When the House adjourned last night, I was replying to some of the points raised by hon. members of the Opposition. Now I come to the hon. member for Durban Central. The hon. member said that the trend would be to cut entertainments into pieces and that not only the whole, but also parts of it would be prohibited. It was for that reason that he was against the clause, in terms of which entertainments could also be prohibited in part. The problem is that a part of an entertainment, which is of high quality otherwise, may sometimes be offensive and not be acceptable to a certain section of the public for various reasons. Then, again, there may be complaints from the public because the piece as a whole may be a good one. At the moment the board does not have the right to omit a part of that piece, the omission of which would not necessarily detract much from the standard of the piece as a whole. Well, the board is now going to be granted that right.

†As the hon. member knows, in a satirical review you often get various items, one or two of which might give offence. I am thinking now of a satire like 8 Beasts, for instance. If the hon. member has seen it he will recollect that there is one parody on the Lord’s Prayer. I have been told by more than one person that they regarded it as offensive. This has not been prohibited; it has not been taken out; 8 Beasts is still running. In an instance like this the chairman of the Publications Board can talk to this impresario and tell him to take out that offensive portion and he will still be left with a very good and acceptable satire. That is the reason for this clause.

*Then the hon. member for Maitland had the problem of a person who goes abroad and buys a cinematograph film there, or who sends an agent abroad to buy a cinematograph film. I think I have already explained adequately what the position is. If a person sends an agent abroad to buy a cinematograph film, he still does not know whether that film is going to be intended by him for exhibition in public. He may have that in mind, but he will not yet have made a decision. When that film arrives here, there is a difference between viewing and exhibiting it. If the technician who would normally show the film, merely causes the film to be screened for the proprietor to look at it, it does not constitute an exhibition of the cinematograph film; that person is merely looking at it as the proprietor of the cinematograph film. Therefore, the hon. member need not concern himself about that; that is merely hair-splitting. Then I want to add that when the law agent acts, he will be the agent of the eventual proprietor, not the proprietor himself, at a stage when the film has not yet been intended for exhibition.

The hon. member for Maitland said that the Publications Control Board was now going to build a wall between the public and itself. I have already said that there will be criticism just as there has been before, but this criticism is merely going to be subdued for the short period while these people have to do their work. Nothing can be fairer than that; I have already furnished the reasons for this move. But it will still be possible to have a polemic. It will still be possible for the public to carry on polemizing. As the section is being amended now, the public will not be affected at all; the only person who will be affected, is the film man himself, and then he still has to commit a calculated act.

The hon. member for Houghton experienced problems in regard to good books which were being banned, books which are of literary and scientific value. I do not think the hon. member has read the Bill carefully enough; she should take another look at section 5 (4) (b) (iii), in which these books are, by implication, excluded from the operation of the Act. Unfortunately I cannot give her any more information about “Prudence and the Pill”; that was long before my time. I suppose, and I was told, that the person who was nominated to view the film, had already judged and then passed it before the Minister could reject his deputy’s recommendation. Some problem or other arose. I think the hon. member will accept that at the moment I cannot furnish her with all the details of a film which is two or three years old. She mentioned this case in order to question the competence of the board. In this case there was in fact an administrative misunderstanding.

Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout simply started by expressing a threat. The hon. member said that if the Deputy Minister did not promise that this whole matter of censorship and legislation would be referred to a Select Committee after this Act had been piloted through, they would vote against all the clauses relating to the application of the Act in South-West Africa. I do think that the hon. member is expecting a little bit too much. A matter such as this one is, in any case, a matter for the Cabinet to decide, and it has to be discussed. The hon. member heard yesterday what an extensive problem the problem of censorship is, what a most comprehensive problem it is. But apart from that the hon. member is, after all, acquainted with the South-West Africa Affairs Readjustment Act, and this is one of the matters which was listed and which has to be made applicable to South-West Africa before a certain time. Consequently it is unfortunately not possible to accede to this request, which I interpreted as a condition or a threat or a demand.

Then there is something which I just want to clarify to hon. members to whom it may have been somewhat obscure yesterday, i.e. that they should draw a clear distinction between ordinary advertizing and a calculated act. I think the hon. member for Orange Grove understands it now. Ordinary advertising can still be engaged in by the person who is in control of a cinematograph film which is intended by him to be exhibited in public and which has already been submitted by him. The only thing is that he should not commit a calculated act. A person would be committing a calculated act if, for instance, he anticipated the ruling of the Publications Control Board and wrote in the Press that such and such a cut ought not to be made, for it would not be right to do so, etc., and the board would be making a mistake if they did. He may not do so while they are engaged in their task. That is a calculated act. I am merely mentioning this one example. But there is nothing the matter with his advertizing the film in the normal manner, by saying that it is a fine film, by making a general statement in that regard and by furnishing details of the film.

May I just ask this? Suppose he engaged in advertizing such as that “the film will contain torrid love scenes done with good taste”, would he permit it?

The hon. member is now trying to anticipate the decisions of a board that has to decide on these matters and also to corner me for an answer. I am unable to tell the hon. member this. The case in question must be judged objectively. I hope the hon. member understands now. I think he is merely pretending not to understand.

I have now explained to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what the position is in regard to South-West Africa, but there is something else I want to explain to him. He also raised doubts here about the fact that the German culture in South-West Africa might not be taken into consideration when the Act is made applicable to South-West Africa. Well, this is a case in respect of which I believe it was a good thing that he brought it to the notice of the House, for the Government is very well aware of this aspect. For that reason the Minister will ensure that a panel of members or a member of the board will be appointed specifically with the idea that he should be well acquainted with the position in South-West Africa. [Interjections.] If that private conversation has ended, I should just like to finish dealing with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In South-West Africa there is no definition of races. The section which omits that, simply seeks to make it possible for the Act to be applicable there, and the amending Bill which we are moving now, does not alter the position to such an extent that it makes us ridiculous in this respect.

Then the hon. member wanted to know the meaning of this subsection (4A), which refers to “do anything”. What does “do anything” mean? The hon. member can merely take this as his yardstick. It means: to do anything which is calculated, a calculated act. Public opinion is not relevant here. I explained that a moment ago. It merely has a bearing on the person who controls the cinematograph film.

To the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District I want to say once again that it is not the producer of the film who is involved here; it is the person in whose control the film is, who is the proprietor and who, through his actions, has shown that it is intended by him to be exhibited in public. Yesterday we discussed the difference between exhibiting and viewing.

Will you accept an amendment to that effect?

We are not dealing with the Committee Stage at the moment. The hon. member can raise the matter there. At this stage I think I should briefly outline something, and I think this is due to the House owing to the fact that we have had here such a tremendous public polemic on this Bill. I think I owe it to the House to outline to you, Sir, the story of the Press campaign against this Bill as well as the speculations, etc., but I also want to outline the Government’s problems which gave rise to this Bill. We are not dealing with personalities here, and I addressed members in that regard yesterday. Therefore I want to mention a few things in regard to public opinion, how the Government has to take notice of it. The newspapers waged a fierce Press campaign against this Bill. I have here ample proof to that effect. But some of our members of the House of Assembly allowed themselves to be involved in the Press campaign in a manner which does not redound to their credit, because they ought to have known better in their particular profession and ought to have studied the Bill more carefully. Take the hon. member for Green Point, for example. I have here a cutting from The Argus of 3rd February, which reads as follows—

Surely, that is rubbish. In newspapers, but mostly in film magazines from abroad, we find reviews on scores and scores of films which have not yet been before the board but which are outside this country, i.e. films with which we have no links as yet. They will not be prohibited. Surely, he could have thought that out for himself.

Under (4A)?

Under the first (4A), as it was originally, the hon. member was completely off the point, for yesterday I took the trouble here to explain what any lawyer ought to know, namely that we only pass intra-territorial legislation.

Other people differ on that point.

You may differ with the point, but that is in actual fact what the position is. Or does the hon. member want to deny that as a rule our legislation is territorial unless it is explicitly stated that it is extra-territorial? He could therefore have drawn that conclusion. But what I think was in fact unfair, is this: I call it unfair because the persons who are sitting in the Press Gallery have at their disposal a mighty medium of communication and have to inform the public. The public must draw conclusions in respect of what the Press tell the public, and the Press is not subject to censorship at present. The Press is subject to the Press Board of reference. In other words, they are free. They have a code and have to go according to that code. Here I have a Cape Times report, “Censor Absurdity”, published quite a number of days after this Bill had been introduced. This report contains seven statements, based on the original Bill as it was introduced. Of those seven statements six are quite wrong, and the seventh one does have a point. It only has a point because we did already feel that that part of the section could be wider than was the intention.

On a point of order, Sir is the hon. member down there allowed to say, “He is a champion liar”?

Of course. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I shall not make that charge. I am merely appealing to the Press to be a little more restrained, even if it is entitled to express an opinion. But these comments are unfair. I quote—

1. (1) South African newspaper readers will be kept in total ignorance of what films are being made, are going to be made or have been made and have not yet reached these shores and the preview cinema in the Thomas Boydell Building.

I assume this is a reference to the censors—

1. (2) No matter how glittering the world premiére, how glamorous … South Africa would know nothing of what the excitement was about until with the passage of time the picture receives our censors’ formal approval.

Both of these statements are quite wrong. Then there is a reference to Sophia Loren, and this is said—

I shall read that again—

The article continues in that vein, and this is another quotation from it—

I wonder whether hon. members are aware of all the kinds of pornography published in film magazines entering the country. But if it is a film magazine, it falls under section 5 and 6. In any case, it does not fall under section 10. I wonder whether hon. members know how much pornography is published in film magazines which enter the country. I have seen it and therefore I know.

In one single case the position is reflected correctly. I read—

That is the position in terms of the original Act. It was not the intention to prohibit ordinary discussions on these matters, but that conclusion could have been drawn. Only in one out of seven cases a correct conclusion was drawn. I am not even going to read the other two. That would not be necessary. This proves that they were not more than approximately 10 per cent correct, whereas the Bill was 90 per cent correct.

Some of our journalists are present here. I want to speak to them in a friendly manner. I do not want to cross swords with them. The day before yesterday, during the Second Reading debate, it was stated clearly that the Press would be free to publish details after the board had taken a decision. That is the position as long as it is not done in a pornographic manner or in such a manner that the Publications Control Board or the Press Board of Reference may step in. We believe that the Press Board of Reference will do its job in this regard. That is why I sounded this warning. I only felt that the newspapers, which are enjoying every freedom and have a code, should also ask themselves from time to time whether they were not abusing that freedom. There is nothing wrong with asking them that question. Nor is it wrong to warn them. I shall prove later on that articles which may give offence, are sometimes published. This may become worse and worse. Let us consider what was published inter alia in yesterday’s Cape Times. I read—

Surely, this is not the case. This unrestrained campaign went on for weeks. Because the Bill was not studied thoroughly, people did not always act correctly.

That was subsection (4A) …

Oh no. That was in the original. But the report that was published here, appeared in yesterday’s morning paper, after the Second-Reading speech had been made. I do therefore have reason to accept that this member of a Press group did not do his homework, did not listen or wrote on the grounds of hearsay. I am not saying that this was done maliciously. I am only saying that it is not right; that it is unfair and wrong. But I know what gave rise to this kind of thing. As long ago as 24th January the United Party decided that they would institute a penetrating investigation into the Board of Censors and the manner in which censorship was being practised. I believe that this was in consequence of something which would originally have been a mountain, i.e. the Noble Petition, which has now been delivered of a mouse, when they started fighting amongst themselves. In this regard I am going to quote from an article in the Sunday Times of 24th January, 1971, under the heading “United Party probe powers of censorship”—

Final judgments have not yet been passed in regard to these matters. Our legal procedure is such that the State and any other person have the right to go to the highest court of law. That has not yet been done—

And the vultures were there. They had to snatch that up immediately. They went along and took the Press in tow, subsequent to which there was this type of unrestrained Press campaign. And now I do not want to single out any particular pressman or Press. These people search for news. People in responsible positions are influencing these persons in this manner. Reference was made to a “corps of snoopers”. The inspectors who are going to be appointed, are now called “snoopers”.

Super-snoopers!

Yes, super-snoopers. I am glad the hon. member has said “super”. There is not one super on the other side of the House, and yet it is being said quite piously—

The norms which will be laid down by the board, are norms laid down by law. These are the norms which any Judge determines in judging a law. The Judge also has a law in terms of which he makes determinations. The Judge may say that this was not the intention of the legislature or that in his view that was not the intention of the legislature.

Here I have a few more excerpts such as—

I think we should leave the matter just there. Everything indicates that we have had here an unrestrained campaign, which was instigated not only by the persons who wrote these articles, but also by those persons who supplied them with the news. There have also been speculations, but we may as well leave them alone. Because I have been unwilling to feed the speculations over the past four or five weeks or to furnish information, about which the Members in this Parliament should not even hear, these things are being held against me. Some newspapermen drew conclusions for themselves, some of which were very intelligent and some of which were very wide of the mark. Yesterday I saw once again how wide of the mark some of them can be.

†Especially the English-language Press last year kept up a running battle against censorship. I got the impression that they avidly publish letters attacking censorship but they probably reject some of the more numerous letters which are pro-censorship. Yet our experience is that we get more letters from people who are pro-censorship. There is another thing I want to tell members opposite. The English-speaking people are more vocal and articulate in their support of censorship and their condemnation of permissiveness than the Afrikaansspeaking people are. The hon. members opposite would not have thought that, but it is our experience. Furthermore, we receive as many letters and telephone calls from English-speaking people as we do from Afrikaans-speaking people, who criticize the board for being too lenient and encourage the board to be more strict.

*However, those people who want to display a pious facade of not being opposed to censorship, or “censure”, as they say it in English, want a line to be drawn. Who draws that line and where is that line to be drawn? Where does pornography start and where does it end? Where does subversion start and where does it end? Where does the incitement of racial friction start and where does it end? It is subjective, but somebody has to decide on such matters. I want to tell hon. members that the basis of the attacks made by these people and the basis of this opposition, is a basic antipathy to censorship as a principle. There are Western countries where censorship has been removed completely. This problem is not confined to the present only. It does not merely date back to the time when this Bill was published, for it started last year already. During a certain period it became worse and worse. Then the time arrived when we showed the hon. members the cuts, and some of the hon. members saw those cuts. We need not all agree that all of those cuts should have been made. I did not agree that all of those cuts should have been made. The hon. member for Orange Grove saw them. Does he not think that there are many cuts which should in fact have been made?

Not many.

Oh, not many! Well then, I think that at this stage the board knows what degrees of permissiveness, of pornography and of liberalism there are.

I want to explain and prove to the non. members briefly that this matter …

There are degrees of “verkramptheid”.

Yes, carry on, go on harping on the one little word which the hon. member has learned. The hon. member did not coin that word either. An Afrikaner did so. I just want to prove briefly to the hon. members what I mean, and I want to do so on the basis of a few headings “The film world we are denied —Percy Banishek.” On 4th August, 1970, the Cape Times carried a lengthy article, which read as follows—

We shall come back to this in a moment. Star; “ ‘Childish’ tag for censors.” That was even before this legislation was introduced in Parliament. Our friend Stanley Uys, of the Sunday Times, wrote the following in July, last year: “A very dull society in a backward country.”

Hear, hear!

By saying, “Hear, hear!” hon. members opposite are confirming our conviction that they are considering this matter in a balanced manner. He went on to say, “Our boast in South Africa is that we do not yield half an inch, and the guardians we have marshalled are not so much the Security Policy as the Board of Censors.” Then he mentioned “Easy Rider” as an example of a film he could see without its being cut, by which he implied that it was a picture which should not have been allowed here. While hon. members opposite were playing golf on Saturday, I went to see these films in order to acquaint myself with the facts. I saw “Easy Rider” as well, and I found it to be a film in which the use of narcotics received sympathetic treatment and which consequently tried to defend the use of narcotics. I noticed a similar trend in other films as well. These are aspects which hon. members opposite did not bear in mind when they started opposing this Bill. Stanley Uys went on to say—

I shall leave him at that. In the end he eventually came to apartheid. I have other proof here as well. There is, for instance, André Brink, “the world-famous poet”. He also said that we should keep out the most filthy publications. But then he went along and let the cat out of the bag. In a series of articles written two years ago he said (translation)—

He wrote this series in Dagbreek a few years ago. Hon. members will notice that I am quoting here from all sorts of publications in order to point out things against which we must be on our guard. There is still a great deal of other evidence, but I need not go any further than to mention this one instance only. In The Star of February the following appeared: “The case against censorship”, not “The case against realistic censorship”. Last year a letter written by Prof. Eben Meiring was published in Die Burger. Prof. Eben Meiring is a person of whom people are speaking highly as a connoisseur of the arts. His views were also used to disparage this Bill and to present it in a ridiculous light. He wrote, inter alia, that there should be continuous checks—in other words, apparently he is also in favour of there having to be a form of censorship or, as we call it, control over certain things that enter the country. But then he went along and also let the cat out of the bag, for towards the end he wrote (translation)—

Therefore, erotica shops are what is being proposed by a professor. Here I have another heading: “Van Wyk Louw’s successor slams censorship.” And so I could continue, but there is no need for me to furnish more evidence in support of the fact that there is a campaign against the desirability of having any publications control board whatever. Yesterday I pointed out how these people were being denigrated and how this campaign is aimed at abolishing censorship completely.

Why do you not quote from the Afrikaans Press as well?

I have quoted from all the newspapers. The Government also has a task, a very great task—in fact, a task which is wider in scope than control, than merely taking steps against morally subversive reading matter or against films or reading matter disturbing the relations between the races. We have a greater task than merely stopping pornography and things which corrupt the morals. Two months before I introduced this Bill in Parliament, we received more than 30 letters from people who said that we had to apply censorship more strictly. In those letters it was said that pornographic literature was lying about all over the country, literature which the Publications Control Board does not see and on which it cannot therefore give an opinion. That literature, so it was said, was contaminating the minds of our people.

The Police can act in that respect.

The Police have more than enough work, and the hon. member ensures that they have even more work. The Police have more work than hon. members think. Besides, they have not been trained for this task, although they may investigate instances of immoral conduct. Most of these letters came from English-speaking people, and in those letters it is being suggested that publications which ought to receive the attention of the Publications Control Board, are lying about all over the country. What is the board to do if it is swamped with such letters, letters from the Baptist Church and from other responsible bodies and persons? Here I have a letter which comes from East London, and in it the following is said—

The Publications Control Board has a task imposed on it by law. What is it to do if it is swamped with letters from the public such as this one? What is it to do if certain things are brought to its notice? How is it to respond? As public servants they must do their work. But this is not the only quarter from which we have been experiencing difficulties. We are also experiencing difficulties in regard to certain film producers, and that brings me to the new section 4. But before I come to that, I just want to refer to the appointment of inspectors. Inspectors are appointed to help these people so that they may do their work more effectively. Of course, some of those inspectors may also be members of the board. Do you know, Sir, that in regard to a periodical which appeared last year, i.e. Jonkheer’s Adam, we received within the space of three months more than 60 letters, including 12 petitions with almost as many signatures as have probably been collected by Noble up to this stage?

Noble is missing now.

Perhaps he is more “noble” now than he was. Incidentally, this periodical in itself is rather good proof of the course one follows in making political expediency one’s criterion when one enters public life. In Rapport of 10th January, 1971, I read: “Barry Botha loses his job in Rhodesia.” Mr. Botha has also been quoted here. It appears that shortly before Mr. Botha went to Rhodesia, he was working in Durban for this periodical, Jonkheer’s Adam. However, this publication was prohibited by the Publications Control Board. An appeal was lodged against the prohibition of this periodical. Now hon. members are complaining about money which is being spent when the Publications Control Board has to defend actions against it. But are we now to abandon an appeal like this and to come to terms with a periodical like this? Let hon. members give me a reply to that when they become so hasty again and when they so sanctimoniously feel concerned about the money which is allegedly being wasted. These people have a task. Hon. members ought to have read this already, and if they have not done so, it proves that they do not take as much of an interest as they profess to do. We have problems in regard to clause 4, in regard to the question of people who want to submit films intended to be exhibited in public. For instance, yesterday we spoke here about Jans Rautenbach. As far as “Katrina” is concerned, it was reported in Die Beeld that the film had been shown to almost 1,000 people before the Publications Control Board had seen it. What is the purpose of showing a film to 1,000 people in selected groups to give advice? Surely, the purpose is obvious; it is to rouse public opinion from far and wide, from all corners and quarters. Here I have a cartoon which appeared in Die Beeld, and the heading reads as follows: “Is there anybody left who has not seen the film?” By these means propaganda is made. The board must take notice of that, for a large amount of money is involved here. Sir, we also had our problems in this regard. We also had our problems in regard to “Jannie Totsiens”. Mr. Speaker, since hon. members have referred here to material which may not be published afterwards, I just want to show them something which came from The Star. This is a publication which is under the Press Board of Reference, not under the Publications Control Board. At a certain place abroad a public entertainment was given; women who were completely naked, appeared on the stage. The Star published a photograph of that scene and commented on it as well. That is the type of thing which may give offence. [Interjections.] Sir, once the hon. members have finished, I can go on; I shall not be long any more. That is the kind of thing which is happening abroad and which may give offence when it is published here. Sir, I think I have said enough to indicate that we have problems to which it is the duty of this House and this Government to pay attention.

In regard to the reception which this Bill has had here, I just want to say this. This Bill was cast in legal terms and published. Subsequent to that there was a tremendous uproar in the Press, and, as I indicated a moment ago, one-tenth of it was more or less correct. Then I decided to listen to the representations of people who may have problems and who have raised objections —the film producers and other bodies concerned in this matter. I also received representations from Jans Rautenbach. I think 90 per cent of his problems have already been solved, or let me put it this way: Almost all of his problems had already been solved by the time he made his representations, because he also misinterpreted the Act. I received representations from the Society of Advertisers, members of which came to see me; I received representations from the S.A. Akademie van Wetenskap en Kuns, the Motion Picture Producers’ Association, from the organization which controls Ster and Cinecor, from the National Council of Women and from the local chairman of the National Press Union. I listened to these interest groups and they persuaded me to effect minor changes as it would create problems for the people if these changes were not effected. Here is my proof. I listened to the problems of all these people. All of them cannot be solved. Jans Rautenbach would like another audience of 1,000 people to attend a preview of his film. I have explained why we cannot allow that. However, the main problems experienced by these people, particularly as regards advertisements, etc., have been solved.

Finally I just want to say this: I am sorry, Sir, for having taken up so much of the time of the House, but I was forced to do so because we are dealing with a very important matter, which is very popular and which is being brought up in the Press from day to day. The impression should not be left that we are insensitive to public opinion and that we are not taking cognizance of the fact that life is dynamic. This Government, the National Party, is a dynamic party. While hon. members opposite are still saddled with the ideas of Botha and Smuts, we are already engaged in Bantustans and their independence. Sir, I received two very explicit objections to this Bill in my office. However, I also received a long list of telegrams and letters in which this Bill is supported. And then the hon. members are talking about public opinion!

Now public opinion is important.

Public opinion has always been important to this Government, for it is public opinion which put us into power and which will keep us in office. We were not put into power by newspapers and columnists. We have a greater responsibility; we must govern the country. A columnist is merely one person; he is entitled to his views and he exerts his influence, but the South African public think for themselves, and that is why there are so many people on this side of the House. Sir, I have here a list of telegrams and letters which I received in support of this Bill. I just want to refer here to a few of the more interesting letters I received. Hon. members opposite have been talking about public opinion, to which they say they are listening, too. They have also said that they have the youth on their side. I have here a letter which was received only two months before this Bill was introduced. This letter was addressed to the chairman of the Publications Control Board, and I now want hon. members opposite to listen carefully. The letter reads as follows—

And then—

How do you do your thing?

