Mr. Speaker, this report makes a recommendation to the House in terms of section 2 (4) of the Bantu Trust and Lands Act to declare as released areas the land set out in the report, i.e. area No. 62 in the district of Nkandla and area No. 63 in the district of Nqutu. These two villages are isolated White spots in a Bantu Reserve. The surrounding White farms have already been bought up by the Bantu Trust with the result that these villages find themselves isolated. There has been a move afoot in these villages on the part of some of the owners to sell their land to the Bantu Trust. They wish to leave these villages but they are experiencing difficulties in disposing of their land. Others again are prepared to stay on. The Bantu Trust, as we understand from the officials who gave evidence before the Select Committee, is prepared to buy certain of these properties, but the procedure is a lengthy one in that the Bantu Trust can only buy land which is contiguous to Bantu Trust-owned land. But there is an easy way of getting out of this and that is by declaring these villages released areas. Once they are declared released areas then, of course, the Bantu Trust can buy and so can the Bantu. The recommendation is that this House approves of the declaration of these areas. We are prepared to support that on one condition, namely that the Minister gives us the assurance that if these areas are declared released areas and any of the Whites owning land in those areas offers that land to the Trust, the Trust will buy the properties. Sir, we insist on this condition because it is not only the Trust that will be able to buy once an area is declared to be a released area, but the Bantu will also be able to buy in that area. It is a well-known fact that once the Bantu start buying land in the villages, the land generally becomes depressed in value and Whites are not prepared to buy in the area. The Whites who own land in these villages, once they are declared released areas, will find that they cannot sell their land to people other than Bantu or to the Bantu Trust. The Bantu have not always got money available to be able to buy the properties offered, and all we seek from the Minister is an assurance that if an area is released and any of the White people in the area wish to dispose of their property—some may prefer to live there and to continue their businesses, as has happened in the Transkei, but there may be others who are destitute and who desire to sell their land—that the Government will buy the land if it is offered to the Trust. Sir, I speak with experience of what has happened in villages in the Transkei, Once the Transkei Constitution Act was passed and areas became zoned for Bantu occupation, it was found that they became depressed areas. We want to avoid that in this instance and we ask the Minister whether he is prepared to give us that assurance.

I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that the Bantu Trust will definitely accommodate these people as it has done in the past and that it will buy the land as soon as possible. Of course, we cannot say that we are definitely going to buy the land, because a person may ask any price he likes and then I would have given an undertaking here to the effect that we will in fact buy the land. All I want, is that we should understand each other well. If there is a willing buyer and a willing seller, there will be no problems. We shall do everything in our power to expedite the transaction and not to create any problems for these people. The hon. member may rest assured that this is what we shall do.

Paragraph I put and agreed to.

Sir, last evening when this recommendation No. 23 was under consideration by the Committee of the whole House, the hon. the Minister of Transport gave the reasons why he and the Deputy Minister were not in favour of this recommendation. He indicated that it was the policy of the Government to reject such recommendations that come from the Select Committee on Pensions. Sir, the point that the hon. the Minister made was that the members of the Select Committee on Pensions in making this recommendation are only human beings and that as human beings they are likely to base their recommendation on sentiment. Sir, there is a saying that to err is to be human. Well, it is perfectly clear that the hon. the Minister and the Deputy are certainly very human and that the Cabinet is extremely human, judging by various mistakes that they have made.

This recommendation is certainly one that is not based purely on sentiment, but it is based on the circumstances involved. If we look at the circumstances involved, we see that the petitioner, Lieut,-Col. A. W. van Niekerk, joined the South African Police and served as a member of the S.A. Police. As such he was a member of the Government Service Pension Fund for a period of just over six years. But he indicates in his petition that he wished to transfer to the S.A. Railways Administration to be one of the founder members of the Police Section of the Railways Administration. Indeed, he resigned from the South African Police and within seven days submitted an application to the Railway Administration to serve as a constable in the Railway Police and he was appointed on 15th July, 1940, as a constable in the service of the Railway Police. He has indicated that his entire career has been devoted to police work on behalf of the State, spreading over a period of 37 years, of which 31 years have elapsed since he became a member of the Railways Police and became a contributor to the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund.

