Minister in the hope that he will discuss this with the Executive of our Parliamentary Association.

And finally, my impression from lecturing in the States and in the United Kingdom is that we are far too much on the defensive about our affairs overseas. Our information services abroad labour very much under that disability. This is an overriding impression that I came home with. I found that people were very often more willing to listen and to accept what an Opposition member had to say than they were to accept what they considered slanted propaganda hand-outs by the Government. I am sure that position can be improved if our attitude is positive and not merely defensive. A lot of the poorness of our image overseas, I regret to say, is our own fault. I am not here talking about policy but about public relations as such. A lot of it also is due no doubt to the mad cohorts overseas who live and work in an inflammatory atmosphere and who are quite clearly bent on having a campaign against us. We know that. Their intentions are both base and revolutionary. We accept that.

As a loyal South African, I hope we can do something about this situation and do it soon without any loss of respect and without giving anything away. I do not think we can afford to wait to do something rather more positive in the public relations field than we are doing at the present time. It is of no avail merely to say, as I understand the hon. the Minister to say last night, that prejudices are being overcome and that diplomatic ties are in fact being strengthened with the right countries overseas and on the highest level. This is far too hush-hush and far too exalted an atmosphere in which to handle it. We have to face realities. We cannot entirely dismiss the lunatic fringe, much as we dislike it. They have to be faced squarely and contained. Our counter attacks must be enlightened and very much more effective than they are. The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister and others moving in these exhalted circles may be able to avoid this confrontation with local people on their overseas visits. This is the last thing that we as individuals when we go are willing to do or are in a position to do. It is the ordinary people whom we meet. These are the people who have to be publicly faced, contradicted or dealt with in an absolutely honest and straightforward manner.

I know. I did it, I tried in any case. Anyone whom you convert on that basis remain your friend for good. This hon. Minister must be prepared to trust us sufficiently on this side and accept that what we say, we say in good faith. I think he must go further. He must plead with his Cabinet colleagues for a rather more sophisticated handling of our information services overseas. That is why I asked him to take them over from the present dispensation.

Order! That must be raised under Vote 43, Information.

I am not going to talk about information. My plea to the hon. the Minister was that he should go back to the old dispensation where foreign affairs in fact controlled information. I am asking the hon. the Minister whether he has any views on that. I think we need a bolder and more positive approach to public relations, which form such a vital part of the whole business of our external relations.

In the course of this debate it has been said that the Government will have to make certain adjustments at home m order to bring our domestic policy into line with what we are saying overseas. In this connection I sould like to say that a party which has a policy based on sound principles on principles which are in fact ethically and morally well-founded, has no need to make adjustments at home in order to bring its policy into line with international demands in respect of fair and just systems of government. Of course this Government is not perfect. Of course ours is not a party which never makes any mistakes. This party, in all humility is always aspiring to higher ideals, for inherent in it is a dynamic strength, and that strength is its idealism.

A few years ago in this House, before I had the honour of being a member of it the late Dr. Verwoerd, after he had tested the policy of his Government in South-West Africa against international standards in various spheres, including the spheres of human dignity and justice, said the following—

He went on and indicated, as it were, that we were not a party which was being handicapped by rigid and hide-bound dogmas. After he had sketched the bases of his policy, he said—

This is the secret of the National Party: Its broad, sound direction which allows much scope for movement.

Yes, it is a secret.

The Opposition cannot understand this. Dr. Verwoerd said that our policy afforded protection for the members of every group in their development to the highest functions within every group, and subsequently he declared—and this he said to console the hon. member for Houghton––

Sir, that is not all. He stated this categorically as far as human rights are concerned. After he had contrasted the policy of his party with that of the Unity, he said—

That was the standpoint of our former Prime Minister, and it is the standpoint of our present leader. Dr. Verwoerd went further and said—

This party need not be daunted by those demands or standards, Sir.

Furthermore, it is particularly interesting that where the problems of the multi-national community are discussed internationally, one finds formulations of what is objectively regarded as valid and acceptable. And now I want to quote to you a few conclusions which were reached at the first international seminar of the problem of multi-nationality, and it is remarkable—although very few people seem to know about this and many of our newspapers do not seem to want to give publicity to discussions of this kind—that this conference was in fact arranged by the U.N. The Secretary-General of the U.N. sent a personal representative to open the seminar and the results were then eagerly awaited. The conference, which was held in 1965, was attended by nations from the two Americas, Europe, Africa, the East and the Communist block. Of course South Africa was not invited, but that does not matter. Let us see what happened at this conference under the auspices of the U.N.

In regard to the question of the language of a group, conclusions was this—

Then, in the second place, on the question of culture—

Sir, special attention was given to the problem of assimilation, and it was emphasized that—

I repeat—“even though scattered”—

Sir, this is what was said at the U.N. seminar on the “multi-national society”. But this is not all. Attention was also given to the problem of reconciliation of the individual’s rights with those of the group. The following opinion was expressed—

Here the idea is clearly expressed that the individual’s rights can in fact be subordinate to the interests and the continued existence of the group, because it is after all true that the individual’s human potential can in fact only evolve and develop to the full within his national or group context. Very few of us have the ability to undertake space flights and to detach ourselves from our group, and then still to realize our full potential. It is a fact that this is generally the case. Hon. members must not be dismayed now because I am saying this; I am quoting from a report of the aforementioned seminar of the U.N, on the “multi-national society”. Sir, this was the main conclusion—

Sir, I cannot put it more clearly than that. The point I want to repeat is this: We need not flinch from international standards, whether in the sphere of human dignity or in the sphere of group development. This party can comply with them, because this party has in it that inherent idealism. I want to say to hon. members on the opposite side: They allege that apartheid, as they interpret our policy, is a dead albatross around their necks. I want to ask them seriously to examine as to whether they, with their policy, are not a dead dinosaur around our necks, the neck of this party with its dynamic policy.

Sir, I must say that it comes as a very pleasant surprise indeed to hear a member of the National Party defending the U.N. I have been sitting in this House for 18 years and I may say that all I have ever heard from National Party members are visulant attacks on the U.N. for its lack of realism and its inability to understand the unique problems of South Africa. As I say, it was with pleasure therefore that I listened to the hon. member for Wonderboom this evening advancing a U.N.’s report as an ideal. I have a feeling though that if one examined that report in any great detail, one would find that it relates to minority groups which are in danger of being forcibly integrated with the majorities of the populations of the countries concerned. I see absolutely no danger of that happening in this country. I know of nobody who is preaching enforced integration of minority groups in South Africa, so I do not think that this is particularly relevant.