The hon. member’s powers of comprehension are very poor. [Interjections.] If those private conversations have come to an end, I shall continue—

And this was signed by a “President of the United Party Youth Executive” of some branch or other here in the Peninsula. I shall not disclose this young man’s name. His M.P. knows who he is, for he received a carbon copy and the leader also received one. Are you not taking any notice of what the young people who are with you, are thinking of the increasing permissiveness in our country?

Mr. Speaker, I think I have finished. I just want to mention this. I should like to thank those speakers opposite who made good contributions, even if I differ with them. In particular I want to thank those speakers on this side of the House—and I am sorry that I cannot mention them all by name—who made a very good contribution in this very important debate. I also want to thank the Publications Control Board and its members and the officials, who have to carry out today a very responsible task under very difficult circumstances. I just want to tell the Opposition this: I think that with this opposition to this amendment Bill on a principle which has already been adopted, they have backed the wrong horse. They did not listen to the views of balanced people. Once again they chose the road of political expediency, and in that process they did not only display shameful political ignorance, but also left decent South Africa in the lurch.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N, Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Our objection to this clause is that it gives powers to the Minister to establish these administration boards and areas. Without this clause of course the Bill cannot be applied. We have contended that the Minister can in fact do what he wants to do and obtain more mobility of labour, merely by amending section 40 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act. We say that it is not necessary for him to proceed in this manner. In terms of section 40 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act the Minister acts in consultation with the local authority, he only acts with the approval of the local authority. We wish to amend this section by providing that the Minister will not act after consultation with the authority but in consultation with the local authority. This will mean that he will have to get their concurrence before he takes this administration out of their hands. I accordingly move—

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei as it is destructive of the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The idea behind this amendment is that I do not want to give the hon. the Minister the power simply to set up these boards unless the local authority has agreed to do so. The hon. the Minister has stated that he will consult with them and thereafter he will go ahead and set up these administration boards. I believe this to be a very important step to take. He is in fact usurping the duties of local authorities in this regard and unless they themselves are willing to have the hon. the Minister set up a board which will carry out the functions which up to now they themselves have carried out, he should not proceed with this intention.

Therefore, I wish to move that it is only with the agreement of the local authority that the hon. the Minister should set up his boards. I do not believe that the boards will function any better than the local authorities. I believe this to be a form of centralization of authority while, in fact, most of the modern Western countries are moving towards decentralization as far as the administration of local matters are concerned. In every large city of the world the tendency is to leave matters entirely in the hands of the persons actually living within those areas. Here we have so-called expertize brought in which will take over the functions formerly performed by the local authority as regards the administration of Bantu affairs. I disagree with this. I do not think it is going to improve the running of the townships or that it is going to improve the administration of local authority areas. I stated during the Second Reading debate that any improvement as far as mobility of labour is concerned could have been done in terms of existing legislation. I am sorry that the explanation given by the hon. the Minister when he replied did not convince me at all. I still do not see why the hon. the Minister, in terms of the very wide provisions of section 40 of the Urban Areas Act, could not have achieved what he told us was one of the main objectives of the Bill, namely to increase the area in which labour will be able to be freely moved while employed in the urban areas. For those reasons I wish to move this amendment.

Order! For the same reasons mentioned in the case of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei, I must rule the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain to the Committee why he feels that he could do so much better by establishing this particular board. The hon. the Minister provides in subsection (4) that urban local authorities shall retain certain powers. He said that they shall not be divested of any of the powers except in so far as such powers are by or under this Act vested in such board. We realize that the hon. the Minister has the right in terms of this clause virtually to take over the powers from every local authority or village management board, etc., throughout the country. I am not convinced either that the hon. the Minister has given sufficiently sound reasons for taking these powers for himself. He has not given sufficient reasons as to why he is asking for these powers or what he intends achieving by them. As has been pointed out, the hon. the Minister has the right to amend a section of the Urban Areas Act in order to give him powers with regard to the mobility of labour. It is a problem which he stated during the course of his Second Reading reply. He said it was a matter which should have been raised by the urban local authority itself and he wondered why it was not so raised. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that this is a problem of which he or his Department has been cognizant over a number of years. There has constantly been problems of this nature occurring and the penal powers of the Act have in fact been brought into operation because of contraventions of this very aspect, namely the question of Bantu living in prescribed areas for which they did not qualify. They were living there simply because they had sought work within that area. This resulted in a considerable flow of illegal labour from one prescribed area to another. I understand that it is very prevalent even today in the Cape because of the difficulties with which the Department has been faced. Therefore it is not a sufficient excuse to lay the blame at the doors of the local authority.

Nobody lays any blame at the door of a local authority.

The hon. the Deputy Minister asked why the local authorities themselves did not come forward some time ago. But the hon. the Deputy Minister knows about these problems. His Department should therefore have been aware of all the protestations made by local authorities of their desire to bring about a more workable management of this particular Bill with a view to alleviating the problem.

After all, it is the Department’s job in serving the community to ease all these difficult problems that arise in order to ensure better use of the labour and better conditions in the country generally with regard to the relationship between the Bantu and his employer and his contact with White urban local authorities. The hon. the Minister then says to himself: I have to deal with this question of mobility of labour. For some time now I have been a little bit unhappy because people do not jump to my orders as I deliver them. I do not like people differing from me in any sense. I do not like a person expressing a different opinion to mine. It is something which is not part of my make-up. This is how the hon. the Minister reasons. He then decides, to take completely sweeping powers to himself. Despite all the rights that he already has in terms of the Urban Areas Act, he decides that he must now take any powers or administrative rights they have. He wants to divest them of these powers and leave them entirely in his own hands.

You are completely off the rails. Did you not listen to the Second Reading debate?

I heard what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. I know what he wants to do and the hon. the Deputy Minister made it very clear. He maintains a reservation in this particular clause. It is a reservation that in certain cases he should also have the right not to leave them with certain powers. I should really like to know why the hon. the Deputy Minister is seeking this power. Admittedly he will do it after consultation, that is, after a courteous discussion with the particular local authority. It will of course be to the advantage of the hon. the Deputy Minister to have that discussion because without it I cannot see how he is going to unravel all the ramifications of the services which a local authority has undertaken in managing these various areas of administration. There is no question about it. He cannot move without consultation. I should like to know why he wants it.

The hon. the Minister already has this vast Department which he has to administer and which involves not only the cities and towns but the homelands as well. It is an enormous undertaking of which he has not as yet scratched the surface. Yet he desires now to even take this enormous octopus as it has been called, and fatten it even more by absorbing more and more of the bloodstream of the country. He is building an enormous pyramid. Someone referred to it as a tower of Babel that will extend right into the heavens when in time nobody will understand what the other wants. Does the hon. the Minister realize that over 100 Acts have been passed since 1948 which in some way or another affect the urban Bantu people? Here we had the opportunity of leaving it in the hands of subsidiary authorities which was the policy this country embarked upon many years back. He now wants to sweep everything under an enormous umbrella which he wishes to command.

I say that this is not sound administration. In very few business administrations or in any big undertakings in any country, does one try and bring everything under one umbrella, when one has the opportunity of establishing proper divisions with proper management. Then one retains at the top only the co-ordinating body, which is aware of all that takes place and which is able, by advice and consultation, to improve where necessary. The hon. the Deputy Minister wants everything under his control and everything to be at his beck and call. I say that this is going to bring a tremendous disruption into …

No!

I say it will bring a tremendous disruption into an atmosphere which has been built up painstakingly over half a century to bring us to the situation which we are enjoying today. It is a situation which the hon. the Minister should be grateful for, because it is not easy to bring this about in this great field of human relations, without understanding,wisdom and intimate knowledge of the day to day problems that arise. I feel that the hon. the Minister owes this House a very much clearer, a much more definite and convincing explanation than we have received from him in his Second Reading address.

I do not want to make a long story of this matter yet another time. In order to give hon. members opposite perhaps some peace of mind, I just want to make the following points. What does “after consultation” mean in practice? It means that the Minister has to submit to the local authorities all the information he has at his disposal and that he has to afford them a fair opportunity of commenting on that information. Surely this is fair. For that reason I gave in my Second Reading speech the conventional concept of “after consultation” in respect of local authorities in Britain. The object is, in the light of what I have just said, for the Minister and, naturally, his department, which is the body which this actually concerns, to place at the disposal of the local authority all information with regard to such a matter which they have. Moreover, the local authorities should be given the opportunity of commenting properly on such information. In that way sound interaction will be achieved. That is why I want to emphasize once more that this is the accepted practice in Britain in respect of local authorities. Britain has many more local authorities than we have. Britain’s experience also extends over many more years. If this is not acceptable to the hon. members on the opposite side, they have changed a very great deal indeed since the last time I have had dealings with them.

It is no good buttering it up.

Surely this is fair.

Let us now take a look at the reverse side of the coin, i.e. at “in consultation”. What is the position in respect of “in consultation” where this expression refers to administration? One needs only ordinary, common sense to see the difference and to realize that if one has to choose between these two expressions one most definitely cannot choose “in consultation” when one has to do with the question of administration and with a whole number of local authorities. I shall say why this is so. Suppose one had to deal with 10 or 20 local authorities. If the Act were to provide “in consultation” with them or “with the agreement of” them, as was proposed by the hon. member for Houghton, what would that mean? It would mean that the agreement of each local authority would be required. In this regard I want to ask in what situation we would find ourselves if there were 10 local authorities of which nine were unanimously in favour of certain action being taken and just one was opposed to it? In that case we would have passed an Act here in terms of which the hon. the Minister would be bound to give way when that single local authority had said no. This is what “in consultation” means.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is discussing an amendment now which I have already ruled out of order. Therefore I do not want him to go into this point any further.

Very well, I shall leave the matter at that, but because the hon. members made such a big point of this, I wanted to mention these few points so as to set their minds at ease as to why the position is as it is.

Then I should like to explain to the hon. members that the principal reason for making provision in this Act for the establishment of a board is our wish to create greater mobility of labour. If we accept this as our method of approach, the question immediately arises who is going to administer and control this. If it is our wish now to establish a larger administration area, for example on the Witwatersrand, and to create greater mobility of labour on the Witwatersrand, we are faced with 10 or 11 individual local authorities. Purely because of practical considerations greater mobility of labour cannot be created in that larger area when we are faced with 10 or more individual local authorities, each of which has its individual interests which are major interests. These are interests which are concerned with housing schemes and loans, which have to be redeemed, the acquisition of authority over land, etc. All these things are in addition to labour. If one finds oneself in a situation like this, one realizes immediately that a body has to be established which will be able to cope with the necessary administration and to exercise the necessary control. Otherwise it would be a madhouse in an area such as the Witwatersrand where there are 10 local authorities of which one, the Johannesburg local authority, is what we call in plain Afrikaans a “Sap” (United Party) city council.

Another is Brakpan.

Another is Brakpan. Each has its own individual interests. Surely hon. members can think for themselves, since we have to deal with a situation like this in practice, that this is the reason, and no other reason on earth, for the conclusion at which the United Municipal Executive, the Institute of Administrators of Non-White Affairs and we ourselves arrived after very thorough consultation, i.e. that the only logical, correct, sound and sensible way of dealing with this matter, once we had decided that we wanted to create mobility of labour there, was to establish the necessary body to see to the administration and the exercising of control. This is the full story in connection with this matter. I sincerely hope that the hon. members will now have a very good understanding of this and that they will not see all these other sinister things in this, because it is really unnecessary. Not one of the things which the hon. members on the opposite side see in this, is present here.

The hon. the Deputy Minister pleads with us to accept his bona fides. Let me say at the start that we do accept his bona fides. But he goes further and asks us to accept that this whole Bill has been brought about through practical considerations, the consideration of the practical application of this idea. The hon. the Deputy Minister must admit that he has been advised over and over again, not only by members on this side of the House, but by persons and bodies outside of this House, that the same object could have been achieved by means of a simple amendment to the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act.

You tell us how.

He has been told by the bodies concerned with the application of this Bill. It has been spelt out to him. A full, workable scheme has been laid before him. He must not come and talk about practical considerations. We will have to go deeper into it although he must understand that we accept his bona fides. We cannot, however, accept his talk of practical considerations.

Concerning the question of “after consultation”, he knows the objections which were lodged with him in connection with this particular provision. I want to read the comment of an organization representing a group of local authorities, which says:

This is what “after consultation” means. The effect is that, if this Bill is passed in this form, the Minister will be fully entitled to do what this body has set out, because it will have discharged its obligations in terms of the clause. “After consultation” is merely notification and it has been construed as such in the past. We would like from the hon. the Deputy Minister an undertaking that in some way he is going to allow these local authorities a say in what is going to be the future of their areas.

He has just taken 10 minutes to explain it to you.

Yes, I know he has explained it. Can I put it this way, can I have an undertaking from the Deputy Minister that he won’t do as is set out here, i.e. merely notify by means of a circular letter? This has happened in the past, and I do not think he can deny it.

Then there is the point raised by the hon. member for Jeppes, relating to the powers of local authorities. In subsection (4) we find that “any urban local authority or local government body contemplated in section 11 (1) shall not be divested of any of its powers in respect of any portion of the area under its jurisdiction except in so far as such powers are by or under this legislation vested in such board”. The question is, what powers do local authorities retain? What powers will they be able to apply in the areas falling under the jurisdiction of a board?

Why don’t you read the Bill?

It is no use the hon. jumbo member referring to this; I wonder whether he has read the Bill. If he has, it does not seem that he understands it. He is jumping to conclusions; here he puts his foot into it again. Local authorities have the power to levy rates. Will they retain that power in the areas under the jurisdiction of these boards? Furthermore, they also apply by-laws imposing building and other restrictions. Will they be able to continue to apply this power? This is the sort of thing to which we require answers. It is no good the hon. member for Potchefstroom saying this is not the Second Reading. We have asked these questions at the Second Reading without getting any answer. This is the only opportunity we have left of getting an answer.

I too do not disbelieve that the hon. the Deputy Minister is sincere in his attitude. However, it adds somewhat to the tragedy if one realizes that he virtually believed in what he told us. Let me tell him that mobility of labour only requires transport—that is all. I take a practical picture and do not take the whole of the Witwatersrand as one region stretching from Springs to Randfontein. That is much too vast—over 2 million people that would have to be administered by one board. Instead of that I contemplate two or three municipalities joining together and forming a board in terms of the amendment which was suggested by the Johannesburg City Council. They would not find that difficult. They realized that so long as you establish some co-ordinating board with representatives of the council, of industry, commerce and whatever other interests require to be represented on it, all one would then have to do is to regulate the movement of labour and return them to the dormitory areas to which they belong. An example was given to us in this House some time ago when we were discussing similar legislation, an example of how people move across borders, from Italy to France for instance. Great play was made about it. They said the movement of people across boundaries to sell their labour was not a difficult thing. As an example the movement of about 2 million people out of Italy across to France was mentioned. No organization is needed there to take over the administration of the two countries in order to attain mobility of labour. What is required is transport and work. It is not all that difficult. This Bill obviously is not the method per se of dealing with the mobility of labour. This contemplates a much vaster field altogether. The mobility of labour is being used as a peg on which to hang the rest of the Bill. At the risk of plagiarism I would risk to quote from what a certain authority wrote to the Minister. Therein it says—

There will therefore no longer be the co-operation of citizens elected to local authorities, many of whom have worked for years in this field, and the administrators of these urban areas. I could quote many names of people in Johannesburg today. There is one man who was honoured by the University by a doctorate for his services in this field. These men have devoted years of their time and labour in order to bring about the atmosphere which exists today between the Bantu administrator and the urban Bantu. I say that the Minister is deluding himself, sincere and well meaning as he is, because he does not need this vast administration he talks about. He has in fact told us that he wants mobility of labour but that it is impossible for him to achieve that unless he has all the powers asked for here. If he does not have these powers, he says, he does not have the machinery with which to carry this out. He referred to the fact that a municipality with one political orientation may have to work together with a municipality of another political orientation. But I say, with all respect, that this is a lot of nonsense. The U.M.E., to which the Deputy Minister also referred, has an elected executive comprising all shades of opinion. Thus we have had presidents of the U.M.E. who were United Party people and presidents who were Nationalists and yet they worked in co-operation. He talks very highly of the Institute of Bantu Administrators. But this institute has been formed in fact with the help and co-operation of all these local authorities and they try to create every possible opportunity for their officials to attend its meetings and to build up something worthwhile. They work in close co-operation with U.M.E. Actually the U.M.E. executive is the finest example of how in the field of local authority administration differently political orientated individuals come together for the common weal. There are indeed matters that are important to the common weal. But this is not necessary. [Interjections.] I said at the Second Reading that it was unnecessary. I said that the Deputy Minister did not have the right to take all these powers; that they were completely unnecessary; that the administration was perfectly satisfactory and that all he required was an amendment to section 40. But he maintains again that he cannot bring about this greater mobility of labour unless he virtually divests the local authorities, whose areas of activity will fall under this board, of the powers that they have. I say that that is nonsense because the authorities can carry on just as they have been carrying on. To bring about greater mobility of labour you do not need this tremendous machinery to look after the intimate life of every Bantu person who falls under the jurisdiction of the boards which are proposed to be set up under this legislation. I say it is unnecessary. Take any field of social welfare or every field of human activity; you do not try to conglomerate enormous areas into one area of administration and jurisdiction. The administration is left to various bodies and authorities. If the Minister can prove to us that he needs all this to bring about mobility of labour, I would like it recorded because I am sure that the people in Italy and France will be very interested to read it because they may want to do the same thing.

The entire Common Market of Europe has mobility of labour.

That is right, but they have not yet combined all the governments and placed them under one Minister. Perhaps what the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to do is to make history in South Africa. Since we are the leaders on the African Continent, he wants to illustrate to the world that everything can be placed under one Minister, under one control.

Now you are really talking cock and bull.

No, this is correct. If you go back into the history of the discussions on the establishment of the Bantu Territorial Authorities, you will find that there was this fantastic comparison between the Bantu Homelands in South Africa on the one hand and Italy and France on the other hand as far as the movement of labour is concerned. It was said that two million labour units cross over from the borders of Italy into France. They do their work there and then come back to their dormitory towns and no one has yet suggested that it is necessary for the Governments to amalgamate or that it is necessary for a special ministry to be formed to take over the administration in order to bring about mobility of labour. That, I think, is the crux of the Deputy Minister’s case and it is utter and absolute nonsense, if I may say so in kindness. [Time expired.]

Sir, is the hon. the Deputy Minister not going to reply? Surely in matters of this nature we are entitled to a reply from him.

If hon. members want me to say something to that, I just want to tell them, in the first place, that the proposal to which they referred was the proposal of the Johannesburg City Council to us. That proposal was considered very thoroughly not only by myself but also by representatives of the United Municipal Executive and of the Institute of Administrators of Non-White Affairs. After all these things had been considered very carefully we were faced with this problem not only because of political differences existing between one city council and other local authorities, but also because of the fact that in dealing with labour one is dealing with housing schemes, housing loans, purchases of land and a thousand and one other things in connection with the provision of social facilities. The problem arises because of the fact that one has prescribed areas in terms of the Urban Areas Act, and one local authority then has to interfere and obtain a say in the affairs of another local authority. It is this question which causes the problems.

Business interrupted to report progress.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name, as follows—

I want to emphasize the fact that this motion is not being brought before the House lightly and that there are other people besides myself who are concerned about this particular aspect. I have a cutting here from the Eastern Province Herald of 23rd February. This report, under very big headlines, says—

Mr. Ellis is the mayor of Port Elizabeth. It goes on to say—

It goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, the very first thing I want to raise under this motion is the question of the Resettlement Board. I do this for two very valid reasons. Firstly, I believe that the establishment of the Resettlement Board acted as a sort of catalyst for this Government’s mania to take more power unto itself and to interfere in matters that really should be no concern of theirs. I am very pleased indeed that the hon. member for Langlaagte is here because he, among others, continually hurls allegations across the floor of this House in regard to the Resettlement Board and the Johannesburg Municipality. I hope to prove today that these allegations are entirely wrong and I hope that in future, after I have done this, hon. members on that side of the House will not use these methods again, because I believe they bring the Johannesburg City Council and the United Party into discredit quite wrongly. Sir, the Resettlement Board came into being in 1954, I think.

(In 1951.

Well, it was established somewhere around 1954; in any case, this is what I have before me, but the date does not matter so much; we were both there and we know when it came into being. It came into being because the Minister at that particular time could not accept the conditions laid down by the Johannesburg City Council in regard to the removal of non-Whites living in Sophiatown, Martindale, Newclare and Page View.

And Alexandra.

I want to say immediately that I agree that there were shocking slum conditions at that particular time. I want to say with all the emphasis at my command that the Johannesburg City Council were just as eager and would have been just as willing to carry out this removal as the Government professed to be. But, Sir, the whole thing fell down on a matter of principle and I believe a matter of very serious principle. I say that the Johannesburg City Council and the United Party should be congratulated for standing on that particular principle.

To set the record absolutely straight. I want to quote from the actual Council minutes and give chapter and verse for the conditions laid down by the Council if they were to carry out the removal themselves. I submit that when I have done that, everyone here will realize that these conditions were eminently fair and that they fell down purely on one point of principle. These were the conditions imposed by the Johannesburg City Council which the Minister at that time felt he could not accept—

1. (1) That the adoption of the scheme shall not be permitted to prejudice in any way the fulfilment of the Council’s normal housing programme;
2. (2) that before any persons from the Western Areas are moved in accordance with the scheme, adequate rail facilities shall have been provided from the city to the place to which they are to be removed;

And then follows the clause which I call the principle—

1. (3) that every dispossessed non-European, the owner of freehold title in the Western Areas, shall be offered compensating freehold title elsewhere;
2. (4) that there shall be no forcible removal of any persons by the Council;
3. (5) that at all stages of the scheme there shall be adequate consultation with all parties and interests affected by the scheme;
4. (6) that there shall be no financial loss to the Council in the implementation of the scheme and that the cost of the internal services in any housing scheme shall be equally distributed between the tenants; and,
5. (7) that the committee created to implement the scheme shall be appointed by the Council in the normal way and with the normal functions and subject to the normal routine of the Council.

I think this demonstrates very clearly that the conditions set down were very fair. In fact, the Minister was quite prepared to accept all those conditions with the exception of freehold title. I said before, and I want to emphasize again, that I am very proud indeed that the Council took that stand because I believe that this is a great stand on principle and clearly shows up the approach of the Nationalist Party and the approach of the United Party in matters of this kind.

I want to say, too, that this particular removal scheme, I believe, could have been done just as quickly and effectively as it was done by the Government. I want to go further and say that without the help of the United Party City Council of Johannesburg this removal scheme would have taken very much longer than it actually did. To prove this, I have a minute here from the Minister—I cannot find it at the moment—where he thanks the Johannesburg City Council for its co-operation in regard to the supplying of services and ancillary services. So let it never be said again that the Johannesburg City Council objected to this scheme because they did not want to clear up slums. That is not true, and I make an appeal to hon. members opposite not to raise this matter in the way they have raised it in the past. I have now had to listen for five years to these allegations which I think I have proved today are not true.