The circumstances involved are what is important: The Select Committee, in dealing with the case, felt that this man had performed duties to the State. His reasons for resignation were not to go into the private sector, but his object was to be a foundation member of the Railway Police. It seems fair and just that this man should be given an opportunity to make contributions to the Superannuation Fund which will enable him to take into account the six years of service which he had in the Police and to condone the 10 days’ break in service which this will bring about. If we look at the recommendation, it becomes quite clear that this man is not asking for any sentiment or for any charity; he is asking merely for the right to be able to contribute to the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund at the rate laid down and prescribed in the regulations. In terms of this recommendation, he is required to pay the R-for-R contribution and to pay the interest on both contributions at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on a compounded annual basis from the date on which such contributions became payable. Furthermore, if the amount is not paid, further interest on the amount thus due is payable at 4½ per cent per annum, compounded monthly, from the day following upon such date up to the date payment on account thereof is actually made.

Consequently this is dealt with on an entirely different basis from the recommendations of the Select Committee on pensions that this Committee has already approved of. The hon. the Minister of Transport is right when he says that the members of the Select Committee on Pensions do take cases into account where sentiment plays a part. Obviously the petitions have been dealt with and the recommendations have been made through the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, in almost every instance on compassionate grounds. Indeed, many of them deal with the difficulties being faced by widows and former members of this House and the Other Place. They are dealt with on the basis of compassionate grounds and then recommendations are made to assist these people wherever possible.

This is not a case of basing any recommendation on compassionate grounds. It is basing the recommendation purely on the circumstances involved, and here the Select Committee has a task to perform on behalf of this House as a whole to investigate thoroughly all petitions referred to it by the House. I believe it is a great pity that, as these recommendations, have received thorough investigation and discussion before the Select Committee on Pensions, one finds that the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions invariably, when it affects S.A. Railway Administration cases, meet an end when they come to be considered by the Committee of the Whole House.

Not the other departments.

Quite. As the hon. member for Pinelands indicates, we have passed the other recommendations, but when it comes to dealing with recommendations concerning Railway Administration employees, where the Select Committee has found that there are exceptional circumstances involved in a particular case and makes a recommendation, it is of no avail, the reason being that the hon. the Minister or his Deputy consider it policy, irrespective of the circumstances involved, to reject such recommendation.

I believe that it is a great pity that it is not possible in the workings of this House and in the Select Committee on Pensions to have a free vote, especially when such a matter comes before a Committee of this House. Unfortunately many members of this House, particularly members on the Government side who are in the majority, merely slavishly support the hon. the Minister’s motion that this should be referred back to the Government. This means the rejection of the Committee’s recommendation. Hon. members do so without being aware of the circumstances which are involved and this is particularly so when it comes to a Railway case. In Railway cases there are exceptional circumstances where the matter should be dealt with purely on merit and merit alone. I would like to stress that it should be done not on sentimental grounds but on merit alone, and according to the circumstances involved. I do hope that hon. members opposite who have sympathy for the recommendation and who support the recommendation will have the courage to vote against the hon. the Deputy Minister when he moves that this matter be referred to the Government and therefore that the recommendation should be rejected. Let us hope that they will have the courage to support the matter on its merits and that they will take into account the circumstances involved. We hope that they will not merely slavishly support the hon. the Deputy Minister and his recommendation.

Mr. Chairman, I must refer the Committee to what was stated in the petition itself. Mr. Van Niekerk asked for a transfer from the South African Police to the South African Railway Police. This is what he wrote, and I quote (translation)—

In other words, we are dealing here with an official who did not want to accept the disciplinary instructions of his department. He admits that, in order to evade these instructions and do what he wanted to do, he was prepared to act in an undisciplinary way and to disobey the instructions of the department. Hon. members should bear in mind that there are 114 000 White staff members on the Railways.