I think if the hon. member examined other U.N.’s reports he will find very strong criticisms indeed of governments which take steps to stop the advancement of minority groups or, should I say, the advancement of groups which play no part whatever in the political power structure of the country in which they live and which try to impose their ideas on those groups which have no constitutional means whatever of expressing their disapproval of what is being done to them. Let us for a moment take the question of language. The hon. member here talked a lot about the preservation of language. I wonder how many members on the Government side realize that, if given the choice as to the medium of instruction in which their children are to be taught, almost every African in the country and certainly every African educationist, would choose not the vernacular after the first few grades, but English or Afrikaans.

Who tells you that?

The Transkei Assembly tells me this, because the minute the Transkei Assembly was given the portfolio of education, the very first thing it did was to reverse the Government’s decision that all children in the Transkei should be taught through the medium of the vernacular and they reverted to the old system of education through the medium of English. If there is one burning grievance that the urban African has—and he has many—it is the fact that his children are taught through the medium of the vernacular right through primary school, and by the time those few who manage to get through to secondary school arrive there, they are at a severe disadvantage in learning, particularly science and mathematics. This is one of their burning grievances.

You cannot force people to preserve what in fact they do not wish to preserve, and what they do want to preserve one does not require laws to preserve. So, I am not really very impressed with the arguments used by the hon. member for Wonderboom. As to this pie-in-the-sky story that everybody is going to reach the maximum of his potentiality, this may happen in the very distant future although I must say that I am completely cynical about this. To try to offer this future quid pro quo in return for the deprivation of rights at the present time and in the immediate future, is to offer something which as far as I am concerned, is no quid pro quo at all.

Sir, I listened to the hon. member for Prinshof. I do not question his sincerity and I do not question the sincerity of many of the members on the other side, although I do question the sincerity of some of them. I believe that to some of them the ethnic solution offered by Dr. Verwoerd in fact means nothing at all; for them the good old policy of “wit baasskap” is still good enough. Nevertheless there are many members on that side whose sincerity I do not question at all and the hon. member for Prinshof is one of them. I do, however, question his judgment. I question his judgment very much indeed if he thinks he is going to be able to sell this story abroad of African nations, as he calls them. There is so much intermixing and intermarriage, particularly in the urban areas, these days, that this ethnic grouping really means nothing at all—but if he thinks that he is going to be able to sell that abroad as a comparison with the independent States of Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana, then I cannot say that he has gained very much from his travels abroad. He knows that none of us is likely to live long enough to see independent African States in this country. But this is not the main point, Sir. I want to say that enforced independence in its own way is as bad as enforced colonialism. I want to know how many of these African territorial authorities have been asked whether they would prefer to have their independence in the future or whether they would prefer to remain part and parcel of a multi-racial South Africa. On the one occasion when this question was put to them, again in the Transkei, which is the only example of a territory approaching any form of independence, the answer was given very firmly in the election. They voted in favour of the proposition of forming part of multiracial South Africa.

Now I want to come back to some of the points which were made by the hon. member for Wynberg and I want to state at once that I take a very different attitude from that of the hon. member for Wynberg. Although I do not stand back for any-one in my loyalty because I do not think I am any less of a loyal South African than she is, I do not think it does South Africa any good whatever to go overseas and to try to defend the Government and to explain inexplicable legislation such as the 90-day and the 180-day legislation, or indefinite detention under section 6 of the Terrorist Act or to find an excuse for petty apartheid or the manifold discrimination on a racial basis that we practise in this country. I think that is a spurious form of patriotism. One can correct exaggerations and one can plead against the isolation of South Africa, but I do not agree with her trying to defend the Government. I think we do South Africa very much more good to go abroad and to persuade the people over there that there is in South Africa a very considerable section of the white population who are enlightened and which disapprove strongly of the Government’s racial discrimination. Then I think we have a hope of saving something for South Africa and of trying to regain friends for South Africa. At the present stage all they know is the Government and they do not know anything about the enlightened white population in this country. They do not care much about the Official Opposition. In fact I think they have hardly ever heard of them, as the hon. member for Wynberg herself had to admit on her return from her trip overseas. I say that if you want to be patriotic when you go abroad you should tell the people that there are thousands upon thousands of people, particularly a growing number of young people in this country, who cannot stand the racial discrimination which is practised in this country and who are looking forward to and hoping for a change in the racial policy of this country.

Mr. Chairman, surely it was very foolish of the hon. member for Houghton to want to allege that my hon. colleague for Wonderboom defended the U.N. here. I think she ought to know that this was not the case, and that it was not the intention of the hon. member for Wonderboom to do so, What is more, I want to submit here that she did not understand the support of the speech by the hon. member for Wonderboom. On the other hand, her speech was the typical humanistic Helen Suzman speech to which we in this House have by now become accustomed. It was like old left-overs which were, literally in the same words, dished up to us to-night. But something which we became more thoroughly aware of to-night, is the fact that she wants to sacrifice the existence of the Whites in South Africa completely. She is prepared to sacrifice the Whites in South Africa on the altar of her humanistic objectives which she advocates. That she cannot deny, and that is what we have in that hon. member. By implication she is merely the precursor of the United Party, with the United Party only a little way behind her. What we have in her, we also have in the United Party. In the very limited time at my disposal I should also like to touch upon a very thorny, but also very important matter. I am saying the matter is a thorny one, but it is a matter of great significance if we would only look at what is happening north of our boundaries. Evil forces are gathering together there for a final onslaught, not only on the white man because the white man is here in the south of Africa, but are gathering together in particular for a final onslaught against what the Whites in the south of Africa stand for. In this regard I want to refer to the Labour Party in Britain which, so it has been reported to us, is shortly to take a decision on assistance to anti-South African forces, as well on other forms of action against South Africa whenever they may come into power again. In considering the forces for whom this assistance is in truth intended and the magnitude of those forces, of which the terrorists we have to cope with today are only the precursors, we see a disturbing picture unfolding before us of Red Chinese influence and infiltration north of our borders. This influence and the increase in the number of communist Chinese in North Africa is assuming ominous proportions. Between 1956 and 1960 Communist China only gave 4 per cent of its foreign aid to Africa, as against 23 per cent to Asia and 73 per cent to the communist bloc. Between 1961 and 1964 their aid to Africa increased to 30 per cent, while their aid to Asia at that stage was only 37 per cent and that to the rest of the communist world decreased from 73 per cent to 33 per cent. The latest figures are, however, even more perturbing. In respect of the railway line they are going to build in Tanzania only, Red China has given Tanzania an interest free loan of R277 million for 30 years. If Red China had been a rich country one could perhaps still have found justification for this action. The fact of the matter however is that Red China is a poor country. In spite of that it has granted an interest-free loan of R277 million to Tanzania for 30 years. Looking further, we see that there are already 80 Tanzanians in China at present receiving navy training and quite possibly too submarine training. One can only make one deduction from this, i.e. that Tanzania will quite possibly have its own sub-marines soon. Tanzanians are also receiving flight training. A promise on the part of the Red Chinese is known to have been made, i.e. that they are prepared to establish a modern strike air force for Tanzania. In addition to that there are between 10,000 and 20,000 Red Chinese who have entered Tanzania under the pretext of coming to construct that railway line. Tanzania is, however, a poor country which has an excess of unemployment among its own people, and surely those Tanzanians could have been set to do the work. What is the motive behind bringing in between 10,000 and 20,000 Red Chinese to work on this railway line? How many other excuses could not still be found to allow even more Red Chinese into this country to the north of our borders.