The second matter I want to raise, which I believe will prove that the Government of the day does tend to interfere quite unnecessarily in the affairs of local authorities, is this. The Johannesburg City Council have been providing bursaries for Bantu students since 1941. I think the Council have proved over a period of 30 years that they have created a completely efficient unit for the administration of bursaries to the Bantu. An adequate number of suitable candidates have always come forward. In fact, the requests for these bursaries are actually increasing. Imagine the shock of the Johannesburg City Council when out of the blue they received a circular from the Government upsetting this whole basis of the granting of bursaries. I quote very briefly from this circular issued by the Department of Bantu Administration. It starts this way—

It goes on to say that after the Council has now submitted a list, which it did not have to do before, the vocational division of the Department of Bantu Education will then indicate in the appropriate column which Africans may receive bursaries. Thereafter the schedule will be returned to the local authority concerned for further action. The important clause is clause 4, which says this—

This is quite obviously a move by the Government to ensure that it gets money for the homelands. I have nothing against it at all, but what I object to is that the Government has here resorted to a form of horse trading. Of course, the Council was very upset. They asked to see the Deputy Minister and made representations to him. As a result the Johannesburg City Council was told that for this year only they could continue with bursaries up to R2,500 for secondary schools. In the case of universities they could set aside the amount of R5,000, but with the proviso, that a like amount was set aside for use in the Bantu homelands. This, I believe, is the worst type of horse trading. Why did not the Government put their cards on the table and tell the Johannesburg City Council that they needed money for the homelands and what can you afford to give us? No, they had to use this method to get money for the homelands.

I want to raise one further matter before I come to the motion proper. I want to say that it is very disturbing to me and I believe it should be very disturbing to anyone in this House, that open friction exists between local authorities and certain Ministers of the Government. It would appear that one particular Minister is always in hot water. I want to say that I am very glad he is here, and I want to say to him that I do not intend today to try to apportion blame. I do not want to say in this instance that the Minister was wrong, or the local authority was wrong. But I believe that if things happen such as have been happening, there is something wrong with the system. There is not that smooth working that one would expect between the Government and the local authorities. Here I want to refer very briefly to the fact that, as you will remember, a few years ago the hon. the Minister had to come here and ask for an Act to be amended because he could not straighten out his problems with the Stellenbosch City Council. But again I am not going to say that the hon. the Minister was right or wrong. However, we know—and this is very significant—that that particular council was certainly not a United Party council. We know that just recently there was so much friction between a certain council and the hon. the Minister that it ended in a civil court action. Obviously this is sub judice and I do not want to elaborate on that. I merely mention this again to impress on the House that there is something wrong. When something like this can happen continuously, things are not running smoothly. Now I really want to take the hon. the Minister to task because this particular incident happened in my area and I am responsible to the people there. Here again the hon. the Minister was quite within his rights; he had every right to do what he did. But I believe that he treated the Johannesburg City Council and the people living in this particular area with discourtesy. I want to tell him why I think that. The hon. the Minister goes along to a select area like Dunkeld and without even telling the local authority of his plans and asking their opinion—after all, local authorities have town planning schemes and zoning systems—and without informing the residents’ association of that particular area of his plans and asking their opinion, he erects four houses on one stand in a suburb where you usually have one house on a stand. Let me say immediately that these houses were erected for a very good purpose, namely for the use of certain police officers. I have no objection to this. I can tell hon. members now that I have spoken to people in Dunkeld and they have no objection to any policemen living there. What they object to is the fact that here you have four houses completely out of character in this particular suburb having been erected by the hon. the Minister.

I will not consult any snobs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. the Minister’s department. I found out at the last moment that, fortunately or unfortunately, the roofs were not put up yet. After I made an impassioned appeal to the department, it agreed to at least make the roofs different colours.

I want to say in all sincerity to the hon. the Minister that he should in future please carry out the ordinary rules of courtesy and ask people’s opinion before he does something.

In dealing with the motion before us, I believe we should ask ourselves three very pertinent questions. Firstly, we should ask ourselves whether in fact South African local government has fulfilled its function and has made a fair contribution to the development and prosperity of South Africa. Secondly, we should ask ourselves whether South African local government, as we know it, is in fact the best form of local government for South Africa. Thirdly, we should ask ourselves whether in fact the Government is inclined to interfere unnecessarily in the functions of local authorities. I want to say that my answer to these three questions certainly is a very definite “yes”. In the course of my speech I will try to motivate my reasons for saying this.

I believe that, like this Parliament, South African local government is a very major feature of responsible democratic government. I believe that there can be no dispute about the practical success that South African local government has been. It has coped extremely well with the rapid urbanization of this country. It has made a great contribution to the development of individual cities and towns and, in consequence, of the country as a whole. I can go even further and say that to a very great extent South Africa’s development and prosperity must be ascribed to the strength and the adaptability of its local government.

South Africa has also been very fortunate in that it has over the years been able to attract men and women of calibre as elected councillors and local government officers. In the process a great spirit of team-work has been built up.

South Africa today is faced with an enormous problem of urban proliferation. Forward planners and demographers tell us that there will be as much urban development in the next 30 years as there has been over the past 300 years. This is of course a very sobering thought. It is frightening to contemplate how to cope with the problem of urban development of this size. Do hon. members realize that the whole Witwatersrand complex—Johannesburg, the East Rand, the West Rand, Pretoria and the Vaal triangle—will double in size before the middle-aged people of today will have died. This shows how very urgent this problem is. One wonders why the Government adopts this continuous attitude of frustrating the local authorities. I want to say that traditionally local government in South Africa means local self-government as opposed to the systems of self-administration found in other parts of the world. There is no doubt that our form of local government has been very well tried and tested over the years. I think it has been found to be the best form of government for South Africa. Here, Sir, I think my contention is borne out because we have had a number of commissions appointed to inquire into local authority in South Africa. I should like to quote just briefly a few comments of some of these commissions. In 1909 we had the following comment from the Tucker Commission:

In 1929 we had the Stallard Commission. I should like to quote the following comment from that commission’s report:

Finally, a comparatively recent commission, the Marais Commission in 1957, made the following comment:

One of course accepts without reservation that the higher ties of government must have an overriding say on local authorities. Where this say is within the sphere of broader State policy, there can be no complaint, because after all the government of the day must have the right to carry out its major policy. But, unfortunately for us, a tendency has developed in South Africa for the Government to exercise control on almost every function of the local authority and certainly in many instances where this function should be that of the local authority alone.

I have already mentioned the enormous urban growth with which South Africa is faced. This is obviously a problem which can only be solved if there is the utmost co-operation between the Government and the provinces on the one hand and the local authorities on the other. Unfortunately this is not happening. Particularly in the case of Johannesburg one finds that the Government seems to be going out of its way to make things difficult. Obviously this is because Johannesburg is a United Party controlled city council. I believe that this is a very negative attitude. After all, this should be incidental. The Government knows that, whatever happens in Johannesburg, it must affect not only Johannesburg, but the whole country. I think a very typical case of this lack of co-operation between the Government and the Johannesburg City Council is the case of the Johannesburg motorways. The first phase of Johannesburg’s motorways were estimated to cost R45 million. Quite naturally, the council went to the National Transportation Board and to the province and asked for assistance. These two bodies delayed so long in making their decision that, when it was finally made, the initial costs had gone up to R65 million. What makes the whole matter very much worse is that the Transportation Board has now decided not only to refuse any increase in the original subsidy, but they have also said that in future there will be no assistance for local authorities in regard to motorways. This, of course, leaves Johannesburg holding a very heavy financial baby. It means that they will get no assistance to complete their master traffic plan, which is estimated to cost R500 million. This is rather tragic because forward planners tell us that this particular master plan is absolutely essential if we are to avoid complete chaos in Johannesburg in 15 years’ time.

There is another way in which the Government has deliberately frustrated Johannesburg. We know that Johannesburg is trying desperately to build up an adequate transport service. We know that they have been completely baulked here because the Government has flatly refused to allow them to use Coloured drivers. This is rather strange, since the hon. the Minister for Labour is now allowing Coloured bricklayers. But this has created an enormous problem for Johannesburg. We find today that the bus service is completely inadequate, causing great inconvenience to the bus commuters and making many of them use their motor-cars which, of course, compounds the central city congestion in Johannesburg. We know, too, that the Johannesburg City Council are at this moment vainly trying to recruit bus drivers in England. They are having very little success for the obvious reason that most of the bus drivers in England happen to be Black. So we sit here with a problem on our hands which the Government does not want to help us to resolve. This is rather ridiculous because the people of Johannesburg do not all belong to the United Party. The people there are of every particular shade of political opinion.

I want to comment here on the spectacular lack of urgency which the Government shows in regard to financial problems of the local authorities. I think this is illustrated if I point out that the Borckenhagen Commission took almost ten years to complete their report. They handed their report in in 1966 and the Government has been sitting on it ever since. We were promised this report in 1968. We were then told that we would get in in 1969. We were told again that it might come during this Session, but we have not seen it yet. In the meantime the financial problems of local authorities grow by the day and this Government is doing nothing at all about it.

The last point I want to make is with regard to the blatant interference of the Government in the affairs of local authorities with regard to wages. We know that they have taken the town clerks out of the control of the particular Act. This means that the salaries of town clerks are now controlled by the Administrators, but in effect by the Government, because the Government stipulates the maximum amount which any local authority can pay its town clerk. Then, of course, heads and deputy heads of departments are also affected, because they are now in the position where the officials below them cannot receive any higher increase. If they got a higher increase and even if they deserved it, they would then be receiving more than their superiors. This, of course, creates enormous problems for the local authorities to such an extent that, I am told, the councils all over the country are losing talented men and women who have been trained specifically in municipal work. They are leaving the councils and being absorbed into private enterprise. It is almost impossible to retain people to do these jobs. Surely the Government can leave the question of wages to the local authorities. They know the ability of these people and they can assess their value. Surely it is for them and not for the Government to decide what wages to pay those particular people?

In conclusion, I believe there must be a new relationship between the Government and local authorities. I want to read very quickly what I believe it should be. Firstly, we should accept that rigid control leads to rigid and unenterprising administration. Secondly, cumbersome administration is deadly when the rate of development is as high as in present-day South Africa. Thirdly, decentralization has always been the answer where the Government tends to bog down. Local sense of responsibility is increased where local power is conferred. Fourthly, South Africa is not looking for jobs to give to its people, but it is looking for people to do the jobs. It must take steps to decrease its civil service rather than impose detailed controls to increase the use of non-productive manpower. Finally, local authorities vary greatly in strength and technical know-how. The degree of control needed for some is not needed for all. Control need not be exercised at the same points for all. In sum, my plea is that local authorities should b left to get on with the job and control by the Central Government should be on national policy matters only.

This motion that we have before us affects a vital portion of the structure of our political set-up in the Republic of South Africa. As we all know, we have three levels of government in South Africa. There is our Parliamentary level, which is generally known as the Central Government level, the Provincial Government level and the local authority level. It is thus laid down in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. It is basically laid down there. According to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa certain powers are granted to the various levels. Local authorities can operate within those powers. Let us acknowledge the fact that there are people who subscribe to the opinion that our three levels of Government no longer comply with modern, present-day standards. I do not begrudge them their opinion. It is anyone’s democratic right to express his opinion. But it is a fact that is as plain as a pikestaff, that as far as this Government is concerned, the party presently in power adheres to what is laid down as the basis in the Republic’s Constitution. This has already been said by very important leaders on this side of the House and by the Prime Minister. We adhere to that statement and we accept that policy.

What the United Party claimed here this afternoon through the mouth of the hon. member for Johannesburg North is that there is unnecessary interference with local authorities as far as the implementation of their duties is concerned. He also asked that the Government give them recognition for “the value and standing” of what they are doing. Thirdly he asks that they be granted independence in local administrative matters. As far as the so-called meddlesomeness of the Government is concerned, an aspect the hon. member mentioned here, I want to say that when they exceed their powers the Government has the fullest right to concern itself with local authorities within the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic, as far as the implementation of Government policy is concerned. Local authorities have no autonomy. They have certain delegated powers, laid down in ordinances, according to which they can act. It is therefore an extremely high-handed point of departure to allege that the Government has no right to interfere. The Government must rule according to the democratic mandate it has received since 1948. It is therefore the duty of the Government to ensure that government on the provincial and local levels remains within the confines of the policy for which the Government obtained a mandate. If this is not done it is to be expected that the Government will intervene, as in fact it has already done in some cases. In his speech the hon. member referred to the resettlement of Bantu in Johannesburg. This is a matter that we have discussed a great deal in this House. In fact, since I came to this House in 1966 no single session has gone by without it having come under scrutiny. And on more than one occasion the hon. member has received a blood nose as a result.

You do not have the correct facts.

What are the correct facts? Let us forget all those things that were acceptable to the Government. There is one thing that we cannot accept. I was a member of the non-White Affairs Commission when we had to draw up those conditions at the time. We were kept busy for nights on end. The hon. member will remember that Mr. G. B. Gordon, the then leader of the United Party in the City Council, Mr. Page and I tried to reach an agreement about the conditions that would be imposed. But who were the people who at the time were so unshakable about proprietary rights? The hon. member knows that negotiations broke down because Dr. Verwoerd would not give in on this point. The Progressive Party and the liberalists in the United Party City Council stood firm on this point, and laid down proprietary rights as an unshakable requirement. I think the hon. member himself was in favour of the omission.

No, never.

There were many of them who were prepared to do that—for example Mr. Gordon and Mr. Page. Is that not so?

There were five of them.

Yes. It was liberalists such as the hon. member who did not want to yield. What are the facts? The hon. member saw the report of the survey, the demographic survey made for that area. It indicated that only 2 per cent of the inhabitants of Sophiatown had proprietary rights—only 2 per cent. And among that 2 per cent there were persons who had up to four different kinds of mortgages on their properties— there were first mortgages, second mortgages and third mortgages, and then still private loans as well. For the sake of this 2 per cent hon. members wanted a principle to be abandoned just to get permission of the Johannesburg City Council.

No, to have justice done.

What justice? I think the hon. member for Yeoville was also concerned in this matter at the time. There was no right that had to be recognized. We offered them reasonable value for their properties. Our policy is that no proprietary rights will be given to a non-White within a White area.

What about the Coloureds then?

I am now speaking about the resettlement of Bantu; we are now dealing with the Bantu.

You spoke of non-Whites.

The hon. member for Turffontein knows that as far as the Coloureds are concerned it is our policy to give them proprietary rights in their own group areas. The hon. member would do well to bring himself up to date; he must go and do his schoolwork.

Why do you draw a distinction between the Coloureds and the Bantu?

Those non-Whites who were not Bantu and who had proprietary rights there, obtained similar rights elsewhere. For example, they could purchase land in Bosmot and other places.

May I ask you a question?

No, I do not have the time for that now. The hon. member may take part in the debate. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may that hon. member say that the hon. member is afraid?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

That is our policy, and we are quite prepared to come back to this House to debate it. This now is the interference to which the hon. member takes such strong exception. If the Johannesburg City Council had wanted to implement Government policy at the time and remove those black spots, the need for a resettlement board would never have developed.

The hon. member also referred to freeways and spoke of the R45 million these roads were now going to cost the City Council. But freeways in Johannesburg c not solve the traffic problems there in any case.

They help a lot.

Neither is it the Government’s duty to solve traffic problems in central Johannesburg. The Ml that was built in Johannesburg has only aggravated traffic problems in the city centre. The only stretch where traffic congestion has been eased is the stretch between Jan Smuts Avenue and Sauer Street. Along there one can get through quicker, but as soon as one enters a side street one encounters the greatest chaos imaginable. A solution for the traffic problems in Johannesburg is to keep through traffic away from the centre of the city. For that, so the Minister has said, it is necessary to lay out a ring road system around Johannesburg. We are doing that at present.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned I was saying that the solution to the traffic problem in Johannesburg did not lie in providing the city centre with freeways. Despite the fact that one has already been built, the traffic problem in the central part of Johannesburg is still as chaotic as it was before that freeway was built. The hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke here very imaginatively about the excellent administration Johannesburg has under the United Party administration. In Johannesburg the big problem is that those people have to put their heads together and try to find a solution to the traffic problems in the centre of the city. The solution to this question is the control of motor-cars and vehicles in the central part of Johannesburg. At present the transport system of Johannesburg is in a mess. That is what the United Party caused in Johannesburg. The traffic system is absolutely in a mess.

The hon. member says that another matter in which we interfere unnecessarily with the city councils is the question of Coloured drivers in Johannesburg. When the matter was referred to the Minister he did the proper thing in asking the Industrial Tribunal to go and investigate the matter. The Industrial Tribunal then investigated the matter and found that it was not necessary. They did not approve it. What is now the true reason? Hon. members may go and read the evidence of Mr. Liebenberg who appeared before the Industrial Tribunal. They will find the reason there. It is the maladministration in Johannesburg under a United Party City Council that causes people not to want to apply to become drivers. Those who know will agree with me that that is the reason. Hon. members may go and look at the conditions under which these people must work in the workshops of the City Council. Hon. members may go and look at the conditions there. And then they may also read Mr. Liebenberg’s evidence. It is striking proof of that. In it he has irrefutably proved to us that these people are the reason why the Whites do not want to join up.

The hon. member also spoke here of salary structures that we interfered with. If we had allowed Johannesburg to continue giving salary increases at the rate it was doing, we would have wrenched the entire salary structure out of alignment. For that reason the provincial council, and not the Central Government, stepped in, and I am glad to say that I had a hand in trying to put a stop to that. Johannesburg thought it was an absolute “empire” in itself, an empire that could do just as it wanted to, and it simply ran wild in that respect. That is why we fixed the salary structures there.

Do you not think Pretoria has also run wild with Blaar?

The hon. member for Bronkhorstspruit, or at least North Rand, is always off the track. He never knows what the matter is really about, and therefore we shall not take much notice of him. It is justifiable and reasonable for the Government to poke its nose into local authority affairs if it finds that matters are not running according to the accepted policy that the democratic elections have prescribed to this Government. That, I say, is why we step in. This morning the hon. member spoke here for 20 minutes, and he spent 10 minutes on this motion. In reality he made out a very poor case when he tried to prove to the world how interference was actually taking place. I have already replied to the few points he mentioned here. I replied to each of them with chapter and verse. It is when the Government’s policy is torpedoed by town councils that we intervene. The incident he mentioned here of the mayor of Port Elizabeth, as reported in the Eastern Province Herald, has nothing to do with this Government. It is a local authority matter that falls within the scope of the province. There is most probably an administrative delay in respect of certain provisions of the ordinance that must be complied with. Now the hon. member wants to try to make out a case about that.

The hon. member spoke of the recognition of town councils. I think the Government expressed a great deal of gratitude for what well-meaning town councils did in order to implement the Government’s policy. To think that these town councils can obtain full independence and autonomy is out of the question. One cannot allow the lower levels of government to do this. The hon. member for Johannesburg North introduced this motion for no other reason than to make a little politics out of a matter such as this. I want to accuse him today of doing this with only one object in view, i.e. to blaze a trail with a view to the municipal elections that are going to be held next year. This is his only reason for doing it. Now he comes and drags in petty matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the broader application of this policy. That is why we cannot support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the hon. member for Langlaagte began his speech earlier on with the astonishing statement that the Government always stands by the letter of the Constitution, where local government is concerned. We all know every well the extent to which this Government has in fact ridden roughshod over those sections of the Constitution which deal with the provincial councils and so indirectly with the local authorities. They have never hesitated to abuse the Constitution when it suited their book in this regard.

Abused the Constitution?

Yes, Sir, I say that advisedly. Points of order have been taken in this House over and over again. Not once in the just under ten years that I served as a member of the provincial council in this province was any single member of the Nationalist Party nor any Administrator, for that matter, ever prepared to stand up and fight for or even plead for the rights and powers of the provincial councils or of local authorities. I would like to warn hon. members here today that the country is heading for a break-down in the field of local government unless a halt is called to the interference by the Central Government. For far too long the trend of legislation has been towards a delegation of power through Parliament to various Cabinet Ministers to enable them not only to override local authorities, but to take the powers of the local authorities, to carry things out on their behalf and incur expenditure in their name. We view this tendency of increasingly centralized control with the greatest possible apprehension.

Our diversity of viewpoints in South Africa is based essentially upon the diversity of our problems. In few areas are they identical. This means, in effect, that few problems can be either approached or treated in the same way. That is why, if you take these matters out of the hands of those people who know most about them and who know best to handle them, you are in fact undermining the constitutional position of the local authorities, the provincial councils and the whole democratic system. The moment you start this never-ending process of centralizing control and taking over more and more powers from local bodies, you create an unwieldy and all-powerful bureaucratic machine. I suggest that that is exactly what has happened in the Republic today. It has happened elsewhere, of course. It is an authoritarian tendency, but many other countries have taken steps to reverse it. Because of our vast distances in the Republic and the very great differences in so many of our local areas, it is absolutely essential, in the interests of good government itself, to decentralize as much as possible and for substantial powers to remain vested in subordinate bodies.

The subject under discussion today was the subject of my first speech in this House in 1964. Since that time the position of local authorities and their jurisdiction has suffered even more severely at the hands of this Government. In fact, local government has been under such pressure since 1948 that now the whole system is considerably weaker, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North correctly stated. The scope of local activity and rights has very much declined.

No one will dispute the statement made by the hon. member for Langlaagte, namely that the rights and powers of the provincial councils themselves, and of local authorities, are subject, up to a point, to matters of national policy. However, the hon. member knows very well that the rights and powers of the provincial councils have been equally curtailed since 1948. It would be a very brave man who got up on that side of the House today and denied it. The chief danger to local government today is not that it will become merely a subordinate agent or a rubber stamp, but that it will become merely a reflection of Government orders instead of fulfilling its proper function, which is that of a free and responsible partner in the sphere of its own activities. That is how we should view it. The easy argument that he who pays the piper should call the tune, is very often trotted out in regard to this matter. We are of course here not only dealing with matters of finance. We are definitely dealing with people as well. The decline in the powers of local government in the Republic has taken place during a period, as we all accept, of very great expansion, both in the economic field and, may I say, in the functions of the State itself. We do not quarrel with the view, as I have said, that national policy, up to a point, must be involved in the functions of these local authorities. However, the key question today is whether the actions of the Central Government in seriously reducing the rights and powers of local authorities, is rot slowly but surely destroying the qualities of local initiative and civic pride in the running of community affairs, from which the ultimate political interests and activities of the nation spring. After all, local government is the best possible instrument with which to distribute power in any country on democratic and sensible lines. It offers a certain method of avoiding the dangers of what is termed the managerial society as well as the dangers of centralized political dictatorship.

In the Republic we have a very adequate machinery of local government, with the provinces exercising control on a regional basis. They, in turn, delegate authority to the municipal and divisional councils, village management boards and so forth. We hear a good deal today—and I think it is a valid contention—of the extent to which the mass of the people are losing touch with Parliament and we with them. One of the essential links in this chain is the direct involvement of the largest possible number of ordinary, public-spirited South African citizens in local affairs.

But what is there to encourage them to participate today, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North correctly pointed out? Some people may argue—we have not heard it yet but I am quite sure that it will be trotted out in due course—that centralized control makes for greater efficiency. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will take that line. I do not know. Of course, that argument may have validity in certain cases, but it has no validity whatsoever in the Republic.

Government interference in our local authorities has been and is almost exclusively for ideological reasons. Its effect has been to hamstring local government to an appalling extent. This in turn has caused an endless and frustrating deferment of their plans for the provision of important and essential services. In other words, Central Government interference has been the direct cause of what appears to me to be the most alarming degree of inefficiency in this field that the country has ever seen. The housing backlog is a case in point.