It is the duty of the Minister responsible for Railway matters and the Government to ensure that employees act in an orderly manner in South Africa. It is their duty to see to it that there are no undisciplinary resignations and reappointments between departments. Our own staff associations approach us asking why we differentiate by condoning a break in the service of one employee who resigned and was accepted back in the service while compelling another employee to remain in the service, even though there are other attractive jobs available. It is true that this officer only left the service for 11 days, but he did not have uninterrupted service.

The hon. member for Umbilo now says that the Minister has said that the Select Committee has considered this matter purely from the humane, the humanitarian, and sentimental point of view. I want to tell this Committee that if there is any person in South Africa who treats his staff on the most humane possible basis, and who takes into account all the humane problems, it is in fact the Minister of Transport. This is so because he started with these people at the bottom. I shall not allow it to go on record in the course of this debate that the hon. the Minister treats his staff in an inhumane way. As a matter of fact, he practises the code which reads in English: You have to be cruel to be kind. In other words, he acts in a humane way towards all his staff members. In this way he is able at all times to act consistently. It is impossible for him to act inconsistently.

The hon. member for Umbilo now says that the Minister has made mistakes and that this side of the House has also made mistakes. This statement of his is what one would call a sweeping statement. He did not mention specific mistakes and he did not furnish us with examples. I now want to draw the attention of hon. members to another matter. On a previous occasion— and this is what the hon. member for Green Point was referring to—I said that when a matter was referred back to the Government, it was dealt with by the Minister himself. In that case he has to discuss the matter with the Government. We know that he granted the request in one instance where we had referred the matter back. But what is the position now? The Minister stated specifically—

In other words, there was no break in service. The Minister thereupon said that he would consider the matter on merit. He said—*

This appears to be a technical oversight on his part in not applying for a transfer and under these circumstances I am prepared to accept the recommendation of the Select Committee.

Hon. members cannot therefore use this case as an example to advance the case of this petitioner. In this instance we are dealing with a person who was under a misapprehension. He did not ask to be transferred, because he thought that that was how it had to be done. This is purely a technical case. I do not want to repeat what the hon. the Minister set out here quite clearly and adequately yesterday as to what the problem of policy is we are faced with here. I want to conclude by saying that the Government is the responsible body whose duty it is to ensure that employees in the Public Service and in the Railways act in an orderly manner. Hon. members opposite do not have that responsibility. Their attitude is one of “let us pretend to be the humanitarians in order to help these people irrespective of the consequences”. That is why I moved as I did.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has referred to a petition which was recommended by the Select Committee and then referred to the Administration. What he has not told us, is that, when we in this House accepted the recommendation originally in that case that it should go to the Administration, it was rejected. It was only last year when the petition was again placed before the Select Committee and before Parliament, and we were able to voice arguments in this House, that it was then favourably considered. It will in fact be included, according to anticipation, in a Bill which is to come before this House later. What has happened in this particular instance, is that the hon. the Deputy Minister and, with respect, the hon. the Minister himself, are viewing this case, which occurred 31 years ago, in the circumstances which pertain today in the Administration. The hon. the Minister, in arguing this matter yesterday, talked about the 20 000 resignations from the Railways last year and the fact that 15 000 then came back into service. There were several reasons. I should imagine that, of the 20 000 who did resign, the majority of them were trying to find some cash to cover their cost of living problems. That is why they resigned. But what has happened, is that the hon. the Minister is equating what happened to this petitioner in 1940 with circumstances today.

Now, what was the position in 1940? There was nothing illegal in what was done by this particular official, who is now the chief of the Railway Police in South-West Africa. There was no regulation to prevent what he did. He merely went against the wishes of the officer whom he approached in the Police Force, asking for permission to resign so that he could join the Railway Police. Let us again put our minds back to 1940. In 1940 Col. Van Niekerk, as others, had already enlisted or taken the oath in the Police Force for service in the armed forces. In 1940 there was obviously a manpower problem in both the Police Force and the Railway Police. The Railway Police had only then been started. Col. Van Niekerk was not accepted for military service, although he had volunteered. He realized that at that stage the Railways Administration was establishing a very necessary police force. I do not agree with the hon. the Minister's comments yesterday that it is any less important in South Africa than the Police Force under the Department of Police.

I did not say it is less important.