When one considers these facts one need not have much imagination to make one deduction and one deduction only. A massing of forces is taking place which will eventually try to vent their fury on the southern part of Africa and specifically on the Whites here in the south. It has already been necessary for us to send our police to our northern borders to guard them. I think it is fitting that we should on this occasion to-night also pay the necessary tribute to those men from our midst who are under the most difficult circumstances manning the outposts for us in the front lines. I do this gladly.

But now the alternative British Government is by implication associating itself with these hostile forces opposed to South Africa. Not only do I think one must regard this as an unfriendly deed on the part of the people who should really join us in the struggle against the eradication of communism. I think we must also regard it as a hostile deed against South Africa and against the Whites in Southern Africa. I think I am speaking on behalf of every patriot, regardless of his political convictions, when I express our profoundest condemnation of the attitude which is being displayed by the British Labour Party in this connection. At the time I want to make an appeal to the inhabitants of Britain, and specifically to the British Government, to take cognisange of the standpoint of the British Labour Party and to express their dissatisfaction in no ambiguous way at the attitude and the disposition of those people. If this happens, I am convinced that there will be a further increase in the good relations we have traditionally maintained with Great Britain.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Springs that there is indeed a danger of communist infiltration in Africa. It was made clear to me some time ago when, on an ordinary scheduled flight from Europe to Jan Smuts Airport, which was broken at a country in Central Africa, I discovered that at least about a third of the passengers were actually Chinese, and some of them appeared to be in uniform. It does make one think.

The hon. member for Wonderboom made a speech in which he subtly attacked the United Party. We know that the hon. the Minister announced that the hon. member for Wonderboom is going to be a member of a team which will defend South Africa at the International Court very soon. Rather than attacking the hon. member for Wonderboom in reply, I wish to say that I wish him and his colleagues in the team well in any battle that he might be facing on behalf of our country, South Africa.

In that I beg to differ with the hon. member for Houghton, who seems to regard attacks on South Africa abroad as a form of new patriotism. I am becoming a bit tired of the so-called morality of the Progressive Party. If hypocrisy in politics can be regarded as moral, indeed they would be a moral party. But I cannot for the life of me see how they can propound the policy we heard this afternoon whenever they talk on foreign affairs, whenever they believe the countries outside are listening to them. It is a policy of being an ultra-liberal party, a party in favour of integration and equality in South Africa. It is unthinkable how they can make that agree with their own political propaganda at the moment, where they are trying to create a new image, which is actually an image of an extremely conservative party, so conservative in fact that African papers in Johannesburg condemn them for their new policy as being reactionary. It is so reactionary that indeed some of their own supporters nowadays are going around, saying that you will find a black majority government under United Party policy much sooner than under a Progressive Party government.

The hon. the Minister made a positive statement when he addressed the House, which he openly and generously agreed with the statements and the policies of the United Party where we supported him wherever we believed it was in the interests of South Africa, and where we have not gone out of our way to create a division in this country when faced by dangers from the outside world. He also thanked us in this regard. That was a positive and generous statement. However, I was disappointed to hear afterwards how many backbenchers on that side of the House, instead of agreeing with the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, actually attacked the United Party, called us unpatriotic and tried to show that there was division between the Government and the Opposition on foreign affairs, when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself went out of his way, and generously did so, to point out that on basic issues there was not that difference. What are the backbenchers of the Nationalist Party trying to do by accusing the United Party of not being patriotic, of not acting in the interests of South Africa? Are they trying to earn the Order of Karl Marx first class?

I should also like to deal with another matter which I find rather disturbing. Hon. members will remember that when the Nationalist Party came into power for the first time in 1948, we went through a sad period of about ten or twelve years under the Foreign Minister-ship of this hon. Minister’s predecessor, a gentleman who had his qualities but who carried a chip on his shoulder, whether it was in this House or whether it was at the United Nations, and certainly as far as I am concerned, never benefited South Africa in any way. He was indeed the chief chipmunk of members on that side of the House. We thought that the policy of this Government had changed in that regard, that we would get more openness on the part of the Government in regard to our foreign affairs. I have been disturbed by an event a couple of days ago when the hon. the Minister in reply to two questions of mine, gave replies to me which I believe to be utterly wrong and utterly false. I believe that he should give us an explanation. In all fairness to him, I want to say that I did bring it to his attention personally and also discussed it with the head of his Department. Somewhere along the line there is something wrong in the information that Parliament receives from the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am not blaming the hon. the Minister personally or the head of his Department. However, ultimately he must remember that he is the responsible person. I think of two instances. I put a question to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday and asked him what amount had been spent on accommodation for diplomatic representatives in Pretoria up to the 31st March, 1970. It was a fair and clear question. The hon. the Minister replied to me that none was spent. Surely, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs makes a statement like that one will accept it. This is a man who represents South Africa in the face of the rest of the world. He will certainly give the facts. However, what are the facts? Here I have the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Account of the Government itself, the word of the hon. the Minister of Finance, in which in the words of my question, it says: “Accommodation for Diplomatic Representatives, Pretoria, up to 31st March, 1970, R255,000”. Yet the hon. the Minister tells me that nothing was spent. There might be an explanation There might be some or other misunderstanding. However, this is not the type of unconsidered answer that one likes to get from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The hon. the Minister did issue another reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout some time ago. I have that statement here with me too. The two statements contradict each other entirely. The other question I put to the hon. the Minister was whether there was any agreement or arrangement between his Department and the South African Broadcasting Corporation for daily broadcasts of news and commentary about Southern Africa for South Africa diplomatic missions abroad. Listen to the wording and I will tell the hon. the Minister where I got the wording from. However, the hon. the Minister, when I asked him this, said “no” and “the rest of the answer falls away”. Here I have the annual report for 1968 of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. This is what it says:

And South Africans abroad.

Yes, the diplomatic missions, South Africans and everybody else abroad. The point is that the statement made in the S.A.B.C. report was that it was giving special broadcasts to our diplomatic missions abroad. When I asked the hon. the Minister about that, he said that no such broadcasts are being given.

No special arrangements were made.

Was there an understanding then? There is no understanding; yet the S.A.B.C. says that it is giving special broadcasts to our diplomatic missions abroad.

I will reply to you.

Very well, I would be very glad to have the hon. the Minister’s reply. And if his reply will be, as I hope, a repudiation of the S.A.B.C., I hope that he will do it in the strongest language possible. What this report is insinuating is that the S.A.B.C. is actually telling our diplomatic missions abroad what the policy of South Africa is and what they should tell the people in other countries of the world. I think it is utter impertinence on the part of the S.A.B.C. No wonder the impression might be created in the rest of the world that Dr. Piet Meyer is a sort of a shadow verkrampte minister of foreign affairs. I am stating this very strongly. I do not believe it to be the case, however, and I am prepared to say it in order that the rest of the world may hear it. I do not believe it myself that he has a verkrampte as shadow minister of foreign affairs. But I want to hear a repudiation from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that this sort of thing, which is doing our country endless harm, will be done on this scale. I have not as yet come to the important point I wanted to raise. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to what my hon. friend has just said there. What he said is so familiar to me by now that I know in advance what he wants to say. It is an old story which is repeated every year. I pay no attention to it. It is a very difficult task for any political leader to determine foreign policy today. I say this for three reasons. The first reason is because we are living in an era of power politics. Within the concept of power politics one can apply double standards and one can concoct virtually anything. Within the framework of international events to-day and in this era of power politics it is possible for the holder of power to concoct whatever he wishes. He can concoct something bad and he can concoct something good. He can apply double standards, and under the cloak of the power he has at his disposal, everything is morally justified. That is why I say it is extremely difficult for any head of state to cope with foreign policy to-day. This difficulty and this dilemma in which the world finds itself, these periods of power politics as determining factors which we can call a foreign political determinant, have been the downfall of many major powers in the process. We find the phenomenon that political leaders and military leaders are poles apart. I still remember that Soapy Williams came to Africa in 1960 or 1961 to determine what the attitude of Africa was and to seek friendly relations with the Africa states. That was during the time when America began to realize that Russia and China were beginning to gain a foothold here in Africa. At the time there was a tremendous difference between the political dispensation and the military dispensation in America. In 1966 the House of Representatives in America appointed a commission to institute an investigation and report on the race relations in South Africa, and before that commission Soapy Williams advocated active intervention in South African affairs. General Marshall and Admiral Radcliffe of the American armed forces said no. They were the sober-minded people. In order to pursue a strong foreign policy, the first condition is therefore that you should look beyong those troubled waters caused by power politics and that you should effect a unity of vision among one’s military and political strategists. The basis of our foreign policy for the Republic of South Africa is virtually the only one of its kind in the world. Here in our country there is no difference between the vision and the appreciation of the strategy of our political strategists and our military strategists. This is very significant, and it forms a solid cornerstone to our foreign policy. When I listen to the United Party in this debate, in spite of what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said to the effect that there was great agreement on the basic principles of our foreign policy, I noted a political spitefulness, but I forgive that political spitefulness because it is merely an extension of an old historic complaint they suffer from. They want to isolate us they want to hem us in. They want to regard, describe and label the National Party as the party which places a curb on everything, the party which causes isolation. We are in fact the party which is able to move. We are moving. We have freedom of movement and we have the courage, to move, and the difference between them and us is that the courage of our convictions and the courage to move lies therein that our policy has been established on certain solid foundations. I want to mention them now, and there are five of them.

This is a far removed from what Albert Hertzog said, is it not?

This has nothing to do with Albert Hertzog now. I say we have the courage to move and that courage is founded on five major basic truths. The first truth is that it is essential for the maintenance of a strong foreign policy to have economic stability. All people and states that are economically poor and backward cannot pursue a strong foreign policy.

What about poor but White?

We in South Africa have one of those solid cornerstones for a strong foreign policy, and that is that we are economically strong. [Interjections.] Our economic strength is supported by the basic factors which form an integral part of economic strength. We have the territory and we have the people with the will to work. We have achieved unity among our people. In spite of these wild allegations which the United Party are slinging around, to the effect that there are differences between English and Afrikaans-speaking persons, there is a deeper unity at work within our State than the United Party wants to admit. We have at our disposal all the conditions which are implicit in and inherently built into the foundation for the establishment of an economically powerful state. Foreign policy cannot be vigorously conducted unless there is a powerful economic weapon to hand.

A second asset we have at our disposal is that we realize that in spite of the fact that other countries differ with us in their political structures and their domestic dispensation in the field of politics and as far as their adminstration is concerned, we can still maintain friendly relations; That is the basis on which our hon. the Prime Minister stated his policy when he paid visits to Europe and here in Africa. [Time expired.]