It is surely an important aspect of the democratic system—I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me—that ordinary citizens should be associated with the provision of the needs of the community to which they belong. In the modern world of spreading metropolitan areas, flat dwellers and commuters, this type of activity helps to give content and meaning to community life, something which is absolutely vital to the well being of the people concerned, as well as to the country.

It is very important that these people should plan their own services and amenities, vote the money for them, pass the contracts, supervise their construction and decide upon matters of policy as far as they possibly can. In this way you produce not only good citizens, but good services as well.

I think it is very important that we should not lose sight of the fact that communities everywhere should feel that these are really their own schemes for which they themselves are responsible and that they are not merely reflections of a policy laid down by some distant, impersonal, bureaucratic machine in the Central Government. The things the hon. member for Johannesburg North has complained about in regard to the position in the Transvaal, apply to many of the larger municipal areas and, may I say, to Cape Town in particular. I want to tell the hon. the Minister straight away that here in Cape Town we are sick to death of the whole business.

Give us a single example.

The hon. member must not be in such a hurry. I will give him some just now. There has been Government interference, and by this I mean the imposition of Acts of Parliament in terms of which the Government has the right to interfere in the fields of housing, slum-clearance, municipal zoning of land, traffic control, hospital services, the administration of Bantu and Coloured townships, the erection of hospitals and schools and playing fields, apartheid on our buses, and so on. The Government has also interfered over the letting of halls, the attendance at church functions, social functions, musical performances and entertainment, the rights and status of taxi drivers, the appointment of traffic officers and ambulance drivers and even the allocation of our beaches. To crown it all, and this is the height of folly, the hon. the Prime Minister himself sees fit to make the final policy statement about Cape Town’s new opera house. I want to ask hon. members what on earth it has to do with him. Absolutely nothing! Can this type of decision not be left to the good sense of Cape Town’s citizens? The hon. the Minister knows very well that we are not a bunch of revolutionaries. This type of decision should be taken by the local people and by nobody else.

The Group Areas Amendment Act of 1962 removed from the provinces all control over the Coloured population for purposes of municipal franchise and the establishment of management committees in Coloured townships. Municipal boundaries were and are affected. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Germiston can keep quiet. I have given him all the examples he wants. In 1969 the Community Development Act was passed in terms of which the hon. the Minister of Community Development was given the right to take over any of the functions of a local authority. He can even incur expenditure and send the account to the local authorities. Why did he do it?

Look what we did at Stellenbosch.

Big stuff! The hon. the Minister took those powers merely because he thought that he was losing out on the local housing dispute. He said at the time that it was disgraceful and disgraceful it is.

There are 600 houses at Stellenbosch now.

The hon. the Minister can speak later; I am making my speech now.

My deeds speak for me.

Since its inception in 1950 the Group Areas Act has severely held up whole series of plans, which had been carefully worked out and budgeted for by local authorities. May I say that many public utilities have been suspended for years pending decisions by the Group Areas Board. Everybody in this House knows that very well. Delays over the proclamation of Group Areas by the Department of Planning have also caused interminable deferment of development projects by private companies as well as by local authorities. The whole economy of the Western Cape has suffered as a result.

Some of the Government’s actions are so absurd as to be quite laughable. I cannot, for example, be driven to Cape Town station today in a taxi driven by a Coloured man although the Administrator of this province and all the members of his executive committee are driven everywhere, on both official and private business, in provincial motor-cars by first class Coloured chauffeurs. The hon. member for Johannesburg North mentioned the question of the Bantu Education Department saying what should happen to the bursaries that are allocated by the local authorities to Bantu children. I was glad to hear what he had to say about it. The Cape Municipal Executive took a very strong line and objected very strongly indeed at the time.

They said—

It is only Mining that is left now.

In other words, Sir, I will say that the Government’s determination to have power over everyone at all costs has resulted in the creation of a mass of unwieldy problems with which its own unco-ordinated bureaucracy is unequipped to deal. In other words, the Government by its continuous meddling in these affairs has created more problems than it has solved. May I say that many of these additional powers contained in Acts of Parliament supersede powers already contained in provincial ordinances which have had the force of law for years. The situation is quite ridiculous in that regard. I must say that hon. members will not be allowed to get away with this for very much longer because local people everywhere are getting angry and fed-up. They have had enough from big brother in Pretoria; they are beginning to rebel at last and a very good thing it is too.

Sir, there is another point I wish to make. During the past 23 years we have seen introduced into legislation designed to deal with the affairs of local authorities, an entirely new concept, the concept of compulsion, compulsion brought to bear on local authorities, not by consultation and persuasion but by force, by force of superior legislation. It seems to me that the Government is not prepared to let communities develop naturally within their local context; they are determined to superimpose these views in many fields, as I think I have demonstrated, on local people. Sir, it is interesting and significant of course, that our Government’s approach towards greater centralization and control should be what it is when at this time a whole lot of other countries overseas are thinking in exactly the reverse direction. There is America, there is France, there is the United Kingdom and Australia and a whole lot of others, who are trying to do away with top-heavy administration. Sir, take the trouble that has just occurred in Port Elizabeth. Let me say that there could be no more telling example of the ineffectuality, indeed the danger, of too much Government control over local matters than the present inflammatory situation in Port Elizabeth among the Coloured people there, who are staging a protest against the rise in their bus fares, which the majority of them can ill-afford.

Whose fault is that?

Let me quote what the hon. the Minister had to say about this in his Press statement yesterday.

The hon. the Minister said—

A deputation consisting of members of Parliament—

He then said—

Sir, what on earth can the local population of Gelvandale be expected to know about the Government Gazette? Do hon. members opposite and the Minister seriously imagine that it is bedside reading for the majority of them? Sir, this is very important. How many members of the European public know anything about the Government Gazette, let alone see it, unless they are engaged in specialist activities which demand that they give their attention to it. Perhaps a girl in a bikini on the cover would produce greater sales.

Or a plastic cover.

Sir, what utter futility for the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport to say that no objections were lodged with the local Transportation Board. What does he expect? Was this issue at any stage discussed with the local Coloured people or brought to their attention?

That Act was passed in 1945 under your Government.

There is no machinery for consultation and the hon. the Minister knows it, at Government level. Sir, there certainly would have been proper consultation if the municipality had been free to handle this matter. But I want to make the point that there is no machinery for consultation with statutory boards functioning under an Act of Parliament, certainly not so far as Coloured communities are concerned, which precisely proves the point of this motion here today. I submit that the lack of consultation in this instance was the main cause of the trouble and of subsequent Police action …

That is nonsense.

… and that if the thing had been handled by the municipality these disturbances would never have happened at all. Sir, the hon. the Minister went on to say in his public statement that what he told the deputation of M.P.s was that if it would serve any good purpose the mayor of Port Elizabeth could, if he wished to do so, come to Cape Town to discuss with him the entire transport complex of Port Elizabeth. That is mighty kind of him, is it not? He said that he had made it clear that he would be prepared to receive the mayor of Port Elizabeth but that in no circumstances was he prepared to discuss the efficiency of any individual transport service or inefficiency on the part of anyone. Well obviously, he could not because the thing is still sub judice. But the point is that the hon. the Minister was willing …

The Deputy Minister.

Yes, I mean the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister is willing to see the elected head of Port Elizabeth’s municipality provided he comes cap in hand to Cape Town to discuss the transport problems of a local Coloured township in his own area with the Deputy Minister who lays down the terms on which he may come. I think it is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of this local upheaval teaching anybody a lesson, of course, Die Burger came out with a leading article about it and said—

It then goes on to say—

How right they are …

Mr. Speaker, how much intensive and patient clarification of the increase in their bus fares, in terms of that article, was there to the Coloured community of Port Elizabeth? I suggest, none at all. Die Burger ends its leader by saying—

Sir, the fact that there was a disturbance in the first place we lay firmly at the Government’s door in this instance. It would have been much better had it been left to the local authority, the Port Elizabeth municipality, which is much better equipped to know and to understand the needs of the local people than any statutory body set up by the Government.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down I just want to mention briefly some of the things that are happening overseas in this regard. In 1964 the British Government appointed a commission for the purpose of deciding on extending the field of local government. The report containing the commission’s proposals and recommendations were accepted by the Government and tabled in the House of Commons in February last year. I will give the House two quotations just to prove how their basic thinking differs from our own and how sound their conclusions are. They say, amongst other things—

Then another quote—

Finally, the report says—

That, Sir, is how they are thinking about these things in the United Kingdom. In France this year decentralization and regional reform are in fact dominating the whole of French political and public thinking. After the upheavals they had in France in May and June, 1968, everyone agrees that the cause was that the current was no longer flowing adequately between local assemblies on the one hand and the National Assembly on the other. The big debate in France is how to change this. The French Government has in fact already planned a far-reaching reform of local finances and has already initiated local elections and the establishment of local authorities with real executive power. The United States of America is doing exactly the same thing. In his State of the Union Message, as hon. members know, to the American people in February, the President’s most significant request was contained in his revenue-sharing proposals, which he claimed, “would start power and resources flowing back from Washington to the states and communities, and would revise the fundamental relations that have developed over 40 years between the states and the central government”. The object of the whole exercise was to cut down on the proliferation, rather than increase it as we are doing, of the federal bureaucracy which is fast becoming stultifying and inefficient and which has a frustrating and paralyzing effect on local communities because of the endless red tape involved and the lack of co-ordination in too great a centralized control.

I want to conclude by saying that the majority of the citizens in the Cape Province have had enough of this abominable domination by Government departments in every sphere of our lives. We are absolutely sick of it, and judging by the speech made by the hon. member who introduced this motion earlier today, I would say that the majority of people in the Transvaal feel exactly the same. We indict the Government for treating the people of the Republic and their legally elected representatives, at these levels specifically, with ignominy and contempt, because that is what it means, not to mention the insufferable condescension of Cabinet Ministers and their open condonation of the abuse of power, particularly where our local authorities are concerned. These are bodies which are run by highly responsible and highly skilled people. It gives me very great pleasure to support the hon. mover of the motion.

I am very sorry that I cannot follow up on what the hon. member for Wynberg said in her speech, but I should like to approach the matter from another angle. Where local authorities do their duty it will perhaps not be necessary for the Government to interfere in their activities, but where they neglect their duty it is very necessary. Two years ago we had cattle for the abattoirs at Newtown piling up in Johannesburg, and dozens of animals died on the station because there were no off-loading facilities. The off-loading facilities ought to have been supplied by the municipality that had control of the abattoirs. Neither were there facilities for slaughtering the animals beforehand. Neither were there pens in which to off-load them in the meantime and give them water and fodder. In that case it was absolutely necessary for the Government to intervene, and this it did.

There were insufficient White slaughterers.

That is beside the point at the moment. I am speaking about when the Government must step in, when the local authorities neglect their duty. Now the Government has intervened and big changes are going to be brought about. My hon. friend made the unnecessary remark about the lack of White slaughterers. They were White slaughterers.

Yes, but there were insufficient White slaughterers.

Quite correct, but that matter was also put right. I do not know whether the hon. member knows about that. Where there are insufficient White slaughterers, Bantu slaughterers can now be employed. If the hon. member had acquainted himself with the facts he would not have made such a stupid remark. But our meat farmers had a fine export scheme that could have brought in millions of rands for the Republic of South Africa to the very great benefit of the country. We entered into negotiations with a large meat concern in London. The individuals came out and met the Minister here. They investigated the abattoirs in all the harbours—I am not talking now of the inland abattoirs. There was one abattoir which to a lesser extent met with the refrigeration requirements for meat, and that was in Port Elizabeth. But then the Meat Board objected to the sheep being slaughtered and exported. There the Government even took action against the Meat Board and said that they must give permission for the meat to be exported. But then the Meat Board’s health inspector comes along and condemns this outright; it is supposedly not hygienic enough to export the meat from Port Elizabeth. I just want to mention that from Cape Town there is not even any question of that, because here there are no refrigeration facilities at all. Here the Government will also still have to intervene, and the same goes for East London and Durban. In Durban the Government will also have to intervene to ensure that there are refrigeration facilities at the abattoirs. Here we had a case where Mr. Harvey of the big meat concern in London said that the quantities did not matter; millions could be involved, but they would take all our meat. I should like the farmers sitting here to pay attention to that. I asked him at what price, and he then mentioned a price to me which completely satisfied me as a farmer.

Because there are no facilities here, it is proposed that the livestock should be slaughtered at Otjiwarongo, which is a totally impractical suggestion. The Minister of Transport can perhaps tell me how long it will take to transport the livestock from De Aar, Colesberg, or Noupoort to Otjiwarongo by train. In what condition would the animals arrive there? It would take a week or more. Then the Meat Board suggested that the livestock be transported by lorry, which is even worse, because the animals would arrive there in a bruised condition. In these cases the Government is compelled to intervene in the affairs of local bodies. I have the case at Norvalspont where there is no municipality and no town management board. It now falls under the divisional council, which is also a local body. But they are not doing their duty, with the result that the Minister of Transport has already had complaints from me, but he says that it is not his job. And it is not his job either. There are flush lavatories, but there is no provision for the drainage of the effluent, and this eventually runs into the street. Now, if the local authority neglects its duty to the extent that that divisional council, which has control there, is doing, surely the Government must take steps. As I have said, if the local authorities do their duty, it will not be necessary for the Government to intervene and point out to them the mistakes they are making.

The hon. member for Colesberg has raised a matter here which is extremely important, but I really feel that it has no part in this particular motion we are discussing because the motion states specifically that we are against the continual encroachment by the Central Government on rights which in the past have been accorded to municipalities, whereas the hon. member’s approach is that where municipalities are not prepared to act in any particular sphere, then the Government is entitled to step in. I think they are two quite different approaches.

They abuse their rights.

The point was quite clearly made. If the hon. member would just stop speaking while sitting down while I make my speech standing up, he would quite clearly see the point. The hon. member was saying that where local authorities were not acting at all, the Government was entitled to step in, whereas our complaint is that where local authorities have been acting in the past in a perfectly legitimate fashion, the Government encroached and it is this encroachment to which we object. As far as what the hon. member said about the abattoirs is concerned, this is of course a very important matter. We have seen quite recently in the press that the City Council of Durban, for instance, has refused to build a new abattoir under the new conditions, and this might well force the Nationalist Government to take some kind of action. But they have refused to take action and to build a new abattoir because the Durban abattoir today—and the hon. the Minister of the Interior will know it very well—is controlled under the 1934 private ordinance of the Durban City Council, which allows only a 4 per cent profit on the operation of the abattoirs to go towards the relief of rates in Durban. In terms of the report of the Abattoir Commission that profit of 4 per cent is going to be cut to only 1 per cent in relief of rates. The Durban City Council for years— and I had quite a lot to do with this in the Provincial Council of Natal—have insisted on their right that they should have 4 per cent of the profit of the abattoirs towards relief of rates. Many times they are at loggerheads with the Natal Agricultural Union. It is not so easy for the hon. member for Colesberg to say that the Government will have to step in because local authorities are not fulfilling their functions. They are prepared to fulfil their functions under certain conditions. It is a question of these conditions being negotiated with the Nationalist Party Government. The conditions such as are offered in terms of the Abattoir Commission report are not suitable to the people of Durban. This is again an instance where the local authority, the duly elected body of people should be entitled, subject to the condition that they do not abuse their position, to take a decision that affects them and all the ratepayers in Durban in providing an abattoir. This is a health service to the people of Durban as well as a service to the farming community. They should therefore be entitled to have some say in the conditions which will be imposed when the new abattoir is to be built. This abattoir, by the way, is going to cost them approximately R12 million when it is completed. That is ratepayers’ money. It is not money conjured out of the air. It comes out of the rates of the people of Durban.

This meat scheme will bring in over R100 million.

That is a startling figure, but I am quite certain the hon. member will agree that the people of Durban should not be expected to foot the bill in a case like that.

The motion before the House this afternoon reminded me when I first read it of a motion which appeared in the House of Commons in the year 1627, when Sir John Elliott moved …

Were you there?

No, I was not there. There are one or two members on the other side who look as if they might have been there. The motion read—

This is one of those watershed motions in the history of the British Parliament, because it was from the day of the passing of this motion that you can trace the beginning of the Puritan revolution against the Stuarts. Sir John Elliott was imprisoned and died in the Tower of London. I hope my hon. friend of Johannesburg North is not going to suffer this same fate.

I believe that the terms of that motion are very apt to the way in which government is developing in South Africa today. It is our opinion on this side of the House that the power of the Central Government has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.

You haven’t got it in you.

I forgive that hon. member all his sins. We believe that the object of all administration, governmental, provincial or local, ought to be efficiency. What is happening in this country today is centralization in pursuit of an ideology, whereas our idea is decentralization in pursuit of efficiency. I verily believe that from the coming into power of this Government you can trace a constant motion towards arrogating to Pretoria powers which have resided in local authorities. The hon. member for Wynberg read out a whole list of them. These powers which resided in provincial councils are today being brought into the power of a smaller and smaller group in Pretoria who are attempting to administer the whole of the Republic of South Africa from a particular point of view which is simply wished upon them by the Nationalist Party Government. The hon. the Minister himself as Administrator of Natal must have seen this process in action. I must say I was most touched the other day when the hon. the Minister for Community Development paid tribute to the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for South Coast is not here, and I can say this behind his back. One day somebody will write, or at least I hope so, a biography of the hon. member for South Coast and in that will become perfectly clear the tremendous reconstructive period of government in Natal while he was associated with the Provincial Council of Natal. There was the Local Government Ordinance of 1942, a consolidating measure, and then there were the Regional Water Supply Commissions which were formed. Furthermore, the Town and Regional Planning Commission was formed in those days. These bodies gave to the local authorities and to the regional authorities as in the case of the Regional Water Supply commission …

[Inaudible.].

The hon. the Minister of Community Development himself was at that time an M.E.C. in the Transvaal. He could see what was happening in Natal. One of the problems of this Government has been that they have failed to follow the same policy that was adopted in those days in Natal. There was the policy of regionalization, of decentralization and of breaking-down. Out of the mouth of the hon. the Minister of Community Development himself we heard that Natal was far ahead of the other provinces as a result of the leadership of the hon. member for South Coast.

That was only one aspect.

If ever there was an admission from the Nationalist Party Government, this was it. In one respect he was speaking on a motion of his own to set up a select committee which was going to inquire into the conditions of urban living. I think hon. members will accept it as I have put it. That was what it was all about, namely that there should be investigation into these areas where flats have been built in too great numbers. In Natal, according to the hon. the Minister of Community Development, the matter was under far better control because of the administration of Natal at the time the hon. member for South Coast served in the Provincial Administration. The hon. the Minister of the Interior himself while he was Administrator of Natal, went on record that he valued and appreciated the contribution that was made to Government by that hon. member. I am sure he will also repeat it when he answers this debate later on this afternoon.

Yes, but the hon. member for Wynberg did not say so this afternoon. She said that no Administrator has ever done that.

Only when we were in power in Natal.

I will give that hon. the Minister the credit by saying that from my point of view he was the one shining exception of all the Nationalist Party Administrators we have known. He said there was some value in the Provincial Council system. Where you have a control by local people of local interests, it is quite obvious that you are able to have a far quicker decision and a far more informed decision. Then you are able to have a far more interested decision because you have there the interests of all the people concerned at heart.

With whom are you quarrelling?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member over there was the one who said that he was in favour of the Government …

I know of the nonsense he talked.

No, you cannot get away with it like that. That hon. member for Langlaagte was arguing with the hon. member for Johannesburg North on only one point and that was the point of principle as to whether there should be freehold rights given in compensation to people who are displaced and who already held freehold rights.

The United Party was also divided on it.

The United Party by a majority decision decided that they would stand by that principle. We still stand by that principle. It is on record that this hon. member has said that he is against the principle of giving freehold compensation to people who already hold freehold rights. They had that right before the Nationalist Party came. There was a point of principle involved. This is one of the blots on the record of the White man in South Africa, aided and abetted by that hon. member while he was a member of the Johannesburg City Council. I believe that he has something on his mind that he will have to square one of these days.

Let us look for a moment at one aspect of the functions of the provincial councils and the municipalities working together, namely the question of planning. Again we speak in Natal with pride of the Town and Regional Planning Commission, which has played a tremendous part, not only in the development of Natal, but in the investigation of our potential. Let us start with the Tugela Basin, where the planning has been done by the Town and Regional Planning Commission. It is a local Natal body, investigating a specific Natal problem, and one which prescribed all kinds of conditions for what is going to become one of the greatest industrial areas in the whole of South Africa. But the present problem we have in relation to planning when it is done on a national scale, is that any kind of development has to pass through some 14 different Government departments before it can achieve any kind of finality. Surely to goodness, this is one of the cases where decentralization and the breaking down of the process of decision making is necessary, subject to a review of the Minister, if necessary. We cannot afford in this country to go on centralizing into the hands of fewer and fewer people in Pretoria.

Who said we were against decentralization?

That is the trend. Whether the hon. the Minister agrees with it or not, this is the trend. This is what has been happening in the past. We have to break down the trend of decision making to the local authorities. I believe it is tremendously important, particularly in relation to this matter of planning, which is going to play such a very, very important part, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North said earlier on when he pointed out that we have to duplicate every single house that we have in South Africa today within the next 30 years. Now how can we afford to hold up decisions, for any reason? There has to be action now. There has to be action which can be co-ordinated on a local basis. Nobody wants one department planning one aspect and another department planning another aspect. There has to be an organization such as the Town and Regional Planning Commission which can take all these matters into account on a local level, as they have done. As the hon. the Minister will know—I am quoting just for argument’s sake a matter that he will know about—they have investigated the area from Hilton Road to the other side of Tweedie. It was a regional plan made up by the local people and put into effect. There are points about which I disagree personally, but I am bound by their decision. But it was taken and it is now ready to go into operation, subject to the approval of the Administrator and the Executive Committee. We believe this is the way in which these matters ought to be controlled.

Another question which comes up, is the question of tourism. The hon. the Minister knows, because he himself was involved at the time.

Not involved—I established the Tourism Board.

I give the hon. the Minister the credit. He established the Tourism Board.

Thanks for some more credit!

I appreciate the sensitivity of the hon. member. The Nationalist Party needs all the credit it can get, and I will give it to the hon. the Minister with a free hand. The funny thing about this matter is that, where the regional boards were established, as in the Natal Midlands and the Drakensberg, there immediately arose a difficulty, because as I am given to understand—I am subject to correction—funds were intended to come from the Department of Tourism. When the hon. the Minister replies, he can put me right if I am wrong. The initial grant of funds came from the Department of Tourism to the province for distribution to the boards. The following year funds were no longer made available because, we were given to understand, the Department was ultra vires and that they were not entitled in terms of the law to make money available to the provinces for distribution. In fact, the Department itself then had to step in and establish three regional offices in Natal to try and co-ordinate the efforts of these tourist boards. This is something which is of immense importance.

I speak with feeling, because a great deal of this area is part of my constituency and I share the rest with the hon. the Minister of the Interior. If he does not speak with feeling about it, there is something wrong with him. This is of tremendous importance to the people right from Underberg through to Bergville and Ladismith.

The hon. the Minister’s own intention was that they should function on a regional basis—the local people carrying out the local work and the local publicity, knowing the local attractions. Surely it was possible and surely it was in the power of the Department of Tourism to make an alteration in the law which would have made it possible for the plan of the hon. the Minister, the then Administrator, to be carried out. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise an amendment which would have made it possible to carry out what was clearly in the mind of the then Administrator, now the hon. the Minister of the Interior.

You got to have the wit first.

Well, the wit of man is something we give credit also to the Government that they ought to have it. In this case, they chose not to use it.