Well, then with vastly different responsibilities.

I said they do not have the same functions as the South African Police.

Obviously; they function in a different sphere. The one is on Railway property; the other one not. The position is that Colonel Van Niekerk went as soon as he possibly could from the one force to the other. In his papers before the committee, which the hon. the Deputy Minister has, he said that he felt that here was a young force which offered opportunities. How true he was and how suitable a type of recruit he was! Within one year of joining the Railway police he was selected to do an instructor’s course at the training college for Railway police. From that moment onwards his promotion was rapid in the Railway police because he was the type of man required to build up the Railway police force to what it is today. His contribution to the development of that police force is a considerable one. I believe that that is a factor which should be taken into consideration and weighed up in determining whether or not this relief should be granted to him, which is merely to enable him to contribute to and to pay for the further period during which he served in the Police force under the Minister of Police and not in the police force under the Minister of Transport. If the hon. the Deputy Minister looks back again, I think he will realize that there must be very few persons who, during those difficult times with regard to staff, were not affected by a decision of this nature.

Numbers make no difference to the principle.

No, but the hon. the Deputy Minister just now said that we would be flooded with similar petitions. Yesterday I pointedly referred to the reconsideration which the department gave with regard to the other matter which we have discussed concerning Sergeant Moolman, who is now on pension. Here is a man who is in a similar position; Sergeant Moolman wanted to go from the army to the police. He did not consult anyone but resigned from the one and applied for appointment to the other. Colonel Van Niekerk did exactly the same thing, but he did ask whether he could get a transfer and it was refused. It was, however, refused as a matter of policy and not because his request was not legal. He did not do anything illegal by resigning.

He did not want to abide by the policy.

No, the position is simply that there was nothing illegal in Colonel’s Van Niekerk's resigning from the police. He was entitled to resign and take up any position he wanted to. In fact, he resigned and took up a position in the Railway police. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with what the hon. the Minister said, namely that Colonel Van Niekerk has rendered outstanding service. He has shown himself concerned with one thing only since he joined the ordinary police as a young man, namely to be in the police either under the Department of Police or in the Railway Police. This was no fiddle and no attempt to get some temporary advantage for himself. He does not ask for any advantage now either, but he wants to be able to buy or pay for the rights for pension which he will get when he goes on pension very shortly. I think that, with regard to this case, the hon. the Deputy Minister should not press his request and should allow the recommendation of the Select Committee to be accepted by this House this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister made a statement yesterday which was repeated by the hon. the Deputy Minister today, namely that the Select Committee has approached this matter on a purely humanitarian basis. I want to tell the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister that the case of Col. Van Niekerk, as in the previous case, was not dealt with on a purely humanitarian basis but also on the basis of merit. In the course of this session as well as last session the Select Committee, purely on a humanitarian basis, made quite a number of recommendations which were accepted by this Committee of this House. This case is the case of a particular person. This is not only a case of merit, but it is a case of a person who, from the rank of constable, reached the rank of colonel. He rendered most loyal service first to the ordinary Police Force and subsequently to the Railway Police Force. This person's period of loyal service was interrupted for 11 days and he consequently requested that his previous service be taken into account for the purposes of his pension benefits. This matter was definitely not considered on a purely humanitarian basis; this is a matter which was dealt with on merit.

Order! I want to appeal to the hon. member not to repeat the arguments which have been advanced since yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister now accuses the Committee of having approached this matter on a purely humanitarian basis. What I am doing, is to prove that humanitarian principles had nothing to do with this and that the matter was dealt with on merit.

Order! That has been said at least twice.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I must draw your attention to the fact that it has not been stated yet that this matter was not dealt with on a humanitarian basis. What I am doing, is to refute the statement that this matter has, in fact, been judged on that basis.

The hon. member himself has said so twice now.

Mr. Chairman, in that case I just want to repeat once again that this matter was not dealt with on a humanitarian basis and that this is a case of merit which has been dealt with as such.