I want to refer briefly to the statement which the hon. member for Algoa made here this afternoon when he said that I had made a bitter attack on the hon. the Minister and that it had been unpatriotic of me to criticize the hon. the Minister. Well, this has already been replied to; we on this side are doing our utmost to keep the debate on foreign affairs on a high level, arid I now want to make the statement, so that it may be put on record, that we are tired now. If the Government prefers that we receive from his side this kind of, reaction, that is that when one criticizes a Minister, one is accused of being unpatriotic, we shall have to do something about the matter. We are sick of it [Interjections;] I have sat in many Parliaments and listened to the debates on foreign affairs. In the British Parliament there is a frank discussion, because it is in the interests of the country. If one thinks a Minister is making a mistake, it is basic to democracy that he should be criticized. That is our task here, but that hon. member rejects the whole concept of democracy and if I were to turn around now and call him a Fascist, he would definitely cry against that. As far as we are concerned, I should like this debate to be kept on a high level throughout, and I think the Minister probably, too, but if we are going to receive that sort of treatment, we have only one way of protesting. Then I shall have to say to the hon. the Minister that I do not want to punish him, but merely as a formal way of protesting, we shall have to propose that the hon. the Minister’s salary be reduced. [Interjections.] I am being serious now. If we have to hear every time that when we criticize we are being unpatriotic it would become too much, and this is the kind of speech which we are getting. If that is the level, we can make use of the machiinery at our disposal to object. I do not want to hold the Minister responsible for that, but there is a foreign affairs group on the side of the Government and if they want to use such speakers in an elevated debate, we shall take action, and I am mentioning this here and now. The choice lies with them. [Interjections.] I am not scaring anyone, but if I have not issued this warning, what would have happened? But I am going to do it, and even if I do it alone, I shall still do it. We are tired of that kind of action now. It is expected of us to conduct a decent debate, but we always have that kind of action from that side.

A few weeks ago the hon. member for Wonderboom made a remarkable speech here and because he had been a member of the Department of Foreign Affairs for so long, we should of course take notice of what he says. I do not want to quote too much, but the hon. the Minister will remember his maiden speech. He expressed great sorrow because we had not signed the Declaration of Human Rights of the U.N. in 1948. He said that it had always been a strong point of attack on South Africa, and then he added that to-day we should associate ourselves more with the Declaration of Human Rights and its elevated objectives. This is quite true—it is a very strong point of attack against South Africa, because every time one argues and expresses this type of sentiment about the policy of the Government, such as the hon. member did here this evening people ask us why we do not support the Declaration of Human Rights in that case. The only thing I want to ask the Minister is whether this point of view agrees with his point of view and that of his Department. The hon. member for Wonderboom said that an endorsement of the Declaration would not bring about immediate implementation, and I think he is correct it this, but that it really means striving to realize those objectives, I know for a fact that when Japan signed the peace treaty in 1951, it endorsed, in that treaty, inter alia, the following—

The emphasis falls on “intention to strive”. I realize that this is true, but we should in any event still like to hear what the ideas of the hon. the Minister are in connection with this proposal of the hon. member for Wonderboom.

In reply to a question I had on the Order Paper, the hon. the Minister indicated that he attached a very wide interpretation to the term “diplomatic relations”. For example, he referred to Botswana, and then said we had no exchange of diplomats there, but had in fact had “diplomatic relations” with Botswana since the time of its independence. On this basis, the Minister as well as the Prime Minister announced here and overseas that we now had diplomatic relations in some form or other with 65 countries. I am not opposed to any progress, but I should like to know this from the hon. the Minister. It is the general view that when one talks about diplomatic relations—and I want to admit that this was my own view—it means that there is an exchange of diplomatic representatives from one side or from both sides. This is the general view, but now it seems to me as though the hon. the Minister is attaching a much wider interpretation to the term “diplomatic relations” and I understand that he bases it on …

Not only I.

Fine. That is why I am raising the matter. I merely want to have some clarity about it. I want to know whether the term formal diplomatic relations means that one need not necessarily have diplomatic accreditation of representatives who have diplomatic status. I have spoken to other diplomats about this, and they find this interpretation singularly wide. One diplomat told me that if one were to take the interpretation that purely periodic contact between states meant diplomatic relations, to its logical conclusions, one could accept that all 126 members of the U.N. did in fact have diplomatic relations with each of the otheR125. You will also remember that the U.N., or one of its bodies, asked that countries should break off diplomatic relations with South Afirca, and one country which has a Consulate-General here, reported to the U.N. that it did not have diplomatic relations with South Africa, but that it in fact had consular relations.

What happened in Rhodesia?

I am raising this, because I do not want us to talk at cross purposes. I have in fact been wondering, in the face of the problems with which South Africa has to contend, whether it is wise to attack this wide interpretation to the term “diplomatic relations”. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the term means that one need not necessarily first have a representative in another country, or that even an honorary representative in a country, such as South Africa has in some countries, means that diplomatic relations, in the sense in which the term is used, have been established with such a country.

Then I should like to support the hon. member for Orange Grove. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he will recall that I put several questions to him in the course of the session, and I must say that I am not satisfied with the replies given by the hon. the Minister. I can mention various examples. I once asked him about a note he had received from Lesotho about a statement which a Deputy Minister had made. The Prime Minister of Lesotho himself spoke about it publicly in a press interview, and I am sure that everything which goes on between states is not secret, but the impression which the hon. the Minister creates is that of unwillingness to inform Parliament about a matter of that nature. I also asked him with what countries and with how many countries we had diplomatic relations. He then referred me to a list of 46 states which had been published by the Department of Foreign Affairs, and said that over and above these countries the Republic maintained diplomatic relations, without accredited representation, with 19 other countries, and for obvious reasons it was not desirable to specify them. I find this remarkable. I can understand that there may be a case or two of a country having secret relations with another, but it is incredible to me that We can have diplomatic relations with as many as 19 countries, but Parliament may not know about it. I think the hon. the Minister should explain to us what the obvious reasons are and for how long these obvious reasons are still going to remain obvious reasons? I can mention a further example. I asked the hon. the Minister about the text of his note on the border position at the confluence of the Chobe and the Zambesi rivers. [Time expired.]