One found that where plans had been investigated for establishing caravan camps, camping sites and so forth, the whole initiative of the local population tended to fall by the board, because they said what is the good of this, the matter has been taken out of our hands and the grants that were available would not be available any longer. I believe that this has done a tremendous disservice.

In England they are planning something like 32 new towns. A document has been issued on the planning of Milton Canes, a major city which has a planned population of something like 250,000 people. It will be established, I think, some 64 miles from London on the basis of what is a small complex of villages. It will have a complete set-up of industry. It will have all the amenities that that community there will want. It is being done by a small regional group of planners. It is not being done by the Department as such. It has been broken down to a small group of regional planners, people who are familiar with the local conditions. I support what the hon. member for Wynberg said in this regard. This is again an illustration of what is happening overseas where the decision-making is being broken down. I believe that one of the weaknesses that we suffer in this country today and one of the problems we have in getting decisions made, is that there are too many people involved. It might even be an idea if the hon. the Minister or the Cabinet, or whoever has to do it, was to make available one or two liaison officers in those departments connected with planning so that they would be able to take the decisions and thus short-circuit all the red tape and the steps that have to be taken, so that, whichever Departments are concerned would be empowered and authorized to meet together and take the decisions without having to go through all the rigmarole which has made any kind of development in this country become a cross which people today are no longer willing to bear.

I believe that there is in our people a natural creativeness, a creativeness in administration, a creativeness which enabled us to meet the challenge of housing and absorbing into the industrial community so many hundreds and thousands of Black people who moved into our urban areas. I said in the other debate which we just have had on the Bantu Affairs Bill that it was the creativeness of the local authorities which absorbed that flood of people. The people concerned, namely the local authorities, sat down and looked at the problem and took the decisions. If there were no ways open, they created the machinery in consultation with the provinces and the Government. That is where the basic decisions of democracy start. That is where the basic efficiency in administration starts. It starts at the local level, because they know the practical day to day problems of administration which have to be met.

I believe that we have to reverse this trend. I say that the power of the Central Government has increased and I believe it is increasing. I believe also that it ought to be diminished.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I agree in part with what the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, said, and particularly with one point he mentioned, i.e. that we can try to obtain a better link-up with the central authorities and the local governing bodies. In fact, I call to mind that this was also the theme of my maiden speech in this hon. House: Having said this, I must state at once that this is in any case the only agreement that exists between myself and speakers on the other side of the House. I had something totally different in mind when I spoke of linking up. And I want to mention this to our new hon. Minister who, with his wide experience of provincial matters, will probably make a very great success of these matters that he most now deal with. I also want to wish him the best of luck with this. Local administrations felt that there was one shortcoming, i.e. that the necessary co-ordinated liaison with provincial authorities and with the Central Government cannot always take place, and that in most of the cases this must happen on an ad hoc basis. So many local authorities have their own strange problems that when a common problem crops up it is not always possible, by way of the United Municipal Executive, to bring these matters to the attention of the bodies that have to give attention to them. In passing I just want to refer to what was mentioned earlier in this debate as a charge against the Government, i.e. the report of the Borckenhagen committee. We, on this side of the House were just as anxiously awaiting the publication of the findings. What is the reason for that delay? I want to say at once that the Government made the promise, and I hope it can be carried out, that we shall be receiving that White Paper about this report within this year still.

Only after six years.

That member knows nothing of this matter; and if he would only listen for a moment I shall very gladly inform him of precisely what happened. When the Borckenhagen commission began to gather its data, it was not merely a matter of asking a batch of people for their opinions. Information had to be gathered about every aspect of local administration. How was this done? In the first place, letters were sent separately to every local authority. A local authority such as, Witbank, for example, was instructed to study the Act in connection with health regulations and comment on what amendments they desired in that legislation. Then it was sent to the institutes of the various governing bodies that manage the affairs of town councils, for example the Institute of City Treasurers, the Institute of Engineers and still many others. These people have their work to do and cannot therefore convene every second day to carry out a new instruction. Years of consultation were necessary. Only after all that data had been gathered was it possible to bring it back to the municipal associations of the various provinces, and via those provinces back to the United Municipal Executive that only convenes twice a year. These interim reports were, submitted regularly by the Borckenhagen committee, which has been done a, great injustice here, to local authorities in order that they might deal with them and comment on them. I think that committee has done well in going into the matter, thoroughly so that we shall eventually have a comprehensive report after proper consultations. That is what it is all about.

There are hon. members here who complain that the Government is interfering with local authorities. Is the Borckenhagen committees years of work not a striking example of the fact that this Government even wants to take into account the opinions of every smaller local authority before conclusions are drawn and decisions taken in connection with matters concerning those local authorities?

Fourteen years.

The functions of local authorities and their mode of development in a rapidly developing country like South Africa, have not only yielded 14 years of difficulties. As the hon. the Minister of Transport said by way of an interjection, we have also gained a legacy in that respect. I should like to quote to the hon. member for Wynberg from a book in order to indicate what an authority in this field, Dr. J. J. N. Cloete, writes about central, provincial and municipal institutions in South Africa. In speaking of the competence of local governing bodies, he says the following—

Sir, I shall continue if the hon. member would just restrain her feminine impulses for a moment—

This has been the case from the beginning, says this authority in this field. He then continues—

Sir, I would be glad if the hon. members for Wynberg and Johannesburg North, who charged us here with interfering with the administration of Bantu laws, will take note of this.

Not of 1948, but of 1945—

That Urban Areas Consolidation Act was passed at a time when the United Party was in power, in 1945. If a national policy must be implemented here, the Government already determined it formerly when this Act was passed in 1945.

Sir, I want to say again that better liaison is certainly a matter we must always be striving for, but I think that in this case we are seeing the matter from two different angles. The National Party sees the task and function of every governing body as a task which it is carrying out under the large mantle of the Government which in the final instance must carry the responsibility for the entire country. Sir, in connection with the word “autonomy”, which is so frequently abused, and the quotations used here this afternoon about what happened in London, I should like to content myself with another quotation. I should like to quote what two other authorities said on occasion about what is necessary in the world of today.

†I refer to a statement by Mr. Harold Banwell, the former secretary of the Association of Municipal Councils in London. I also want to quote what was said by Dr. Luther Gulick, the president of the Institute of Public Administration in New York. This is a country which has to cope with very much the same problems nowadays as the problem that South Africa has to cope with. This is what Dr. Gulick said in 1963. He said—

*I wonder whether he could not have written this in a letter to the City Council of Johannesburg—

Sir, this is not the National Party speaking here. When Johannesburg was asked to make urban planning a part of the national pattern of Bantu housing, the wild allegation was made that the Central Government was interfering in the sphere of local autonomy. Sir, suffice it to say that the Government has never interfered where it has not been in the interests of the nation, and that there has never been anything but appreciation from any member of the National Party Government for those men and women serving on municipalities and provincial councils. We only pay tribute to them and we appreciate their work, but local interests, as far as the National Party is concerned, always remains subservient to the greater interests pursued by this Government for the whole of South Africa.

Sir, a great deal was said on that side of the House and many matters were dragged in, but strangely enough not one of the hon. speakers on the other side came forward with any positive arguments in support of their accusations.

I did.

The accusation that is made is that the Government is supposedly interfering with the affairs of local authorities and encroaching upon their value and standing. I say that not one person has come to the fore to indicate grounds for why the Government should be excluded from the sphere of local government. For me this motion has brought one thing clearly to the fore, and that is that the Opposition seizes upon any means at its disposal to jeopardize the Government’s policy in respect of important matters and to undo the good work this Government is doing for the country’s development. If that were all one could forgive them, but the worst of it is that they do not care what they trample underfoot in the process. Thus the hon. member for Johannesburg North is even prepared to sacrifice the interests and the agreeable and convenient existence of local communities for the sake of a small measure of political advantage, and to deny—local communities the privilege of being partners in that great joint effort of developing this country. What hon. members opposite characterize as being interference in the affairs of local authorities, is indeed nothing but an effort on the part of the Government to find a point of contact with the bottom level for the sake of co-operation in the great task of developing and extending the country. Sir, let me say this: If we in this country do not obtain the co-operation of the entire population we shall never get anywhere. This is what the Government is looking for, i.e. to promote co-operation and goodwill, but that is what the Opposition wants to jeopardize.

It speaks for itself that municipal functions have developed tremendously, particularly as a result of increasing urbanization. This has in turn, of course, given rise to the fact that the State had to step forward and ensure the introduction of services that have become necessary. That is why there are a large number of functions, which were originally municipal as well as non-municipal functions, presently embodied in laws of the Central Government and which the Central Government implements with the help of local authorities. This is the work of the authorities that is being done and must be done at a particular level, but more so, from the nature of the case it is also work which, for its successful implementation, must not be done in a spirit of “we want to do it” or “you must do it” but in a spirit of co-operation. Now hon. members opposite come along and say that it is unnecessary and they imply that this Government is interfering in the affairs of local authorities. I think that this is a very horrid attitude. The wise Solomon said: They who separate themselves seeketh their own desires. The Central Government does not concern itself with the affairs of local authorities, and it does not interfere with them; on the contrary the Central Government specifically recognizes and includes local authorities with a view to helping improve the implementation of existing functions and conducting other necessary functions, all to the benefit of local communities.

In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to say something about the second accusation, i.e. that the value and standing of local authorities is supposedly being encroached upon. Let me say at once that the value and standing of an authority does not so much lie in the extent of its activities. A more reliable criterion would rather be the quality of its services than their quantity. It is far more a matter of quality than outward display. If local authorities—and I think that here I should address myself to the Johannesburg Municipality in particular—were to implement those tasks entrusted to them properly, conservatively and conscientiously, they would have very little time left for anything else. Then they would not have to concern themselves about their value or whatever standing they have. We must remember that any geographic region—whether a provincial area, a district or a local authority area— is a sub-national area, and as such forms a part of the whole. In other words, it always forms a part of the larger political, economic and social entity. Consequently their development pattern and rate of development are inextricably linked to the national socio-economic political policy and it is necessary that they fit in with the national object. This makes it necessary for local bodies, including local authorities, not only to understand the national socio-economic political policy and the national objects, but also for them to take cognizance at all times of any statutory provisions according to which national policy must be implemented.

After all, all of us have only one object in view, i.e. that of making South Africa a bigger and lovelier country. It does not matter in what sphere we perform our services. What does count is our willingness to co-operate, whether we are willing to carry our full load, be it in the personal sphere, the organizational sphere or the authority sphere. That is of importance. Any authority that is worth its salt carried out its task, not only to the letter, but also in the spirit of the law. That is why local authorities must see themselves not only as the providers of services, or as the implementers of regulative measures, but also as bodies with co-responsibility for the social, cultural and educational furtherance of their respective communities. Those local authorities who see their task in this light will continue to have value and standing, and in addition they will meet with the recognition and appreciation of a grateful community. We must remember that it is specifically on this bottom level where important foundations are laid for community development, something which in its turn is so necessary to development on a national level. In fact, many bodies functioning on a national level must of necessity seek and find contact with the bottom level.

I myself have a great deal of esteem and respect for local authorities. For many years I worked intimately with them and I could reflect with them on their problems. I have always found them to be people who unselfishly perform services and do valuable work, people who have always been eager, and who are eager to co-operate. I have never found amongst them any attitude such as that revealed in this motion. That is why I have every reason to suppose that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is not speaking on behalf of local authorities, but only on his own behalf, with the sole object of obtaining a bit of political advantage for himself. It is clear to me that this motion has no substance whatsoever and that it cannot be supported for that reason.

I listened with very great interest to the debate which took place here this afternoon. In a certain sense I may say that this is my maiden speech, and I am sorry this afternoon for discussing this extremely important matter. I must say that I tried to make a few notes of the statements made by my hon. friends on the other side. In my opinion these are points to which we should return on a future occasion, when we can discuss in more detail that we do not have a little more time the charges which have been made against the Government. It is very clear to me that there is not only a great deal of confusion about precisely what this motion before us today comprises, but that the mover also proved to me that it was for very parochial and local reasons, namely the difficulties of Johannesburg, that he had introduced it in this House on this occasion. I find this a pity.

Why?

Because this is a national body which should discuss national problems, seen against the background of similar and comparable problems in other parts of the world, and not only those of Johannesburg. Although I cannot reply to all the questions put here, I want to make three very clear statements at the outset. I think they must be accepted by the hon. basis of the National Party’s approach to local government. My feeling is that it is a misinterpretation of the circumstances with which we are faced when it is suggested that the National Party as such accepts three different levels of government. As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as three levels of government. There is one Government, which includes two administrations on a lower level. There should be an interaction among the Government, the provinces and the local authorities.

The second matter I want to put very clearly to hon. members here this afternoon, is that there is no question of centralization and that centralization is not necessarily a matter of policy as far as this Government is concerned. As my hon. friend who has just sat down put it, it is our intention that services should only be centralized if it is possible and essential for those services to be improved by centralization. It is the functional effective side of the matter that counts. This is being done in other countries as well. In the third place, I want to deal with a statement made by the hon. member for Wynberg. I think it was a very unfortunate statement. Her statement was that it was the intention of this Government to break down local authorities and to reduce the services they provide at the moment. If this were at all the case, it could definitely not be described as a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to break down local authorities.

About a year ago I had the opportunity of reading a report of a congress which held in Vienna and attended by representatives of local authorities of 33 different countries. I do not know whether any of the members on the other side have read this report. If this is in fact the case, we may perhaps be able to discuss matters, because there are definite and clear patterns in this report. Members of the South African public, specifically persons concerned in matters relating to local authorities, were amongst those who attended that congress. On that occasion it was very clear that the same pattern of complaints as submitted to us by the hon. members today, were to be found in most of the countries represented there. Although I now accept that one cannot compare the one with the other, and also think it would be foolish to do so, because it would mean a “centralization” of thought, I do believe that this pattern will show the hon. members opposite that it is not only South Africa which in the interaction it has between local government on the one hand and the Government on the other, with the provinces in the middle, has these problems which they are complaining about. I think the hon. members will realize that these patterns exist in all those countries. There is a similarity and the hon. members would do well to apply these to their personal circumstances and the difficulties they have with the Government. They include the question of money and the question of essential interaction in matters relating to local authorities because of the fact that those local authorities cannot perform those services on the same level and with the same resources. For this reason, too, a government must sometimes intervene in a local authority. If not, it must bring about some form or interaction between the Government and its subordinate administrations.

I want to make it clear that I find it a great pity that the hon. mover of this motion thought fit to submit this motion, which is a very important one, to this House at this stage. I think a very clear indication was given on behalf of the Government that a White Paper which has been awaited for 14 years would be submitted to this House soon. I must say that we have had many difficulties—on both sides—about waiting for this report of the Borckenhagen Committee, but we may now accept that the report will be laid on the Table soon. The announcement has already been made.

The motion was submitted before that.

No, the hon. member could have withdrawn the motion; in fact, he did not withdraw it, but advanced the date for its discussion from the 19th of this month to the 12th of this month. In other words, he advanced it by a week so that he would be able to introduce the motion this afternoon. The hon. member could have taken into account the fact that this House, with the heavy responsibility resting upon it to decide in a matter of this nature, should first have received the opportunity to study such an important White Paper on which so much work has been done over the years. After that he could have submitted this motion to the House and then he could have determined to what extent it was a question of interference which this Government had in mind. It is very clear that the Government must indicate what it has in mind and which recommendations of that report it will accept. Once it has done this, hon. members can complain or can agree with the Government that those recommendations are applicable in South Africa.

But I want to say something else as well. If hon. members are adopting the attitude this afternoon that they should use this opportunity to attack the Government on so-called interference in the affairs of local authorities in South Africa, I, as a former Administrator of Natal, can devote an entire afternoon, if I will be allowed the time, to reversing the position for them and telling them what has happened over the years as a result of the actions of local authorities in Natal, local authorities which are not well-disposed towards the Government and do not want to co-operate. I have here two reports which will give hon. members an indication of what the attitude was of persons who did not want to know about the Government, or who did not implement the policy within the limits of what was stated to them and as was expected by the Government. In other words, they created situations which made it necessary for the Government itself to intervene when necessary and to do what, for example, had to be done by the Department of Community Development in one or two cases where a city council was not implementing the policy of the National Party.

I cannot deal with it on this occasion, but I have also brought with me an exposition of the existing relationship between Government departments and local authorities. What I did when I was asked to reply to the motion was to ask five departments to give me indications, not only of their policy in regard to matters of a local government nature, but also of the extent to which they had powers to intervene. I brought that report along with the idea of showing it to hon. members and to indicate that intervention, as appears from the report, takes place only where it can be done in terms of legislation—not arbitrarily or at random or because an attack has to be made on the United Party or because the local authority has to be hurt, but because legislation exists and is not being implemented by the local authority. Surely it is normal that no country in the world will pass legislation which it does not use and does not implement in order to attain a goal set by its own Parliament.

In the few minutes left to me, I want to give a few assurances to the local authorities of South Africa. I think it is very important that these assurances should in fact be given to the local authorities in view of the erroneous statements made in the course of this debate, statements which, I am sure, will be used tomorrow and over the weekend by the Press which is not well-disposed towards this Government.

Firstly, I want to give the assurance to local authorities that, as far as the Government is concerned, local authorities will most definitely be regarded in future as they have been regarded up to now, i.e. as an integral part of this Government. As I indicated earlier, it is the attitude of the National Party and therefore the existing policy, and it will remain the policy, that we regard all the three levels of government as one within a framework working integrally towards the inside. In order to confirm this, I want to refer to various statements made by various people. In the first place I have here an address given by the Chairman of the Transvaal Municipal Association, Prof. Swanepoel, in which he stated very clearly (translation)—

Of even greater importance is the assurance we received from the hon. the Prime Minister himself, who said on an occasion that our local authorities may be assured that they form part of the government as a whole in South Africa and that it is not necessary to speak only of a Central Government, but simply of what is called “the Government”, as we have only one Government.

It is an interesting fact that the hon. the Minister of Community Development, who is present, put the matter somewhat differently when he said on an occasion (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, I want to give local authorities the further assurance that what was referred to here this afternoon by hon. members on that side of this House as interference by the Government, must in reality be regarded as part of the assistance which this Government grants to local authorities. Over the past 20 years we have adopted the line of thought that we must provide this assistance where necessary. Where a local authority cannot on its own do things as they should be done, we must provide this assistance from our side.

What will be accepted of the Borckenhagen Committee’s report, I cannot say here this afternoon. But I can in any case give the assurance that the Government has taken careful note of the recommendations made by that committee and that it should probably be acceptable to local authorities that our approach is the correct, logical and fundamental one.

Lastly, I want to say that, as far as I am concerned—and I am sure as far as the Government too is concerned—the interaction which there should be on the three different levels of government will be continued as in the past. This contact made from time to time, and I often did so during my term of office as Administrator, between the provincial and local authorities on the one hand and the provincial authorities and the Central Government on the other, will be continued in future as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move the following motion, as printed in my name—

1. (a) signifies its approval of the policy of the Government to bring about friendly relations with other states in Africa;
2. (b) expresses its appreciation for the successes which have been achieved under difficult circumstances; and
3. (c) lends its full support to the Government in the further extension and development of this policy.

From the nature of South Africa’s historical and cultural origins, it remained very intimately linked to the umbilical cord of mother Europe up to and including the end of the Second World War. Our way of life was nothing but an extension of European civilization and our continued existence was extremely closely linked to that of Europe. After the end of the Second World War, however, a general and drastic change took place in the life of mankind. In the Western philosophy of life, particularly in regard to race relations, political thought and international associations, an intense change took place. Closely allied to this change was the emergence of the two great power blocs which in turn resulted in the relentless cold war. A never-ending competition between East and West followed for the favours of the so-called non-committed countries in Africa and Asia. This event has brought the continent of Africa into the limelight of modern world politics for the third time. This was Africa’s third début in the era of modern world history. The first was of course when the sea route to India had to be discovered, and Africa was regarded as the great stumbling block, and, secondly, there was the so-called scramble for Africa when the colonial period started and every European country demarcated for itself a sphere of influence in Africa. Now, at the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century, Africa has made its third début which has gone hand-in-hand with a large-scale process of political emancipation, and has caused the awakening of the sleeping giant in a spectacular fashion. The metamorphosis Africa has undergone, has been almost unbelievable. Prof. J. A. Coetzee of the University of Potchefstroom described it as follows (translation):

The granting of full independence to Ghana in March, 1957 was the beginning of the new dispensation in Africa. Pressure from the Black colonial territories to be granted their freedom became stronger and stronger, and during the sixties one Black state after the other became independent. Stability was in fact lacking, and one coup d’état was rapidly followed by the next, but there was no question of a return to the colonial system. South Africa as White state in Africa had to take cognizance of the new school of thought and of the events in Africa. South Africa did in fact take thorough cognizance of these events, but two factors in particular combined to make South Africa focus its attention, its powers and its energy to a great extent on domestic matters before it could turn its attention outwards. These two matters were inter alia firstly, that the constitutional struggle in South Africa had to be completed and that a Republic had to be finally established; secondly, the complicated problem of population relationships within the borders of the Republic had to be tackled and put into effect in such a way that it would ensure the survival of White Christian civilization in South Africa and would at the same time take into account the growing aspirations for self-realization by the Black nations within our borders.

This dual struggle, for self-maintenance on the one hand, and national allegiance on the other, demanded for many years the utmost exertion and every atom of strength of the National Party Government which came into power in 1948, so that with few exceptions the contact with greater Africa was restricted to the dedicated task of the mission workers of the Afrikaans churches in countries such as Nyassaland, the Sudan and the Congo. At the beginning of the sixties the constitutional struggle was finally settled with the establishment of the Republic, and the blueprint for the political evolution of the various non-White peoples, in terms of the policy of parallel development, was conceived, particularly when in 1963 the Transkei became a self-governing state. Only now could South Africa in fact devote its fuller attention to the essential co-operation with other states in Africa.

In the meantime, however, far-reaching and radical changes had taken place in Africa. Following on the national awakening came political emancipation which twitched off the cloak of generalization and revealed a continent with a great diversity of political and ethnical personalities. For South Africa the diplomatic detour to Africa via Europe was now closed, and it was now necessary to knock directly on the doors of Africa states and negotiate with the landlords themselves. Behind these doors, however, South Africa very frequently encountered unfriendly and extremely prejudiced land lords. The reason for this was that from the time the National Party accepted the reins of government in 1948 a stream of poisonous propaganda against the new régime had been sent out into the world, which assumed alarming proportions. South Africa was judged and condemned in the light of the caricaturized representations of its apartheid policy. Misrepresentations were the order of the day, and the traditional resistance to the Whites was fanned into a blaze of hate and condemnation.

Deliberate and passionate attempts were made and are still being made to barricade all roads of contact with African states. These attempts have been largely successful, since the world has been made to believe that the apartheid policy is identical to the Nazi idea of racial superiority. The Whites of the South are presented as suppressors and colonialists who have to be driven out of Africa so that the whole of Africa can belong to the Africans and the black brothers in the South can be liberated from the tyranny of the Whites. This hate campaign against the White South was the one matter in regard to which the entire Black Africa could raise their voices in unison and in that way conceal or disguise disputes amongst themselves.