Here this evening the hon. member for Bezuidenhout appealed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to keep debate at a very high level. But, Sir, who are the persons who are dragging this debate into the mud puddle in which they would like to see it. The hon. members for Bezuidenhout, Orange Grove, Wynberg and Houghton are the persons who have brought this debate to this level. I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he must not think that he can intimidate the National Party and the Government with his speeches. We shall never tolerate it, and we shall continue along the path we have followed until now. I want to remind the hon. member that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs arranged one of the most informative of tours abroad for the hon. the Prime Minister, a tour which filled everyone of us in the country with great expectations. But what did the Leader of the Opposition say, in the no-confidence debate, in connection with that tour? He said (Hansard, column 26 of 20th July)—

Sir, is it not scandalous to have described that trip of the hon. the Prime Minister as having taken place at a spanking pace. Does he expect the hon. the Prime Minister to greet every Tom, Dick and Harry in the streets, like a Bobby Kennedy? Dit he expect that from the Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa? Sir, that is the level at which the Leader of the Opposition wanted to conduct this debate. I go further. I couple the United Party to their ally, the Sunday Times. What did the Sunday Times say of the Prime Minister’s overseas tour? These words were written by the hon. member for Kensington who is sitting at the back there—

Sir, those are the words the hon. member for Kensington placed in the mouth of his editor in his description of the Prime Minister’s tour. Instead of that, while the Prime Minister of the Republic is travelling overseas, why do they not tell the world of the spectacular progress that has been made under the leadership of the Prime Minister?

Where?

The hon. member asks “where?” In respect of the political development of the various Bantu peoples. Sir, within one year the Prime Minister has provided the various peoples with their own Constitution, their own homeland government and their own departmental services. He supplied this to the Ovambo’s; to the Ciskei, to the Tswana, to the Southern Sotho; to the Venda and the Shangaans, and on 11th June he gave it to the Zulu. Sir, do you know what the Opposition said in 1960 and in 1961? They said that the Zulu would never accept it. Why does the United Party not tell the outside world that the Prime Minister is placing these people on the road to self-determination? [Interjections.] Sir, I have only a few minutes. There remains only one, the Swazi, who have to be placed on the road to self-determination. This Government will see to it that they are also placed on that road. The hon. the Prime Minister did not only give these people a territorial authority; he also placed white officials at their service to help them—not the way the other countries do it, i.e. by giving the people their independence and then leaving them to their own fate. No, we help them step by step until they eventually obtain independence. We are helping them, not only financially, but also with every other means. Why do hon. members opposite not tell the outside world what this Prime Minister has done? Why do they want to present him as a “backwoodsman” from Koffiefontein? Is that not a scandalous expression to use in respect of one’s Prime Minister? What did the Leader of the Opposition say? He said that the Prime Minister travelled through these countries at a spanking pace. Sir, I want to put this question to the Opposition, and in particular to the hon. member for Kensington, who speaks so softly in this House because he is afraid we shall hear him, but who makes use of a poisonous pen. Why does he not tell the world that, as far as the Continent of Africa is concerned, under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister we represent here the strength of the Western world in the economic, political, military and spiritual spheres. Why does he not tell them that; why does he not tell the countries of the Western world that this Prime Minister, who visited them recently, is the man who rooted out Communism and the agitators in the Republic of South Africa? Why does he not tell the world that this Prime Minister expanded this Republic, that he protected and strengthened it? Why does he not tell the world that love and peace and quiet prevail in the Republic of South Africa? Why does he not tell the world that we in the Republic of South Africa have no strikes? Why does he not tell them that while he is paying a visit there? Instead of that the hon. member tells the world that the Prime Minister represents a country which is a “polecat” in the eyes of the outside world. Is this fair and just? Sir, I ask the hon. member why he used that word when Die Burger had used it; why did he repeat it; why does he want to rub it under the nose of our Prime Minister?

Sir, to-day we want to pay tribute to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his officials for one of the most wonderful of tours they arranged for our Prime Minister, specifically to prove that the Republic of South Africa is not isolated; specifically to prove that the Republic of South Africa is not a “polecat” in the eyes of the world. That is why he was received so courteously in those parts of the world he visited; that is why he found no person or body demonstrating against him. This shows you that the Republic of South Africa’s Prime Minister is welcome everywhere in the world, and that he is definitely not a “polecat”, but that the world looks up to him and also to the Republic. One day the world will still come and see what recipe the Republic is making use of in order to bring about racial peace, and then it will make use of that recipe itself.

I would like to thank you, Sir, for giving me a further opportunity to finish the remarks which I started making earlier to-day. Sir, I will not reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Brakpan. I believe the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will be speaking later, and he will undoubtedly deal with the hon. member’s remarks. I would like to start where I left off.

Let me say again that foreign policy does not consist only of correct diplomatic postures and friendly overtures in foreign countries. Its content is inevitably made up also of domestic actions. Everything that happens in this country, the policies which we carry out in this country, the things which we do in this country, all have their repercussions overseas to some degree, or affect our foreign relations to some extent. In the kind of world in which we now live it is always necessary to consider whether the small convenience of some arbitrary local action, perhaps by a Ministry which is unaware of all the aspects of foreign relationships, may not be outweighed by heavy damage to South Africa’s vital oversea interests. We should like to see the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs taking a firmer stand in such matters, and if he does so he may count on our strong approval.

Sir, praiseworthy efforts are being made by the hon. the Minister and his Department to establish good relations with African States. So far the positive results have been mainly confined to those States whose geographical and economic circumstances place them in a situation of close inter-dependence with South Africa. We recognize that the implications of our domestic situation—and I am not referring to these in a party political sense—make this a task which obviously requires much patient diplomacy, and we shall be patient with the hon. the Minister while he carries out this task. We strongly support his efforts to expand these relationships more broadly, and we believe that his success will depend very largely on his ability to adopt the kind of positive-constructive policies of which I spoke early in this debate.

Sir, let me give an example. There is at present a dispute between South Africa and some other States over a proposed road link between Botswana and Zambia. I do not presume in this debate, in the time at my disposal, to attempt to produce an instant solution. The problem is too complex for that, and for all I know it may also be the subject of negotiation. I will therefore merely refer to a general principle. Sir, whatever the rights and wrongs of the boundary question, would it be wise for South Africa to assert its legal rights to attempt to block off contact between two neighbouring countries and thereby to block off our hopes of future good relations with them, by adopting a rigid attitude on the boundary question? Would it not be more constructive, for example, to sponsor and to negotiate a treaty, possibly a quadripartite treaty or a tripartite treaty, in an attempt to establish a demilitarized international corridor, under adequate guarantees that free commercial passage would be allowed between these states while ensuring absolutely and to our own satisfaction under international inspection that no military or hostile traffic would pass across the bridge? There are undoubtedly considerable difficulties in negotiating an agreement of this kind; but would the difficulties that we might encounter not be trivial compared with the effects of creating a permanent point of friction in our future relations with neighbouring states in our area of co-prosperity in Southern Africa?

We do not intend doing that.

I am very glad to hear it.

There is one other matter I want to raise in all humility. Last year the United Kingdom Government published the report of its Review Committee on Overseas Representation. This committee under the chairmanship of Sir Val Duncan, the chairman of Rio Tinto, reviewed the British Foreign Service in detail and recommended a number of fundamental reforms. These reforms were intended to cope more effectively with the shrinking world which I described earlier. It was also intended to adapt what he feared might become a rather old fashioned foreign service to meet the demands of this new world with its new communications and its new problems. One of the essential themes of this report was that trade no longer follows the flag and that it is the flag which follows trade. This can be intrepreted to mean that it is not commerce which follows diplomacy, but diplomacy which follows commerce. In his recommendations for the new foreign service which he wishes to be created he demanded that greater emphasis, be placed on the development of the trade and commercial services and that even in the creation of new posts special regard should be had to this aspect.

South Africa is a country which politically at this moment does not carry a great deal of credit abroad. In the sense of our political philosophy in this country we rate very low on the league table of the nations of the world. Economically, however, South Africa is growing fast and it is how already amongst the first 20 nations, economically considered and in the international trade tables of the world. If we rank high in one field and low in another, can we not emphasize our strengths, and play down our weaknesses? Can we not make a major effort in our relations with Africa and in our relations with other countries of the world to use our aces, our kings and our queens when we play our hand in preference to the twos, threes and fours that we hold in our political hand?

I have little more time, but I would like to associate myself with my two colleagues, the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in their remarks about the answering of questions in this House. We believe that when we ask questions, the House is entitled to full and frank information. We do not think it is necessary to be secretive or evasive in answering these questions and we will appreciate greater frankness and fullness of reply. If the matter is truly secret, we will understand; but if information is available, we would appreciate a frank form of answer.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Von Brandis will not take it amiss of me if I do not refer to the speech he made here a moment ago. I first want to refer to a statement which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made. He reproached this Government with being too sensitive to criticism. I want to say at once to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he is completely wrong. This Government has never been too sensitive to criticism. What did the hon. member say? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout accused the hon. the Minister by implication that he had set off for London virtually before the new British Government had been elected and that Sir Alec Douglas-Home had not settled in to his new portfolio properly before the hon. the Minister requested an interview with him. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will admit now that it was a very unfair statement against the hon. the Minister. If there is one man who knows international diplomacy, it is the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has forgotten that it is in fact this hon. Minister who represented South Africa abroad for years as an ambassador. The hon. the Minister knows exactly what etiquette is and I do not think there is anybody in this House who can point a finger at this hon. Minister and say that he is not aware of every rule of etiquette in the field of diplomacy. Therefore I also want to say that I think it was really unpatriotic of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to do that. Why am I saying this? I shall tell the hon. member why.

You are a donkey, man.

The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Mr. Chairman, if I am insulted here …

Order! The hon. member must not argue with the Chair.

I withdraw the word.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout should know that South Africa is in a very delicate position in world politics to-day. South Africa is being envied to-day because of its tremendous mineral riches. South Africa is being envied as no other country in the world because of its strategic position. For these reasons we have bitter enemies overseas. Those bitter enemies overseas carefully follow the debates which are conducted in this House. There are enemies of South Africa who are continually seeking South Africa’s downfall and they examine the debates which take place in this House under a magnifying glass. They lie with their ears against the ground. Therefore there is a particular responsibility resting on the Opposition in this House to show that, even if they are opposed to our policy, they are at least patriotic. I had the privilege of travelling abroad with the hon. member for Yeoville, who is not here at the moment. I want to tell this Committee of this House this evening that the hon. member for Yeoville really behaved like a South African who is a South African to the core. He conducted himself very well and performed his task very well. He acted with the utmost patriotism at all times. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is so eloquent now, that if there is one body which is despised by the bitter enemies of South Africa, it is the United Party. The hon. member for Houghton is a heroine among them. I readily concede this, but they are using the United Party just because they know here is a body which is opposed to the Government. This is where it ends. Do not think that they for one moment believe in the policy of the United Party.

I actually stood up to raise another matter, which relates to a report in this morning’s Press under the heading “U Thank tackles South Africa”. This report appeared in Die Burger. It read (translation)––

This was on the occasion of the annual conference of the Organization for African Unity. The report continued—

In other words, it was not only an attack on South Africa, but also a direct attack on the large powers which are to-day trading with South Africa. It seems strange to me that an official of U.N., namely the Secretary-General, can make this sort of attack on a member country of that organization. I think it is unprecedented in the history of international bodies, one can say since the days of the Oracle of Delphi, that an official of such an international organization can go so far as to launch such a vicious attack on one of its member countries. U Thant had several predecessors. There were Trygve Lie, Henry Spaak, and Dag Hammarskjöld. I think they acted correctly and courteously in their relations with South Africa. They had a proper appreciation of the duty which rested on them by virtue of their holding the important post of Secretary-General. I think South Africa can rightly lodge a strong objection to this bitter attack. He had gone to open the conference of the Organization for African Unity. He sat with them at the same table and planned to bring about the downfall of South Africa, a member country of the U.N. And this while he is a servant of the organization.

South Africa has a proud record in respect of international organizations. South Africa is the country which originally initiated the League of Nations. The late Gen. Smuts put forward the idea of a League of Nations. Before the conference in Paris in 1918 took place, he published his famous booklet entitled “The League of Nations: A practical suggestion”. I think South Africa can rightly be regarded as the founder of international organizations in the modern sense of the word. In addition, South Africa played an important role in the establishment of the U.N. in San Francisco in 1945, and subsequently. Throughout the history of the U.N., South Africa has always acted correctly. It has acted courteously and correctly, like a man who knows the rules. South Africa is one of the few countries which regularly pays its membership fees. South Africa has never been in arrears with its payments.