However, the National Party régime in South Africa did not allow itself to be deterred by this extremely difficult situation. The White Nationalist has never at any time seen himself as a colonialist in Africa. He has never at any time been afraid of the upsurging nationalism among the Blacks and he does not disregard the right of the Blacks to self-determination. The White Nationalist in South Africa knows, in fact, that his people were the first Nationalists who for many decades fought against the colonialists in Africa. That is why he does not begrudge the Blacks of Africa these things as well, and that is why his hand of friendship and co-operation remains outstreched to those people. In the U.N.O. where the vendetta against South Africa was initially led by India, which set itself up as the champion of all Black peoples the hate campaign was waged a step further against us year after year, particularly after our refusal to place South-West Africa under U.N.O. trusteeship. Although our continued membership of the U.N.O. was often subjected to great pressure, we could nevertheless, by remaining a member, allow our voice to be heard regularly on the international rostrum and could continue to proclaim our message of co-operation without interference. We could demonstrate there that within South Africa, in terms of our policy of separate development, precisely those objectives which the U.N.O. emphasized so strongly in terms of section 55, continued to be promoted and extended in terms of our policy and within the borders of our country, and were not being defeated as our critics alleged. A significant break-through came when the former British Protectorates became independent and friendly co-operation between us and them became a reality. The realistic Dr. Banda of Malawi has, without beating about the bush, advocated friendly co-operation with South Africa, and this co-operation has been expanded into mutual diplomatic representation, reciprocated ministerial visits, and culminated last year in the visit to Malawi of the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa. In the meanwhile South Africa has continued, in a relentless and consistent manner, to demonstrate to Africa and its people that we regard ourselves, irrefutably, as one of the peoples of Africa and that our entire national survival is directed towards the stability and the progress of all States in Africa, particularly in Southern Africa. South Africa would indeed have been deaf and blind and callous and unreasonable if it had withdrawn itself from co-operation with African states and if it had wanted to isolate itself from the rest of Africa because of the inimical attitude of some African leaders. Whatever other considerations there may be, the Republic is indeed geographically involved in Africa since its national territory is part of the territory of Africa. In fact, the general attitude of the African states towards South Africa makes it imperative in fact that South Africa cannot disregard the rest of Africa. Africa is in fact not totally situated outside the Republic. Pieces of Africa lie within our borders. Every event in Africa is therefore an event which takes place on our borders and which directly affects our weal or woe. If Africa does not eat, we will not sleep, one of our industrialists said. We cannot hope to carry on peacefully if millions of people on our continent are deteriorating economically and are suffering from serious hardships or starvation. Apart from our Christian duty, the political and social disorder which something like that would lead to, would only create an ideal climate for those who want to destroy us. If epidemics and plagues sow destruction in Africa, we will not remain unscathed. If cholera or locusts or foot-and-mouth disease afflicts Africa, it will spread to us as well. If wars, uprisings and revolutions disturb the good order and stability in Africa, it will affect us very intimately. When the plague of terrorism threatens to cripple Africa, it would be fatal for us to stand by as passive observers. Once communism has undermined and conquered Africa, it will be too late for us to save ourselves. For that reason we are grateful that we as a White state in Africa have over the past 300 years been able to acquire extremely valuable scientific and technical knowledge regarding the problems of Africa, and we are thankful that we are prepared and ready to share this knowledge and experience with our neighbours in Africa. This Government’s policy, therefore, remains one of increasing contact and co-operation with territories in Southern Africa, spreading in an ever-widening circle to remoter states in Africa. Our approach to international relationships is based on our conviction that no success can be achieved on any basis other than one of tolerance, mutual respect and recognition of the sovereign independence of States. No domestic dispute or approach ought to stand in the way of constructive co-operation between the governments in matters of common interest. South Africa, which is by far the most highly industrialized and technologically developed country in the entire continent, finds itself in a very favourable position to make an essential contribution to the stability, good order and the prosperity of Southern Africa. We are in a position to stimulate economic growth in large territories, as is illustrated by our co-operation in regard to the colossal Cabora Bassa project. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs, on 1st April, 1970, summarized our policy in this connection as follows (translation)—

Our progress on the road to friendly co-operation in Africa can certainly not be regarded as spectacular, but in the light of the tremendous propaganda and the hate campaign which has been waged against us, our progress is in fact remarkable. Our co-operation with out immediate neighbouring states, viz. Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Rhodesia, Malawi and the Portuguese Provinces, is as good as we could wish them to be. There is continual contact with other remoter states. One could easily allege that if President Kaunda were not entangled in the net of his extremistic leftist group, he would long ago have advocated co-operation with South Africa. We have taken cognizance of the visit of our Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Malagasy Republic. There have been further signs of possible co-operation with other States in Africa. We know that the picture will not change overnight. Time and patience and endless tact are necessary, but we are confident that in the long run our policy of friendly co-operation in Africa is the only beneficial policy for Africa and that it must, for that reason, succeed. Less spectacular, but equally important, are the numerous ways in which South Africa is supplying technical and scientific assistance to African countries. The invaluable results of research by the Veterinary Institute at Onderstepoort, the C.S.I.R., the Bureau of Standards, the S.A. Institute of Medical Research, etc., all scientific institutions of world calibre within South Africa, we are gladly placing at the disposal of African states who ask for assistance. A trade agreement with Malawi is stimulating the mutual trade between our two countries. Our Industrial Development Corporation has granted a loan of R6 million to Malawi for the establishment of a sugar mill by a South African construction firm. South Africa is rendering assistance and co-operation in regard to the planning of Lilongwe, the new capital of Malawi. Malawian nurses are being trained in our Baragwanath Hospital. Students from African states are studying at some of our South African universities. Consultation between our Government and other governments on our sub-continent in respect of matters such as traffic and telecommunications, water and power supply, labour mobility, agricultural and veterinary problems, is continually taking place. In this way mutual understanding and confidence is being created, which is so absolutely essential for further co-operation. I may not omit, on this occasion, to express my highest appreciation to our hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and his Department for the competend and courageous, but particularly for the tactful way, in which they are handling this extremely difficult task of co-operation with other states in Africa. I believe that this House, the people of South Africa and generations of people to come in Africa, will always remain grateful to them for this.

†But however satisfactorily our policy of friendly co-operation in Africa has progressed, we have to realize that we are up against very determined and very formidable opponents, namely the Russian and Chinese communists in Africa. The so-called tri-continent conference held by the communists in Havanna in 1966 was attended by official representations from eight different African governments. This conference clearly established that what is occurring in Vietnam is not simply localized communist aggression but merely one front in a world-wide campaign against the free world. According to the authorities Russia and China have established themselves in many African states. An African minister recently told Peking: “The war in Africa needs your help. Imperialism is your enemy as well as ours. Together we stand in defence of freedom against imperialism and colonialism.” General Hiemstra, Chief-of-Staff of the South African armed forces, last week told an audience at De Aar that the infiltration of communists in Africa is a bigger danger than terrorism. The Russians and Chinese have assigned some 10,000 so-called technical advisers in an effort to woo Africa’s developing states.

In addition some 15,000 so-called African students are being trained in communist countries. States, such as Guinea. Burundi, Brazzaville Congo, Uganda, Somalia and Tanzania the communists have been preparing for a peaceful take-over. There is no doubt that the communists are determined to take over Africa. Temporary setbacks like the overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah and Milton Obote are not going to put them off. After all, it took them 30 years to conquer China and the mineral rich Africa would be a much bigger bargain. Every step in their campaign is carefully planned and co-ordinated by top strategists in Moscow and Peking.

*This is the powerful opposition with which this Government and its Department of Foreign Affairs has to deal in the application of its African policy. It would be of little avail to throw in the towel and throw up our hands in despair. Our survival is indeed at stake. However, because we are dealing mainly with a struggle of ideas rather than an armed struggle, one would prefer to see the policy of friendly co-operation, as in South Africa with other states, being extended and developed more rapidly if possible. However, it must be remembered that one rash step can set us back many years. That is why we must, like the communists, continually approach this task with a thoroughly planned and well-orientated campaign, supported by dynamic ideas and concepts.

On the home front we would be able to accomplish considerably more to inculcate an African consciousness and better knowledge in regard to Africa, inter alia, by the expansion of the task of the Africa Institute and also, perhaps, by the introduction of African studies at all our universities and high schools. One cannot help wondering, too, why more European languages are not taught in our schools, since Portuguese, the language of our northern neighbours, and French, the language of a large group of African states with whom we are continually establishing better relations, and Spanish, the language which is spoken in so many countries in the world, are totally unknown languages to the majority of people in South Africa.

In addition we must bring home the full implications of our policy of parallel development to the people of Africa. We must indicate to them that we are leading the Bantu peoples within our borders to self-determination in a responsible manner. If it is possible to convey this message more and more effectively from South Africa, it would have greater efficacy. We must bring home to the peoples of Africa the truth that the Whites of the South are no intruders in Africa, but that we are a nation of and out of Africa that knows no other fatherland. We must convince them that we are not imperialists or colonialists, but that we are the spearhead of the struggle for freedom and independence in Africa, because we were the first people in Africa who fought for centuries against the colonialists. We must convince them that love of freedom is traditional to our national way of life. Because this is so, we do not begrudge any people or any nation their freedom and independence. We must bring the truth home to them that our intentions in regard to Africa and the people of Africa are honest ones. We want to, and must, help them to help themselves, because progress and stability in Africa will be to our benefit as well. We must convince them, that in contrast to our honest intentions, the communists want to exploit Africa for their own ends. Leaders such as Nyerere and others who are inviting the Chinese communists into their countries, will before long be cursed by their own people because, through them, the tragedy of communism will be inflicted on Africa.

In conclusion I want to point out that the task of the further extension of friendly relationships with other countries in Africa must not remain merely the task of this Government, but must also become a national task. While the Government on its part is following a positive and dynamic policy, which is aimed at expanding South African relationships with other states, a special responsibility also rests on every citizen of South Africa who has his country’s interests at heart. His personal approach to and conduct towards strangers and citizens of countries with whom South Africa is establishing ties of friendship, can contribute a great deal to ensuring the success of the Government’s task. On the other hand inconsiderate behaviour and statements which hurt the pride of other people can within seconds undo all the efforts made by the State. The positive conduct and the spontaneous gestures of friendship made by the Free State farmers when they went, with their own equipment and at their own expense, to plough the lands in Lesotho, revealed the kind of spirit which helps tremendously in giving the lie to the distorted image of the South African and particularly of the Afrikaner which exists among the people of Black Africa. That is why I conclude with the urgent appeal to the people of South Africa, who consider themselves to be a Christian nation, to accept this calling as well as to extend Christian civilization further in this continent where our forefathers were laid to rest and where we want to ensure that our children will have a place to live.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the hon. member for Algoa has presented Parliament with a motion of this kind, but he was noticeably more moderate this time, and more realistic, and he made no excessive claims to success. For that we are thankful. My hon. colleague the member for Von Brandis will be speaking specifically this afternoon on the Russian and Chinese position in Africa, as we see it. All I wish to say in this regard to the hon. member for Algoa is that it would of course be foolish for any Government to ignore or underestimate communist intentions in Africa. But at the same time it would be as short-sighted, if not more so, and in fact dangerous to us to exaggerate their successes, because people are attracted by success. I believe that we would be damaging our own position if we were to spread the belief among nations presently hostile to us that the diplomatic and economic presence of Russia or China is what we fear most in Africa.

Most of the nations in Africa are newly independent. We know from our own political experience in South Africa that newly independent states are extremely sensitive and most jealous of their independence. On the whole I believe that the African states did not rid themselves of one imperial boss only in order to accept another, and more ruthless one, as their master. So, I believe that two things alone will make nations in Africa turn either to the Soviet Union or to China. The one is a need for development aid. The second is a belief that the best way to defeat the hated South is to align themselves with the Soviet Union and with China. Fortunately, an enormous amount of development aid is provided in Africa by France, Britain, the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and several other Western countries. It is common knowledge that the vast majority of Africans prefer assistance from Western nations. Our country is in the position to make a very important contribution in this field and to the general welfare of Africa. In this way, I believe, we can help to fortify the influence and the position of the West on the African continent. At the same time I must say it is unlikely that we will be allowed to do this and to contribute our share of welfare unless we reach a better political understanding with the nations of Africa. Therefore, I wish to propose the following amendment to the motion and then I will go on to deal with the kind of initiative that I believe we should be taking. Therefore I move—

1. (1) promote a wide dialogue at the highest levels between South African and other African states; and
2. (2) sponsor activities more effectively directed to the advancement of beneficial co-operation and peaceful relations with the other states of Africa.”

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are more than aware of the fact that the Government is keen to improve our country’s relations with the rest of Africa. What government on earth does not wish to have everybody on its side? We are also aware of the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs under Mr. Brand Fourie are working overtime and that they are battling hard, battling uphill most of the time, to improve the international standing of, our country. We also know that, generally speaking, the Department of Foreign Affairs is ahead of the Government in their thinking. Heaven alone knows how much more verkramp the image of our country would have been if our Department of Foreign Affairs had not been so diligent in applying a brake. Furthermore, the Government knows— and it knows this very well—that while we strongly oppose their domestic policies they can always depend on our co-operation in respect of any outward move which is likely to improve our country’s position abroad. In fact, few governments in the world get such wide support from the Opposition as this Government gets from us in matters of foreign concern.

This is all the more reason why we on this side of the House have a duty to be critical. It was five years ago that we first heard of the Government’s intention to move outwards, “om uitwaarts te beweeg”, as it was called. Let us face it, we have not come very far. A brief look at the overall position in which South Africa finds itself will show, in the first place, that there are some 48 independent states in Africa, but that we have established residential diplomatic representation, and vice versa, in only two countries, namely Malawi and Rhodesia. Not one of the two will consider themselves as being particularly influential in the affairs of Africa. Secondly, we are facing armed activities against us on our northern borders, which, if we are to believe Government speakers and the leaders of our armed forces, are showing increased efficiency and look like developing into a far more serious threat than there has been up to now. This kind of activity is conducted against the background of assistance from many countries and the almost unanimous condemnation of our Government by the rest of the world. A brief look at the many resolutions which have been taken by the United Nations, and its subordinate organs, and the Security Council shows that in 1970 alone, amongst other things, 120 countries voted for a resolution declaring apartheid to constitute a “crime against humanity”. In other words, that the application of apartheid is regarded internationally as a criminal act which deserves international punishment. These states jointly declared that any state whose official policy is based on apartheid, should have no place in the United Nations. 120 nations voted for that. 1971 has been proclaimed as “International Year for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination”. On the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination appear the names of countries like Swaziland, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. On a resolution inviting all the people of the world to condemn unrelentingly what is called “the evils of apartheid” and to promote action for social justice, appear the names of Malawi, Madagascar, Botswana and also that of France, Portugal, the United States and the United Kingdom. As far as South-West Africa is concerned, the vast majority of countries have indicated repeatedly that they regard our presence in the Territory as illegal. Meanwhile, we are all very much aware of the fact that we are heavily engaged in a legal battle in The Hague, the outcome of which may—I put it softly—have the most far-reaching consequences for us. This is the situation, and these are the kinds of attitudes that we are facing in Africa and in the world at large.

I am by no means suggesting that there is no light on the subject at all, and that everything is moving in one direction only, namely that of confrontation with South Africa. There are countries in Africa and abroad who are prepared to move away from confrontation. They fall into three categories, as I see it. Firstly, there are a number of states in Africa—some of them happen to be our immediate neighbours—who have made it clear that they need to lean on our economic strength and knowhow and that they are therefore in no position to engage in political warfare against our country. I must say here that I am quite satisfied that the Government is handling this particular situation with circumspection, that we are not abusing our superior economic position vis-à-vis these countries and that no country need feel that its dignity is being affected by its economic dependence. Secondly, there are countries, or rather national leaders, mainly in Africa, who have come to believe that a policy of contact provides a better way of defeating apartheid than one of hostility and confrontation. It was this outlook which prompted the Prime Minister of Ghana, Dr. Kofi Busia, first to suggest a dialogue with South Africa. Dr. Busia in a report I have here from the Vaderland of a few months ago had this to say—-

He then comes to the question of a dialogue. This was followed up by the President of the Ivory Coast, who persuaded at least four French-speaking West African countries to support him. There are several other nations who have indicated that they are considering the same approach. Also Madagascar is supporting a similar “new stategy”, as it calls it. I want to say to the Government that it might not like this approach. I do not think any government would like this kind of approach. But I do believe that the Government should not have remained so negative and should have indicated that it was willing to discuss apartheid with whoever was interested. Why not? The question of race relations, the question of discrimination, is not peculiar to South Africa. It is a world-wide problem. It only shows weakness, to my mind great weakness, and a lack of confidence if they continue to say, as some Government leaders do, that they are not prepared to engage in dialogue involving the question of apartheid. After all, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs did call in on Madagascar despite its “new strategy”, as it calls it, against apartheid.

I say again that we on this side of the House believe that the Government should accept every opportunity offered for dialogue with other countries in Africa. Let us face it that no foreign policy can succeed if it is based on the concept that “we are wholly right and you are all wrong”.

During the last couple of months and more we have seen remarkable examples of how strained relations between countries can be improved by a bold initiative, by dialogue and by personal diplomacy, especially personal diplomacy. Mr. Heath’s battle over sea-defence armament for South Africa is a case in point. We know of all the preparation and all the travelling he was prepared to do to go and try to convince members of the Commonwealth that they should allow him to follow his policy.

Then there was Dr. Caetano, the Prime Minister of Portugal, who came forward with a policy of relaxation in respect of the oversea provinces, which was not easy for Portugal to do. I am referring to his announcement that the provinces could now develop to a system of autonomy.

But perhaps the finest example of bold initiative, of dialogue and of personal diplomacy, is that of the German Chancellor, Dr. Willie Brandt. It must have been an extremely difficult exercise for a political leader like Mr. Brandt to go so far as to accept the Oder/Neisse line as the final boundary for Poland. This was an extremely difficult exercise for a political leader. But Mr. Willie Brandt maintained —and I quote his words—that “we have the courage to turn over a new page of history”. Because of his boldness there was the peace pact with Russia and the normalization of relations between Germany and Poland and the Soviet Union.

I believe that talks that fail are far better than no talks at all. I believe also that the Government should be consistent. Recently the Netherlands delegate at the United Nations said, according to a newspaper report—

We maintain the closest possible relations with the Netherlands despite its expressed intention to promote a change of policy in our country, an attitude which they share with many other countries in the world. I may add that, if Government leaders are uncertain of themselves and of their policy, I suggest that they do what is common in many other Western countries, namely to send members of the Opposition, who get a better hearing abroad in any case … [Interjections.] Well, there is not the slightest doubt that members of the Opposition get a better hearing for South Africa than members of the Government. There is a very simple reason for that: Members of the Opposition are not obliged to support or defend or explain every aspect of the Government’s policy in the way Government members have to do. We can act as South Africans and we can point out that ours is mainly a two-party state like America and Britain and that while apartheid is the policy of the Government of the day, the government should not be regarded as being synonymous with the country. We can also point out that South Africans are constantly, and this is a point that I found goes home abroad, involved in serious dialogue among themselves over the question of better race relations. After all, the Government only polls about 53 per cent of the total number of votes, while its opponents are fighting for change. In any case, this is the kind of picture of South Africa that should be presented abroad and not one of the whole country following an ideology to which it is completely attached. They should know that South Africa is a two-party state with constant friction of ideas and one where there is amongst ourselves, serious dialogue as to how to improve our state of affairs. My point is that in certain respects members of the Opposition are more qualified to make friends for South Africa in Africa and abroad and to engage in dialogue and to temper hostility than members of the Government. I want to say in all seriousness that it is quite wrong for the Government and certainly not in the best interests of South Africa that they continue to deal with our foreign and international problems on a strictly party-political basis. I hope that the time will come when we in the Opposition will ourselves try to find the means and go and engage in dialogue with the African states who are interested, and to go and do so on behalf of the South Africa of the future.

Finally there is a third category of states who are moving away from confrontation and who favour persistent contact and communication with South Africa. I am now thinking particularly of the countries led today by Pres. Nixon and Mr. Heath. Let us make no mistake about it, there is a strong belief in these countries that South Africa itself is going to move away from the more objectionable aspects of its race policy. They believe that change is coming from within. I was, for example, told by a reliable source, although this comes from a South African source, that this was one of the arguments Mr. Heath advanced behind closed doors, when he spoke recently over the arms issue in Singapore, and with definite effect, as we know. I was told that he actually quoted prominent Afrikaans business people to prove that change was coming in South Africa. The Government themselves will know to what extent they are responsible for giving rise to such new hopes and expectations. What I do know is that foreign visitors talk to us as much as they talk to supporters and leaders on the Government side. I for one am left with the very strong impression that foreign visitors of note who come to South Africa are officially brought to believe that we are heading for a change in the field of race relations and that the cruder forms of discrimination will disappear.

The Government knows to what extent it can rely on the Opposition if and when changes of this nature are in fact brought about. We must sound a warning, however. Nothing can be more dangerous than to give rise to expectations of change and then not to embark on a programme of domestic reform. If disappointment and reaction set in at such high levels, it can lead to the most unpleasant consequences for our country. I therefore wish to urge the Government to carry out whatever promises they have made, not only in private but at the United Nations where they have categorically stated that they seriously intend to remove all forms of discrimination and of political inequality. Only if the Government is prepared to grab at every opportunity for dialogue and for contact and communication and come forward boldly with a programme of domestic reform in the field of apartheid, can we ever hope for a really meaningful improvement in our relations, particularly with the rest of Africa.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Bezuidenhout used this motion by the hon. member for Algoa to indicate how isolated South Africa still was in the world. He implied that South Africa was making promises of a change of policy or he hinted at such promises being made, and warned that South Africa would become even more isolated if she did not carry out such promises. I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and other members of the Opposition that South Africa has through its representatives at the United Nations, through the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others, made its standpoint very clear in this regard. I think that the world realizes, or is slowly beginning to realize, that here in South Africa a process has been set in motion which will eventually result in the non-White peoples of South Africa obtaining their independence. I think the world is slowly beginning to realize that an emancipatory process has been set in motion in the Republic of South Africa and that if other countries in the past turned their backs on South Africa because they felt that the non-White peoples of South Africa were being discriminated against, the realization will gradually get through to them that South Africa is engaged in an honest attempt to emancipate these people and consequently to remove discrimination, in so far as it still exists today. I do not think that any secret promises have been made. This side of the House has never yet stated one thing in secret and another in public. This side of the House has always been prepared to make this ideal which we cherish for South Africa unequivocally clear to our own voters here in our country, to Africa states and on any platform in the world.

However, I do not want to dilate too much on the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, except to say that it would be wrong to maintain that we are afraid of conducting a dialogue with any nation. I think we on this side of the House welcome a dialogue with any other state in the world and also with states in Africa. The question is whether it is always practicable simply to start conducting a dialogue. I think there must be willingness on both sides before there can be any real question of a dialogue. South Africa, and particularly the National Party Government, has never yet viewed other states in Africa or other states in the world as the enemies of South Africa. We have always viewed every state as a friend, or at least as a potential friend. That is why, when South Africa stood isolated in 1961, at the beginning of the seventh decade of the century, it did not simply bury its head in the sand, and the National Party Government was not afraid to keep on extending the hand of friendship to all states in Africa, a policy which has eventually resulted in friendly relationships already having reached an advanced stage with quite a number of states in Africa. I think the importance of our ties with Africa emerge most clearly perhaps when we look at the tangible benefits for other countries and for ourselves are, and are perhaps best proved if we consider the trade which is already taking place between South Africa and the other countries of Africa.

In 1968 South African imports from Africa countries amounted to R120 million. In the same year South Africa had already exported to other countries in Africa to a total amount of R248 million. I am specifically mentioning these amounts to emphasize the fact that in that specific year, 1968, South Africa’s export trade with Africa was of greater importance than our trade with all the states in Asia, because at the time our total exports to the whole of Asia merely amounted to R235 million. Our exports to Africa was of far greater importance than to both North and South America, because our exports in that year to North and South America amounted to only R137 million. This emphasizes to us the important ties which exist in the economic sphere for South Africa with the other peoples of Africa.

The question one must ask in a motion of this nature, is why one wants friendly relations with other states in Africa. The reply is most certainly that it lies mainly in the benefits which this inevitably entails for the states who have such relations. In other words, it is here a case of furthering our own interests but also furthering the interests of other states in Africa and particularly in Southern Africa. The hon. member for Algoa has already mentioned the advantages in tackling problems collectively, but I think of equal importance are the benefits of trying, jointly, to promote common interests. In this connection I want to refer to a book which appeared recently, written by a certain A. F. Ewing under the title “Industry in Africa”, published in 1968. For five years Mr. Ewing was associated with the Economic Commission for Africa of the UNO. I read through the book and came to the conclusion that a very realistic thinker was here stating the problems of Africa, a person who was simultaneously filled with enthusiasm for the possibilities of African countries also, at last, reaching a stage, perhaps within 30 years from today, where their production per capita could be equal to that of certain countries of the Western world today. But he stated as prerequisite—and to my mind this is the important point in this book—that countries in Africa must realize that they can only progress materially if they co-operate in groups, if they come to the realization that as individual countries they will not make progress owing to the wastage which will take place, owing to duplication of certain items which will be produced, and owing to the fact that their markets in each country will be too small to obtain industrial development on an appreciable scale in their countries. Therefore he puts forward the proposition that countries in Africa will only be able to progress if grouping takes place in the various parts of Africa. He then suggests groupings which he proposes in the northern, western, eastern and southern Africa.

It is on the basis of this same argument that South Africa is certainly in the most favourable position to create relative prosperity in future for a very large part of Africa. I should just like to point out that here, south of the Equator, if one includes the two provinces of Portugal, as well as the Republic of Malagasy, we are dealing with 14 different states, with a total population of 101.5 million people. In this territory the total gross national product of these states for the year 1968 was approximately R15.5 billion, of which South Africa’s share was R9.5 billion. At that stage South Africa already had relatively good ties of friendship with a bloc of approximately nine states out of these 14, and the joint product of these nine states, including South Africa, was approximately R13 billion. The fact of the matter is that South Africa, together with these countries with which she already has close ties, can be a source of strength from which greater prosperity may also emerge if greater co-operation is possible from the other states south of the Equator, which have up to now not yet given their closest co-operation to South Africa. Time does not allow me to say very much more about this subject.

However, I should like to refer to the writer G. K. Helleiner, who is also the director of the Economic Research Bureau of the University College of Dar-es-Salaam. In volume 6, No. 1 of the Journal of Modern African Studies of 1968 he underlines a few problems facing developing countries in Africa. He suggests that there is perhaps an over-abundance of capital and assistance from various organizations and countries. He states, however, that the greatest single factor preventing the necessary development from taking place in these countries, is that of a shortage of human capital. He then addresses a plea to the effect that this realization should penetrate, particularly to private undertakings in the Western world, which has at its disposal a wealth of the knowledge required for industrial development. His plea is that these people should give human capital to developing states in Southern Africa. According to his estimate approximately 45,000 foreigners were working in that year in the public sector in technical and educational directions. He estimated that approximately 15,000 foreigners could be added to that number who were working in private undertakings. This gave a total of approximately 60,000 foreigners who in that year were working in African states south of the Sahara. His estimate is that if such a person’s social value is only R4,000 per year higher than that of an unskilled worker, it in fact represents a loan of R2,400 million which foreign countries have made to these countries in Africa, that is if it is calculated at a yield of 10 per cent per annum. This example emphasizes the powerful contribution which can be made by technical knowledge and particularly by practical people.

I want to suggest today that few countries perhaps realize what a tremendous contribution South Africa in particular is able to make to its northern neighbours by way of the knowledge private undertakings in South Africa possess. In this way one thinks of industries like the tourist industry and the mining industry in respect of which South Africa’s knowledge can probably not be easily equalled by any other country in the Western world. I think it is for this reason that realists in Africa countries have already stretched out the hand of friendship to South Africa. They know that as a result of that, there will be tangible benefits for them at home. One can only hope that the example which has been set by states such as Malawi and the Republic of Malagasy will also be followed by other states such as Kinshasa Congo, Zambia and others. If that measure of co-operation can be obtained in this bloc of almost 100 million people and if one takes into account that according to estimates the industrial production per capita in Africa countries can still be increased 25 times within 30 or 40 years, a long period of prosperity in Africa can commence. However, it will only be possible for this to happen if the hand of friendship which is being stretched out by South Africa to these states, is grasped.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In proposing this amendment, we on this side of the House oppose the motion of the hon. member for Algoa. We do not oppose it with the intention of attacking his essential theme; in fact, we see great merit in what he was trying to convey. We are entirely identified with his intention of seeking good relations with other States in Africa. There is no difference between us and that side of the House on this essential question. The reason why we have proposed an amendment is that we feel that the motion of the hon. member for Algoa was perhaps composed in a mood of euphoria. He says that he is of the opinion that cordial co-operation in Africa is essential. Well, Sir, this is a splendid sentiment. He then goes on with a reference to the communists whom he sees as the only enemy to the achievement of this cordial co-operation for they are the only people he mentioned as an obstacle in achieving cordial co-operation. He then leaps ahead to signify his approval, to express his appreciation and to lend his full support. This is rather as though Hercules, before he set out on his twelve labours, were entertained to dinner by his friends, who immediately signified their approval and expressed their full support for everything he was about to do, before he had done it. Sir, the twelve labours still lie ahead of us. We have only started on this mammoth task. We feel that this wood of euphoria is perhaps, to put it mildly, a little premature. This is not to say that the Government does not have our full support and sympathy in what they hope to achieve. But we do feel that this is a difficult problem, a grave problem, that it abounds with all kinds of obstacles and we think it should be approached in a mood of rather greater realism than is the case with this motion. The hon. member for Vasco, who I think made a helpful speech, appeared to me to be a little embarrassed by this euphoria, because he refrained from joining in the approval, appreciation and full support and made some very concrete suggestions. I think that it is right that we on both sides of this House should look at this problem in all its true reality and see how best we can achieve these objectives.

We achieve these objectives in the first place not by over-simplification of a complex theme, but by a tough and realistic approach. Let us look first at the kind of countries with whom these cordial relations should be established. One looks at these countries with every sympathy because Africa is a continent in which many states have newly emerged from a past which lay deep within a primitive background. These states are ambitious. They wish to express their individuality in the international scene. Undoubtedly they have made mistakes and they will continue to make them. But they do belong to our continent and it is essential that, sooner or later, we must gain their confidence and their co-operation.

Let us nevertheless look at them realistically. Most of these 44 independent States are small; most of them are unstable and most of them are economically unviable. This is the basic situation we are faced with. Further, we face the difficulty that of these States the vast majority—I think the number is 31—have one-party governments or military dictatorships. A further difficulty arises out of this in that these one-party governments, or military dictatorships, are very narrowly based in most cases. These countries do not establish governments based on the broad will of the people, for the broad mass of the people do not, as a rule, participate or are incapable of participating in the democratic process. Therefore you have the situation that they have narrowly based governments and that the political struggle as such, when it happens, is really a struggle between two groups of people the one holding power inside a citadel and the other striving for power from outside that citadel. This accounts for the large numbers of coups d’état that or attempted coups d’état which we have witnessed in the last ten years. There have been 12 major coups d’état in Africa during the last ten years. Furthermore there were no fewer than 64 partially successful or unsuccessful coups d’état. This indicates a picture of broad insecurity. I say it is a natural phenomenon in the kind of continent that we are living in and it wants to be looked at with sympathy. The basic difficulty is quite obviously that there is no broad sheet-anchor for government in these countries as yet.

There is no broad political or economic infrastructure in these countries and this is where we on this side of the House—and I hope hon. members on the other side of the House—see our major contribution to be. This being the situation in Africa, we have to consider what are the difficulties most likely to deter us from making a contribution to remedy this instability of this continent. The hon. member for Algoa suggests without any exception or qualification, that Chinese and Russian communistic activities are the great stumbling block. I think it is worth our while to pause for a few moments at this stage to examine this particular problem. The fact is that according to the communists’ own reckoning, they have failed miserably to achieve any success in Africa. I quote the attitude of the Institute of Academic Sciences of Leningrad whose director, Prof. Potekhin, has been involved for the last 10 or 15 years in the development of a plan for the extension of communist influence in Africa.

I have had the privilege of reading many of his writings in translated form and it is quite clear that the communists in Russia have been conducting an ill-directed and unsuccessful attempt to commence a revolution in Africa. It is interesting to look at the reasons. The major reason, initially, was a complete mistake of dogma. It has always been basic to Marxist dogma that the revolution should be carried to the proletariat and should be carried forward by the proletariat. This is the recipe which they used in Africa. This is what they advocated in Africa. Well, we who live in Africa, know that the proletariat, particularly in Central and West Africa, are widely dispersed and very often they are illiterate peasantry. That is not to their discredit; it is the way they are at the present stage of history. There was no way for the Russian revolutionaries and the Russian missionaries to get their message across to these people. There were obvious difficulties of communication, of language and of distance. It was in fact impossible for them to get the revolution started.

It was after some years of fruitless effort that it was recommended by the Academy of Leningrad that they should switch their efforts to the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie being the townsmen, the city men of Accra, Lagos and other places in Africa. These were the educated men. This caused a revolt in Russian intellectual and political circles, because it was seen by many of the faithful dogmatists of the Russian Revolution as a betrayal of the true dogma. It was seen as a heresy. There were grave troubles between the Institute of Leningrad and the Commissars in Moscow. Nevertheless, the attempt was made, and to some extent it continued for a number of years. It proved to be unsuccessful because the very people at whom they were then directing their efforts, were the ambitious leaders, the urban people, who themselves aspired to power. If they gained it, they would be entirely unwilling to share it with foreign interventionists.

It was quite clear, despite initial minor successes which were seen at one stage as a leftward swing by people like Nkrumah, Touré and Keita. These people were believed at one stage to be swinging left and to be showing sympathy for communism. But in fact, this did not last. The mood of optimism and euphoria in Moscow did not last. They saw at one stage the possibility of great advances in Cuba, for example, in Egypt and other places. They were inclined to equate these situations with the minor advances or opportunities they saw in places in Africa, notably the Congo. But these efforts have all disappeared into the sand.

There are very few places in Africa where there is a substantial Russian presence. There is no country in Africa where there is a substantial Communist Party. There is no place in Africa where the Communist Party as such has been directly responsible for a change of government.

It can be argued that in a few places the communists might have fomented trouble and exploited local difficulties. It can be argued that in certain places as in Tanzania and Zanzibar, they have establishes quite large forms of technical aid. But it is agreed, I think by many of the experts on Africa, people who spent years studying the situation, and I quote here the Centre of International Studies of the M.I.T. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) who are in fact one of the most advanced schools in African studies outside this country, that the Russian attempt to foment revolution in Africa has failed. In fact, to quote one of their publications, Mr. Brezhnev has “put Africa on the back burner”. It is clear also that the Russians, and I refer now to their own writings, have abandoned Chou en Lai’s theory in 1965 that Africa is ripe for revolution.

Now, Sir, having said all these things, let me say at once that communism remains a dangerous force. Communism is an insidious force. It is a force which may yet cause governments to fall in Africa. It is something which requires our utmost vigilance at all times. But let us be realistic about the matter. Let us judge it carefully. Let us not exaggerate. It is essential that our response to Africa should be accurate and correct at all times. We should not waste our efforts. If I could compare foreign relations with medicine, we should not diagnose all illnesses by assigning them to one common cause. Let us discriminate and be aware of what we are talking about when we talk about the dangers of Africa. My purpose in saying all this, is not to minimize the dangers of Africa, but it is to utter a word of caution and to plead for a sense of proportion when, in discussing the affairs of Africa, we blandly and baldly ascribe all Africa’s troubles to the massive machinations of a vast communist plot.

This is not an adequate description of the situation in Africa. This myth of communism thrives on certain things. There are those who argue—and there are some in this country in high positions who argue—that because the Russians have a number of embassies in Africa, one is therefore entitled to take a map of Africa and paint every country in Africa which contains a Russian embassy with a red brush. In that way an alarming map is produced. They do this not only with embassies but in regard to technical aid, military aid and so on. This is not a realistic way to proceed. If there are 30 Russian embassies in Africa and 20 Chinese then we must remember that there are 44 American embassies, or nearly that number, 40 to 44 British embassies, 40 to 44 French embassies, 40 to 44 German embassies, and so on. Why is it assumed when there is a Russian embassy in a country that that country can be painted red and written off to communism despite the presence of all the other Western embassies in that same country? We have South African embassies in many countries. Do we assume that because we have embassies there these countries subscribe to apartheid? I feel it is necessary to say these things because it leads to many false conceptions and stupid arguments and I am concerned that it might lead to false reactions. It can further lead to special dangers. I think the first danger is that supposing an African country, or a number of African countries, weak in themselves, nevertheless wish to do South Africa the maximum harm, then this can be done and it has been done before in other places, by maintaining the maximum apparent threat, the maximum fictitious threat, so as to cause South Africa, the threatened country, to over insure in arms. I do not advance this as a certainty but as a theory. It might be possible for South Africa to give itself adequate military protection by the expenditure of R50 million per year on arms. A country which imposes a fictitious threat and achieves an exaggerated reaction on the part of South Africa, might persuade the South Africa military authorities who in turn might persuade the South African Minister of Finance to spend R100 million per year on arms. This means that a country through striking a false posture has in fact done R50 millions’ worth of damage to South Africa in that it has persuaded South Africa to spend R50 million in excess money on an unproductive thing. This is one way of doing economic damage without raising a finger. I do not say that this is happening at the moment, but it is the kind of thing to guard against particularly when some hon. members and certain officials pretend that there is a major communist threat poised against South Africa at this moment.

There is also the political damage which can be done through a misjudgement of effort arising from an incorrect appreciation of the situation as regards communism. We must be ready and stand poised and willing to participate in Africa whenever we have an opportunity to do good, to contribute to an infrastructure which will create stability to Africa. If we are suspicious and believe that every time a shadow moves over Africa it is due to a communist plot, we will not be ready and in the right state of mind. We will be in a state of hostility and suspicion and will in fact be misjudging the situation. We must be ready to make our contribution with a clear mind and this is all I plead for. I plead for the abandonment of the exaggeration of certain factors in Africa and for a proper proportion in our approach to them. What is our best approach? I have said that our approach should be based on the realization that Africa is unstable and that Africa will not be a safe continent for us to live in until we contribute to greater stability in this continent. I have tried to indicate the reasons why it is unstable and why it is likely to continue to be unstable, politically and economically, for a considerable number of years yet.

Our contribution is in fact to assist Africa to achieve this kind of stability, to help it to build up a stable political and economic infrastructure. I do not say the Government is not attempting to do this. I think that in Southern Africa particularly they have made some admirable attempts to contribute to the economies of certain countries. I think we must cast our eyes further north. If South Africa, through its official approaches, finds that some channels are closed to it, it must not forget that South Africa’s greatest strength in the world today lies in its private enterprise system. Our economy in this country is our strongest asset. It is our ace card. It is a stronger asset in negotiation abroad than any political arguments we can produce in the present state of world opinion. Private enterprise properly protected—and I am thinking here of investment insurance and of export insurance—might find sources of labour in other parts of Africa. It might find sources of raw material in other parts of Africa; it might find opportunities for banks, insurance companies, mining companies and so forth, which would in fact not only extend South Africa’s beneficial influence into Africa, but would bring South Africa great dividends in return. General Motors suffers no harm through having a factory in Port Elizabeth. Nor do we. This is the kind of co-operation I propose, the kind of co-operation that Mr. Rupert of Rembrandt understands very well too. This is what we should be doing in Africa.

We, eventually, should play the part in Africa that the United States has played in Southern America. Despite the problems, despite the difficulties, despite the faults and interventions, the fact is that the United States has made a great contribution to stability in South America and by and large, despite the arguments, quarrels and difficulties which have arisen, it has on the whole been a beneficial association. This is the kind of association we should seek. It will not only be good for us in that it will bring stability in Africa, but it will be good for South Africa because South Africa herself will gain some considerable by-products from it. You gain by trade, you gain by building up relations, technical, scientific and other kinds. This is the role we foresee for South Africa. We believe that it will be essential for the Government to broaden its approach to include the maximum use of private enterprise, because this is really our strongest hidden asset. The Government and its officials cannot do everything. Private enterprise can enter places, as we know, which are sometimes closed to the Government and its officials.

We would like to see a broad approach, an imaginative approach. With these reservations, with these cautionary words, with these attempts to bring a little bit of proportion into what we think on the whole is a well-intentioned motion, I beg to support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my thanks and appreciation for the opportunity to debate this very important motion in this House today. I wish to thank the mover of the motion as well as other members on both sides of the House who have taken part in the debate so far. I think the contributions made provide proof that there is a realization of the importance of the subject under discussion and bear testimony to careful study and, in most cases, to an objective approach as well.

As far as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is concerned, I want to say that I had hoped he would make more constructive suggestions. I had hoped he would be more positive. In his amendment he pleads for inter alia, a wider dialogue. The Government believes in dialogue. This is an essential element of our foreign policy. We have already used the dialogue with great success, in the case of African states as well. I need not remind you, Sir, of the talks we conducted on the very highest level with our three neighbouring states, on Prime Ministerial and Head of Government level with Malawi, and on ministerial level with Madagascar. We are already reaping the fruits of these talks. Mr. Speaker, talks are continually taking place. Two weeks ago to the day I spent an entire morning on talks with the Prime Minister of Lesotho. Other similar discussions are regularly taking place. Ministerial talks will again be held in the near future. Hardly a week passes in which talks of some kind or another are not conducted with African states. Some of these talks are held openly, but there are also talks which take place on a confidential basis and which I do not want to discuss here now.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also pleaded for a dialogue in connection with our policy of separate development, for a dialogue in connection with apartheid. Hon. members may perhaps be interested to know that during my visit to Madagascar I had a lengthy discussion with senior members of the Cabinet of Madagascar and that, at their request, we discussed South Africa’s domestic relationships policy. It may also interest hon. members to know that as recently as the week before last I discussed our domestic policy with Chief Jonathan, the Prime Minister of Lesotho, because he showed an interest in it. At the Press conference which I held in Madagascar, great interest was also displayed in our domestic policy and a dialogue took place between the Pressmen present there and myself, a dialogue that was conducted in a very good spirit.

As far as dialogue on a wider basis is concerned, hon. members will recall that I have publicly expressed appreciation for the sentiments which have been expressed in this connection in many African states. But at this juncture, and for good reasons, I want to say no more today about this particularly delicate matter. In passing I just want to remind the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that it is hot true that his party’s race federation policy is more acceptable to the outside world than the policy of self-determination for which we on this side stand.

I did not say that.

The hon. member referred to members, but what do these members go to do outside?

They go to represent South Africa …

And what are we doing?

… the whole of South Africa.

But they will talk about their policy, just as the hon. member pleads that we should talk about our policy.

We shall talk about everybody’s policy.

If the hon. member thinks that he will get a better audience in the outside world for his race federation policy, he is really labouring under a serious illusion.

No, I said we do not go there on a party-political basis, as you do.

Sir, the hon. member for Von Brandis spoke of realism, but I waited in vain for any practical suggestions to come from him. He did refer to labour, but as a former member of the Department of Foreign Affairs, he ought to know that South Africa is already making use of labour from several of our neighbouring states on a very large scale.

I did not say “labour”. I said that we should send our technical know-how there.

It seems to me the hon. member has got very much out of touch with foreign affairs since he left the department. As far as the hon. member’s approach to communism in Africa is concerned, I am afraid—and I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member; he was a very good diplomat—his approach is too academic. It is too theoretical and too speculative. He should rather take a look at the actions of the communists here in Africa. I shall make further reference to this in my speech. I am inclined to think he is completely underestimating the influence of communism in practice in Africa.

The field touched upon in the motion, Sir, has been very well covered in the debate so far. The question of communism, too, has been discussed repeatedly in this House, inter alia during a private motion earlier this year. I shall try to avoid repetition and to supplement what has been said.

The motion contains two main elements, firstly, the communist threat and, secondly, South Africa’s relations with Africa. As far as communism is concerned, I accept that none of us has any doubt that it presents a serious danger to South Africa and to the whole of Africa, in spite of the reservations which hon. members opposite had. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout warned that we should not overstress the dangers of communism in our talks with African states—he may have a point there—but on the other hand we should never underestimate the communist threat either. What strikes one particularly, upon analyzing the actions of communism in regard to Africa, is the purposefulness and the systematic nature of these actions. Everything has been worked out down to the last detail. The Russians themselves admit that their strategy in respect of Africa is based on thorough long-term planning. A Russian expert on Africa, Ulyanovsky, declared just recently that, as far as Africa is concerned, the sixties were a period of preparation for the Soviet, but added that the seventies would be a decade of decisive action.

One of the primary and most important targets on which they are concentrating is Southern Africa, and subsequently the red wave would be spread to the rest of Africa. Some of the previous speakers indicated what progress the communists have already made in achieving this object. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the course of action adopted in Africa by the communists is different from their course of action in other parts of the world, that it follows a different pattern here. In Africa they try above all to identify themselves with and to throw in their weight with the so-called freedom fighters. Sir, I need only remind you of the continual threat posed by the communist-inspired and communist-supported terrorists from the North, e.g. at the Zambezi; I need only remind you of the struggle in which the Portuguese are engaged in Angola and Mozambique against the so-called freedom fighters, who co-operate very closely with and are very closely supported by the communists.

Let us take a look at the course of action adopted by the Red Chinese in Africa. Their course of action, too, is based on extremely careful planning which is worked out long in advance. As far back as 1964 Chou-en-Lai said, during a visit to Africa, that Africa was ripe for revolution. In the meantime they have gained their first foothold in Zanzibar, and this has led to infiltration and to a major breakthrough when it was agreed that they would build the Tanzan railway line project. I want to point out that this project was very carefully examined by the World Bank and other Western concerns, and that the conclusion arrived at by the experts who carried out the investigation was that this scheme was an uneconomic one, that it would not be possible to justify the cost which would have to be incurred. One of the reasons for this was that copper was far and away Zambia’s most important source of revenue. When copper prices are at a high level, virtually anything is possible, but as was proved in the past six months, copper prices are also subject to fluctuations, and if copper prices drop, Zambia’s economy is highly vulnerable. What is more, copper production cannot go on for ever in the case of Zambia, and I understand the production is already decreasing. The cost of transporting copper also plays an important part. The distance over which this railway line will be built is more than 1,800 kilometres. This increases the cost and makes Zambia’s position more difficult and less competitive on the world market. It is true that this railway line will be able to transport Zambia’s copper production, but the profitability of the project will inevitably be influenced by factors such as two-way traffic and the question whether there will be freight between the two terminal points. Presumably coal will be conveyed to the copper mines from Dar-es-Salaam in order to provide return freight, but this will, of course, also increase the price of coal, thus increasing the cost of producing the copper.

When is the railway line expected to be completed?