There are numerous member countries of the U.N. which never pay their membership fees regularly. In fact, some of them eventually lost their voting rights because they had been in arrears for years. It has never been necessary for them to urge South Africa to pay its membership fees. In spite of this, U Thant now makes this biting attack. I think it was an attack which South Africa does not deserve, and an attack which is not worthy of U Thant. In addition, it contained a veiled attack on the other countries which trade with South Africa, such as France and Britain, as well as large number of the African states. It is in fact these countries which trade with South Africa which he accused in this vicious language of supporting South Africa. Therefore I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to lodge a strong objection to the fact that an official of the U.N., who is supposed to be a servant of that organization, launched this type of attack against South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we hear a great deal about patriotism from that side of the House. We are not prepared to be taught by hon. members on that side. However, I just want to say that to me patriotism means that a man must not do something which will prejudice his country. There is not the least doubt that the position in which South Africa finds itself to-day is due to the actions, the laws, the politics and the attitude of that side of the House. We are criticizing their actions because we should like to see matters rectified. It is quite ludicrous to say that that criticizm is unpatriotic. I can stand up here and accuse that side of the House of being unpatriotic and they can do the same to us. What will we achieve by that? What we disapprove of in members on that side of the House is that they do not have the courage to bear the consequences of their actions. All the blame for the effect of their misdeeds is always placed on the Opposition. That is why I told the hon. the Minister that we wanted to conduct a debate on a high level here, but if we have to listen to accuzations of this type year after year, we shall voice our protest.

We do not object to constructive enticism.

Is the hon. the Minister suggesting that the criticism which I expressed was destructive? I can in fact say that the hon. the Minister made a remark in which he set a very unfortunate example, when he said that this side of the House displayed satisfaction at South Africa’s being in such an isolated position. The hon. the Minister should not set such an example. In no respect was I destructive in my criticism. If I was, hon. members on that side of the House must indicate where I said something destructive. But the hon. member who has just sat down, adopts the attitude that a Minister is an angel and never makes a mistake.

No.

Yes, that was the attitude of that hon. member. I want to repeat this evening that we on this side of the House are of the opinion that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a tactical mistake by going to Britain at an unpsychological moment. Is it unpatriotic to say that a Minister, who is in a very responsible position, made a tactical mistake? May the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not even criticize actions of the hon. the Prime Minister? Where would that land us? What a ridiculous situation we have here! No, we must get away from that attitude. I am sorry for members on the Government side, because some of them must always do more than the scratch Government’s back. And because they have nothing to say, they launch such silly attacks on this side of the House. I hope they will have the courage in future to accept responsibility for what they are doing to South Africa and not put the blame on us when we criticize their actions.

You are a back-stabber.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

Oh well, that hon. member is a boor (gomtor).

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is that hon. member entitled to call another hon. member a boor?

I beg your pardon, he is an hon. boor.

The hon. member may continue with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a few points in regard to the U.N. We are still a member of the U.N. and we pay a considerable amount to be a member, and also to maintain a mission there. From time to time there are utterances on the Government side which make one wonder whether the Government regards it as worth the trouble to remain a member. For example, I read on the front page of Die Transvaler that when the hon. the Prime Minister spoke in Portugal he said that the U.N. was “worth nothing” to us. The report may have been wrong. The hon. the Minister was there and he can correct the report. I notice from replies by the hon. the Minister to my questions that our membership fees of the U.N. amount to an average of 555,000 dollars a year. This includes the contribution to the Emergency Fund. Our permanent representation is costing us a total of R219,000 this year.

Do you think that is too much?

No, my point is just that our membership of the U.N. costs us approximately half a million rand annually. We merely want clarity about the hon. the Minister’s attitude in this regard. If we spend half a million rand a year, it ought to be of some use to us to be a member.

What is your opinion?

My opinion is that it is definitely advantageous for a country to be a member, because, in spite of all the U.N.’s shortcomings, international politics is not much different from national politics. It has much the same shortcomings. And here we have practically all the different countries together. The positive side of the matter is that it is at least a forum where countries can meet one another and where contact can be made. If these advantages are properly used, the U.N. can be a very useful forum for us too. I honestly believe that if we do not make a break-through at some time or other in that forum where all the countries are gathered together and where all of them can be spoken to immediately, our international position will never improve. Therefore it is our point of view that, in spite of all the U.N.’s shortcomings, it is still of use to South Africa to remain a member.

What is your point?

I want to know what the Government’s attitude is, in view of all the utterances by Government members that the U.N. is worth nothing to us.

Are only you allowed to criticize, and not we?

No, that is not the point. We also criticize the U.N. But when the matter is taken so far as to say that the U.N. is such a large amount in respect of membership, we have an anomalous position. Why then do we still remain a member. I am asking the hon. the Minister to tell me why he deems it in the interest of South Africa to remain a member. Surely this is a very fair question.

This was fully explained last year.

No I want to hear the present point of view, because this statement was made recently. I think we should get some clarity on this matter. I should like to support the hon. member for Wynberg and to address a request to the hon. the Minister that Information should fall under the Department of Foreign Affairs in so far as propaganda in foreign countries is concerned. I do not want to discuss the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Information now. He granted an interview to Hoofstad, in which he abdicated. He said that they were going to cause the accent to fall inwards.

You are being silly. I never said that.

I have the report here. We shall come to the hon. the Minister’s Vote later.

You are crazy, man (gek).

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them.

I do not have time to read this report now. I shall send it to the hon. the Minister. According to this report, the hon. the Minister said that they were going to cause the accent to fall inwards. If this is untrue, he must fight it out with Hoofstad. But the point is that all the propaganda made in the past, the South-West Africa Survey, the publication about prisons, all the best publications dealing with politics, did not emanate from the Department of Information, but from the Department of Foreign Affairs. On that positive basis I ask that we return to the old system which was in operation before the present Minister became Minister of Foreign Affairs, and that information, as far as propaganda for foreign consumption is concerned, should rather be dealt with by the Department of Foreign Affairs, because it can be dealt with much better by this Department than by the Department of Information.

Furthermore I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider reporting to Parliament annually as was done in the past, on events at the U.N. I do not think it is fair to Parliament that we should spend half a million rand a year and have no convenient report on how South Africa is progressing there and what resolutions are taken. We must run to the Library to find information in this connection. I do not think that is good enough for members of Parliament. I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that it often takes two years before publications are available in the Library. [Time expired]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.