All I know is that the debt is to be repaid as from 1983. Perhaps it will be completed by that year. But the Red Chinese have not been deterred by these economic considerations and have made this uneconomic project possible by making available an interest-free loan of R280 million, repayable as from 1983. Now one wonders what this apparent generosity holds in store for Zambia. As the railway line project is an uneconomic one, the enormous debt will have to be repaid by means of exporting raw materials, presumably at prices which will be determined in advance or have already been determined. In actual fact it therefore amounts to a mortgaging of the life-blood of Zambia and Tanzania, and that for the sake of an unprofitable project which cannot itself carry the capital redemption. This is therefore typical of the colonialism of the old days as we knew it, because it will be possible for a part of the loan to be spent locally, and with that Chinese products which themselves may possibly be manufactured in the countries concerned will have to be bought, so that there will be no opportunity either for local industries to develop, while the riches of the country will be mortgaged for almost half a century into the future. But this is not the end of the story, and the hon. member for Von Brandis must listen carefully now.

I agree.

Yes, but then you say we should not stress the dangers. Although this project is only in its initial stage, thousands of Red Chinese have already made their appearance in East Africa, and in terms of the recognized communistic pattern political indoctrination will be an important part of their duties. And the railway technicians are accompanied by military experts as well as modern armaments, which we know from experience are being used to equip the terrorists, which are launching their attacks on us from the north. One wonders how long it will be before these same weapons will be used to compel Zambia and Tanzania to dance to the tune of Peking to an even greater extent.

I have on various occasions dealt with our policy and the extent of technical co-operation with African states. Today I want to give some information in regard to co-operation for the purpose of alleviating human suffering. I am doing this in the first place because in this modern age every human being is entitled to health services. This is one of the basic privileges to which every human being is entitled. We in South Africa accept this too, although we are continually being accused of disregarding human rights. In the second place I am choosing this special sphere of medical aid because it is in fact the sphere in which the World Health Organization of the U.N. made it impossible for South Africa to make its contribution towards the alleviation of suffering in Africa through the agency of the organization itself. Ironically enough, South Africa’s contribution—and South Africa is a relatively small country —compares very favourably indeed with the contribution made by the World Health Organization in Africa.

†Let us for a moment consider in what ways we are trying to alleviate suffering in Africa. In general terms I would like to remind hon. members that our neighbours and others benefit from the excellent work done by South Africans in the field of medical research and by the pioneering work of South African scientists in combating many diseases common to Africa, which I need not enumerate. Moreover, vaccines and serums are readily made available by South Africa whenever necessary in order to meet specific needs arising in Southern Africa and elsewhere. Hon. members may remember that, two years ago, I announced in the House that the South African College of Physicians, Surgeons and Gynaecologists and the Medical Association of South Africa offered to co-operate with my department in the rendering of medical aid and services to neighbouring countries. This offer was naturally welcomed and accepted by the Government. Since then a great deal has been achieved. The first step taken was to send a fact-finding mission to Malawi, Lesotho, and Swaziland in 1969. Moreover, regular visits to neighbouring states by senior medical experts in various fields are regularly organized by the College, the Medical Association and by my Department. The activities of the College are mainly in the educational field, while the Medical Association provides medical services. Members of these teams are all leading medical authorities. During their visits they give lectures to medical personnel, they see and attend patients, they inspect medical services, advise medical authorities and administrators on problems in hospital and health services and the training of medical personnel. It is deeply appreciated in the countries concerned that such senior South African medical experts in so many fields are prepared to sacrifice their valuable time.

I would like to express my own sincere appreciation and that of the Government to the two medical organizations concerned and to their members for the valuable service they are rendering to African States. This is private enterprise encouraged by the Government. But I would fail in my duty if I did not also mention the excellent work done in Lesotho by the medical teams arranged by Dr. Rupert and his organization and, in Swaziland, by Mr. Oppenheimer’s group. In both cases, this was done in conjunction with the Medical Association and the Medical and Dental Council. To give members an idea of the nature and scope, I would like to mention that during the three years that the Rupert scheme has been in operation, 197 specialists have made 331 visits to Lesotho. They have performed 1,264 operations, held 3,072 consultations and were assisted by 196 theatre sisters from South Africa. South Africa is further indebted to the Rembrandt Organization, who paid the travel and accommodation expenses of and arranged for 234 senior medical students from Stellenbosch University to visit Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana and Malawi where they gave valuable assistance in hospitals and clinics. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to one of our colleagues, the hon. member for Brentwood, Dr. Vosloo and his wife, who recently paid a private visit to Madagascar where they were very well received and where their visit was greatly appreciated. I can tell hon. members that they held useful discussions with colleagues, officials and Ministers and that Dr. Vosloo even performed an operation. Hon. members may remember that during the previous year Dr. Vosloo and his wife also paid a similar visit to Malawi.

Although there is a growing desire in Africa to make contact with South Africa and to co-operate with us, there are also many who regard our Africa policy with suspicion, whilst some are even opposed and hostile to it. Certain African leaders are simply not prepared to accept our sincerity and our desire to render assistance without strings attached. We are even accused of neo-colonialism. At the recent Commonwealth conference Sir Seretse Khama of Botswana, for instance, warned against certain steps which would—and I quote from the verbatim text—

Botswana and others who share his views, to have a second look at the manner and the spirit in which we are already co-operating with other governments in Africa and to judge us according to our deeds and actions. Let them compare our actions in Southern Africa with those of the real neo-colonialists, the real neo-imperialists of our time. Let them compare our actions with what is going on behind the Iron Curtain in countries like Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and others who are now under the heel of Soviet Russia. Incidentally, Botswana has established diplomatic relations with Russia, although it is on a non-residential basis.

They can also look objectively at the activities of the Russians and the Red Chinese in Africa. The objective observer will see the following picture. Whilst South Africa is sending medical experts and modern medical equipment to African states, as I have already indicated, in order to combat the many diseases which are the curse of our continent, while South Africa is assisting countries in Africa in the training of nurses and midwives and whilst South Africa provides them with up to date and specialized information, the communists are training terrorists and are sending them into Africa. These terrorists are equipped with the most modern weapons. It is these terrorists’ task to harass entire populations, thereby creating anarchy and chaos which will pave the way for a communist take-over. Moreover, instead of sending experts in the technical, the administrative, the judicial and many other fields to Africa, as we are doing, the Russians are providing military experts, and even pilots in the case of the Sudan in order to assist in waging a cruel civil war against the less privileged Negro Black peoples in the southern provinces of the Sudan.

South Africa is assisting Malawi in building a new capital at Lirongwe which will serve as an economic growth point. By agreeing to buy power which will be generated at Cabora-Bassa, South Africa has made it possible for our Portuguese neighbours to tackle one of the largest development projects in Africa. This project will be able to bring development, not only to Mozambique, but also to the adjoining countries. There are several other examples to which I could refer. There is the Kunene hydro-electric scheme which will bring development to Angola and South-West Africa. Then there is the Nossi Bé project to promote the tourist industry in Madagascar. There is also the water project in Lesotho which is still under consideration. How does all this compare with what the communists are doing in Africa?

I have already dealt with the Red Chinese in East Africa. As far as the Russians are concerned, may I give one more example. The Russians are building maritime bases in Africa from where the Russian fleet can operate in the Indian Ocean. It should therefore be quite clear that South Africa is not the culprit. South Africa is not guilty of neo-colonialism. South Africa’s policy of co-operation does not constitute a threat to Africa. On the contrary, our Africa policy is one of good neighbourliness and not one of domination. Our co-operation must be seen as an effort to help others to help themselves, to stimulate economic growth and to create conditions which will help to keep the communists out of our sub-continent. The real culprits are the communists. They constitute a serious threat to Africa. They are guilty of a dangerous form of neocolonialism, because they are not interested in the welfare and the fate of the peoples of Africa, be they White, be they Black, be they Brown. It is no secret that they are only interested in communist world domination.

Opposition to co-operation with South Africa must also be ascribed to a second cause, and I want to admit quite frankly that in certain quarters it stems from disapproval of our policy of separate development and our determination to maintain ourselves as a White nation, as has been indicated in this debate earlier today. I should rather say that it is the result of disapproval of the distorted image of apartheid which has been created by gross misrepresentation and hostile propaganda over very many years. I realize that many in Africa and elsewhere want a change in our domestic policies. Some hope to achieve it by peaceful means, while others openly advocate the use of violence against the White people of South Africa. I also know that some expected and others still expect our so-called “outward policy” to bring about this change. However, the Government’s Africa policy is not responsible for and will not lead to change in our domestic policy. Our Africa policy must rather be seen as the logical result of our internal policy. However, this does not mean that there is no change in South Africa, because there is change, change in the very same field in which our critics desire change. It is no secret; conditions are constantly changing. The political set up is rapidly changing. The situation is not static, but it is in a process of evolution. The change which is taking place is the direct and logical result of the Government’s clearly defined and frequently declared policy, which is to bring about self-determination for all the peoples of multinational South Africa, and to continue to co-operate with those of them who become independent. There is nobody in this House, including the Opposition, who disapprove of and who constantly attack our policies, who is not aware of this. During this present session, for instance, legislation has once again been introduced and adopted to promote and facilitate the process of self-determination for our Bantu peoples. My good friend and colleague the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, stated only last week that all seven homelands may enjoy self-government like the Transkei within a few years. The outside world should also be aware of this fact. Last year I once again, for instance, devoted a considerable part of my statement in the General Assembly of the United Nations to explaining aspects of our internal policy and the progress which is being made in the achievement of self-determination of our peoples. It is indeed regrettable that so many of our critics refuse to take notice of all this. I sometimes wonder if, for reasons of their own, they do not want to know the real facts.

*Be that as it may, fortunately there are signs of greater realism in Africa. I believe this negative attitude will change, as is in fact already happening. In the meantime we shall continue on the course we have adopted, both as regards our domestic relationships problem and the implementation of our policy in this regard, and as regards our relations with the outside world, including African states. As far as Africa is concerned, we are concentrating on making new contacts. We are succeeding in this too. We are concentrating on following up and developing contacts which have already been made and on strengthening the ties of friendship which have been established. In so doing we shall strengthen the confidence of the friends we have already made and influence others also to extend the hand of friendship to us.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at once that the Government is very fortunate in having such a sincere Minister of Foreign Affairs as the one they have at the present moment. My dealings with the hon. the Minister have always been very satisfactory indeed. A lot of what he said was very interesting. Nevertheless I would like to support the contention of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that people overseas pay very great attention to members of the Opposition when they talk there. I wonder why the hon. members on the Government benches are so unwilling to admit that we might also be good ambassadors in South Africa’s cause.

We do not deny that. It is possible.

The hon. the Minister admits that this is possible. I must say, in fairness to him, I think his was a remarkable defence, very well put, of a somewhat dicey case. The text of the motion of the hon. member for Algoa is sound enough in principle. I find that I have serious reservations to make in relation to section (b) of the motion which, while expressing approval and appreciation of the Government’s success in making contact with other states in Africa, admits that these—to quote the motion—“have been achieved under difficult circumstances”. They are difficult circumstances, indeed, because not all of them have been created by the African sates themselves, as the hon. the Minister has admitted. Many of them, I fear, have been created by the South African Government itself.

The hon. the Minister of Defence said in this House on February the 9th this year that Red China and Russia were not strengthening their ties with African countries such as Tanzania and Zambia for economic reasons, but to prepare the way for an eventual conventional war with South Africa. He said the communists realized that they would first have to control South Africa’s wealth and strategic position before they could control Africa. With respect to the hon. the Minister of Defence, I doubt whether the matter is quite as simple as that. It is common knowledge that Lenin’s foreign political principles have been unswervingly adhered to by successive Russian governments for the past 50 years. These are, as everybody knows, subordinated to one single, clear aim, as the hon. the Minister has said himself, namely, the eventual world-wide victory of the communist system and the defeat of capitalism and bourgeois democracy. This is the accepted aim.

Since all Marxist ideology is based upon “the laws of history” (as Marx himself put it) the Soviets, of course, are in no hurry about it. Why should they be? They are quite convinced that history is on their side, though they are only too ready to give history a push when the occasion demands it. In fact, that vague term “peaceful co-existence”, which is so frequently used by the West, means for the Russians, of course, no less than the opportunity to promote the struggle for the triumph of socialist ideas anywhere in the world, and to promote the so-called “liberation struggle” wherever possible, short of war itself. Now the interesting thing is that to the Russians “peaceful co-existence” and “the cold war” are in fact synonymous, whereas the West tends to think of them as opposites. Of course, they are nothing of the kind. The Russians do not even bother to contradict us. Why should they?

Probably nothing has startled the Western world more—for all their attempts to play it down—with the exception of Great Britain—than the appearance of the powerful Soviet navy in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. I have no doubt that, in this instance, the Red Fleet’s presence there is primarily a weapon of politics and not of war. This makes South Africa’s ability to achieve friendly arrangements with African territories to the North of us very important indeed. It makes our domestic politics more important still, if I may say so. In terms of defence I have no doubt whatever that we are quite able to look after ourselves. In terms of politics, however, we are very much more vulnerable, I think. It is, on the face of it, highly unlikely that the Russians intend deliberately to harass Western shipping or our own either in the Indian Ocean or in the Mediterranean, for they have no intention of starting another world war. What suits them best are conditions of sporadic revolution, as the hon. the Minister knows.

What they do know with certainty is that revolutionary crises in the years ahead are more likely to break out in the Third World rather than anywhere else. That is, in Africa and the Middle East. Without a navy they are incapable of influencing the course of these revolutions. Wherever new upheavals happen to occur, whether in India, Africa or anywhere else, the Russians intend, of course, to be on the spot. They are more determined to be there simply because the West at this stage is very reluctant to be there at all. The Russians know very well that the golden age of Western gun-boat diplomacy is completely dead. But it is obviously not so for them. The position then is that the Russians today are in control of Egypt, which is the gateway to the Middle East, South Asia, the Indian Ocean and Africa. In this situation, while it is quite correct that our own internal policies are, strictly speaking, no concern of other countries in Africa, who may or may not wish to be friends with us, they are very much the concern of those looking for potentially explosive political situations.

Since the exploitation of “racial discrimination” has become a revolutionary cry all over the world, if we are to strike any lasting friendships with the leaders of African countries, who themselves abhor this type of policy, even if the concept has been exploited by unscrupulous people, which I agree it has up to a point, we shall have to “cool” the situation, as the Americans say, at least to some degree here at home. We shall have to do so if we are really going to achieve anything outstanding in the field under discussion in this motion.

South Africans of all colours can safely be left to solve their own internal problems in their own way. However, since the motion today specifically welcomes the Governments attempts to establish links with dedicated anti-apartheid countries on this continent and warns of the dangers of Communism, whereas we accept that contact in the sense of making friends does not mean integration in terms of policies, I do suggest that there are certain steps we could profitably take in South Africa if we are to prove acceptable to even the more moderate councils of Africa in the years ahead. In the first place we should make a point of inviting a delegation from the Malawi Parliament to visit us without delay, if only in return for the most generous hospitality our own Parliamentary delegation, of which I was one, received from them and their President in 1969. I would like to say that any such return visit should not confine the visitors’ contacts to Cabinet Ministers and senior civil servants. The Malawi M.P.s should be free to exchange views with all of us here in this House and be entertained by the members of our own Parliamentary Association. I think, at the same time it would undoubtedly be recorded in the Republic’s favour elsewhere in Africa were representatives of the Government to cease their boycott of formal receptions given by members of the Diplomatic Corps here in the Republic, to which leaders of our non-White communities are regularly invited. On the face of it, it seems inexcusable today for the Government to build up these leaders themselves on the one hand, and then refuse to meet them on a diplomatic level on the other. I will go so far as to say that non-White leaders in the Republic should be invited to attend certain official ceremonies and functions given by the Government or by members of the Cabinet from time to time.

There is another point I wish to raise. In 1962 the Government sent a Coloured man, a Mr. Deane, as its chief representative to a conference of the International Labour Organization overseas. This was an admirable decision and, from all accounts, Mr. Deane put up a very good case indeed for the Republic. I suggest that this action be repeated in other spheres where suitable people present themselves. It would go a long way towards disarming many of our noisiest critics abroad. Without necessarily involving ourselves in the international Tower of Babel which today seems to symbolize the prelude to the Olympic Games, as we discovered to our cost in 1968, is there any reason why we cannot send non-White individuals to represent us overseas, in addition to Whites, for some of the less conspicuous sporting events that so frequently take place? The hon. the Prime Minister was perfectly willing that we should send sets of Whites and non-Whites to the Olympic Games. Hon. members opposite cannot object to that. Hon. members must admit that both Pearl Jansen and her White counterpart—if you will leave it to women you are fairly safe! —did South Africa proud throughout the whole of the trying ordeal of the Miss World Competition in London last year. They were very good ambassadors for South Africa indeed. It might well be a very profitable exercise also to arrange for the heads of our Bantu Territorial Authorities to pay a joint, officially sponsored, visit to the heads of neighbouring African states such as Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Rhodesia and Malawi in the near future. If I am not mistaken, a most successful visit was paid by a group of tribal chiefs and headmen from Rhodesia’s tribal trust territories to the Transkei and elsewhere in the Republic a few years ago. Why should we not let our African leaders officially go visiting their colleagues as well? I think it would certainly give the impression that we harbour no inhibitions about their paying such visits outside our borders.

I would also suggest that where teachers, doctors and other professional people, businessmen, senior civil servants and clergy visit overseas countries as part of South African delegations, either for the purpose of attending a conference or for making trade and professional contacts, the Government would do well to encourage one or two non-White people in these categories to accompany them. In fact, commerce and industry and the professions could themselves give a lead in this regard. [Interjections.] I am making some positive suggestions; the hon. member has only made negative ones.

I would say that one certain method of making a favourable impact upon official opinion in other African states, quite apart from the rest of the world, would be a deliberate move within the academic sphere here in the Republic to link the non-White university institutions with all the other academic institutions under our Universities Act, so that lecturers from different faculties could be encouraged to meet. At this level such contacts would be very valuable indeed, particularly when the non-White universities are run by people from their own racial group, an event which we all hope will not be long delayed. With enterprise, imagination and sophistication in our handling of these matters there are all sorts of things which the Government could do to facilitate our contacts in Africa without falling over backwards to placate all and sundry from outside. I have only mentioned a few of them today. I would go so far as to say that unless and until some of the existing suspicions surrounding our own deeds and intentions towards our own people of colour are removed, we cannot easily expect, in the face of a world propaganda onslaught against us, to impress the majority of countries in Africa itself. Once these African countries are persuaded by the sincerity not only of our intentions towards them, but of our actions at home, and when they are given the opportunity to experience direct and friendly contact with us in a relaxed and easy manner, I have no doubt that all sides will benefit. In short, my view is that it is not enough for our representatives, official or unofficial, to be willing to meet people of colour on a social basis outside the Republic. We must prove our willingness in the interests of the country as expressed in this motion today to do the same thing within our borders when occasion demands it.

Finally, I would stress that apart from the strategic aspects, the very best insurance against communism here at home is very basic indeed, namely to see that all our workers are decently paid, well housed, their family life protected and that they are offered rising expectations for the future. In the long run perhaps the most important thing of all in a confrontation with communism is to make certain that we can rely upon the support of our people of colour to stand shoulder to shoulder with us against the common enemy. Anything else would be disastrous. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister and his Government appreciate that. Without this we remain constantly vulnerable to infiltration and exploitation of a sinister kind from outside. The Government should ask itself, in terms of domestic policies, just how near we are to achieving these things. Discontented people are an easy prey for revolutionaries, as everyone knows. In this regard I would earnestly plead with the Government, and with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in particular, to use his considerable influence to bring about some of the kind of adjustments in our society which I have suggested this afternoon. I consider that it would be in the Republic’s long-term and short-term interests to do so. They involve no major changes of policy and their acceptance would go a very long way towards strengthening the Government’s own case beyond our borders and particularly in Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg spoke after the hon. the Minister had already given us a clear exposition of our policy. Strangely enough, her main theme was that we should adapt ourselves so as to be more suitable and so that other countries will be able to accept us. She mentioned certain things, inter alia, that we should create, which I in all honesty call, points of friction in our race relationships here in this country, merely for the sake of a better public image. The hon. member for Wynberg even mentioned here that we should invite non-White leaders, without specifying which non-White lenders, to certain functions and certain occasions. I want to leave the hon. member for Wynberg at that.

As far as I personally am concerned, I want to tell the House that what we are doing, or may possibly do, to give this country in which we are living and these people of ours a good public image in any part of the world, we are doing not in order to gain anything by it, but because it is our own innermost conviction. Mr. Speaker, this motion of the hon. member for Algoa has two main aspects, i.e. that we in Africa are, in the first place, an inseparable part of Africa. The hon. member for Algoa sketched the historical, sociological and geographical background very clearly. We are very grateful to him for that. We who are of Africa, have no political or other ties with any other country. We are a sovereign Republic. That is the first argument of this motion.

The second which arises from that and with which I associate myself, is in relation to our position as Whites here in South Africa. In this connection I just want to quote what the former hon. Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd said in 1961 in regard to our relations with our neighbouring States. This speech was made on 15th September, 1961 and he said, inter alia, the following (translation)—

Therefore we, as the present hon. Prime Minister also said, who are blessed with everything we could possibly have in this country in terms of health, in terms of progress, in terms of minerals, industrial development, etc., must regard it as our duty as South Africans to plough back part of what we have received into other countries around us who are not as privileged. It is against that background that one should try to do something. It is against that background that this Government is also trying to render a service by means of all these organizations, as the hon. the Minister explained it very clearly and comprehensively. Because we have knowledge of the circumstances we are better able to render this service. In this way we can convey our gratitude for this gift which we have received to the rest of the world. I have proof of that here.

When the hon. the Minister at the time announced that we must help Malawi, many doubts were expressed and many arguments were raised. This was a breakthrough for us in the international sphere. In this regard I should just like to quote a section from the speech made by Dr. Banda, the Prime Minister of Malawi, to demonstrate why we must not neglect our duty, but must in fact render that service. I am quoting from the Hansard of the Malawian Parliament of January, 1968. It reads as follows—

This is Dr. Banda himself speaking—

He was referring to the experts from South Africa who had to make certain surveys in Malawi. He went on to say—

Then goes further—and here is the nucleus of our entire relations with the rest of Africa—by saying—

In comparison with any other country, our conditions are much closer to that of Malawi. Because we know Africa, because we know the same climatic conditions, we are in a position to render better service to them and convey better knowledge to them.

But the motion by the hon. member for Algoa also comprises a third aspect, namely that we must establish ties of friendship with other countries because of the communistic danger, whether from Russia, whether from Red China. Anyone who studies the map of Africa will clearly see the three-pronged fork of the dragon of communism. There is the first tooth which stretches from the Suez Canal right along the Mediterranean. Nobody here can doubt that this tooth has already struck deeply into the heart of Africa. The middle tooth of this fork of the dragon of communism stretches from the island of Zanzibar through Tanzania and Zambia right up to the Congo. The third prong of the fork, the southern tooth, is the sea route around the point of South Africa. Then hon. members of the Opposition come along and say that we are over-emphasizing the danger of the Communistic threat in Africa. According to them we are paying too much attention to communism. They have even said that it has now become a kind of obsession with us to look for a communist behind every bush. But, believe me, if I do not look for a communist behind every bush, I mean nothing to my country, because that is the way in which the communists operate.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made another statement again. In this connection I should like to quote from The Star of 1st November, 1970, in which the following was written—

The writer of this article went further and spoke of the “grand initiative”. The article read further—

Now I am asking the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he expects us to hold discussions with a leader of a country who is inciting terrorism and fomenting communistic agitation in his own country to fight us here in South Africa? [Time expired.]

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