Mr. Chairman, there is just one point I should like to bring to the attention of the Deputy Minister. He told us a moment ago that the hon. the Minister of Transport cannot be accused of not treating his officials in a humane way. However, I just want to put one question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. This question arises out of this number of petitions which are before the Committee now. There are 23 petitions. All these petitions which are before the Select Committee on Pensions are treated on the same basis, whether on a compassionate basis or on merit. We have here petitions of ex-officials of virtually every Government Department. Twenty-one of these 23 petitions have been approved without this House making any great fuss about it. But the Railways is the only department which opposes the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions. What I want to ask now, is why this department opposes these recommendations when it treats its officials just as well as any other department does?

Motion put and the Committee divided:

Ayes 84: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee B.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Henning, J M; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Smit, H. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van tier Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Waring, F W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—39: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillie, H. van Z.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.

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

Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions Nos. (1) to (23) reported and adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the important decisions he took, and which the Government then implemented, about the salary increases and the improvement to conditions of service for teachers. I want to assure the hon. the Minister of the great appreciation of the teaching profession for these steps that were taken at the end of last year. Good results were achieved, and my information has it that at one Afrikaans university the number of students in the H.E.D. class this year doubled in comparison with last year. An increase of about 9 per cent on the previous year took place in the number of individuals flocking to our colleges, and my information also has it that a reasonable number of students have meanwhile changed their courses in favour of teaching courses. I have also been informed that in Pretoria at present there is a waiting list of more than 100 married women for posts in the Department of Education.

The report of the National Education Council also focuses our attention on the fact that, in the implementation of the relevant Act, the Minister provided that from 1st January, 1972, the training of White teachers in secondary education will only take place at universities, and that such training would last four years. Sir, this is a progressive step for which we are all grateful. We realize that its object is solely that of promoting education and educating the child. But 31st December of this year will also be the end of an era at our colleges of education. At the close of such an era I consider it fitting that we give thought to the hundreds of men and women on the staff of our colleges of education, and that we think with appreciation of these people who, for so many years at the colleges, have trained teachers who subsequently filled posts in secondary education. I think it fitting that we express our appreciation to those people who are still doing this inspiring work at our colleges, and who will in the future perhaps continue with the work, though only in another context. The products of their training are today acquitting themselves very well in the positions they occupy in education in South Africa.

It is also fitting, on this occasion, that one thinks of the contribution the provinces have made. But, Sir, I do not want to go into that. On this occasion I should just like to refer to the various bodies which, in terms of the National Education Policy Act of 1967, must advise the Minister in one or other respect in connection with the training of White teachers. Here I should like to refer, in the first instance, to the National Education Council which, in terms of the provisions of section 4 (3) (a) of this Act, must advise the Minister on teacher training. Then there is, in addition, the Committee of Educational Heads, whose functions are set out in section 6 (2) and (3) of the relevant Act which provides, inter alia, that—

That, Sir, is a second body. A third body I want to refer to is one established in terms of the provisions of section 1B (2) of the same Act which provides that the Administrator may constitute certain joint advisory and co-ordinating committees for teacher training which will advise the Administrator in respect of that region. Paragraph (3) provides that—

Then there is a fourth body established in terms of section 1B—

Sir, those are just a few of the most important bodies and committees that I have mentioned here; I do not want to go into further particulars.

The question I should like to leave with the hon. the Minister for consideration, is whether a less cumbersome and time-consuming way cannot be devised for the training of White teachers? The question that also arises is whether one council for the training of teachers is not the answer? In looking at the Gericke Commission’s Report, and the reference there to a South African professional council, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether attention could not again be given to the idea of a South African professional council, though solely for the training of teachers? Is this perhaps not the answer as far as the training of teachers is concerned? Would this not perhaps be of greater assistance to the hon. the Minister than the present procedure which he has to follow by way of legislation?

I deem this to be an opportune moment for replying right now to a few matters that were raised in the course of Friday's debate. Before doing so, I should like to extend a word of sincere congratulation to the new Secretary for National Education. Dr. J. T. van Wyk. It may perhaps not be common knowledge that Dr. Van Wyk actually qualified himself as a mining engineer, and that he was employed in the mining industry until he made the discovery that there was more gold in the hearts of children than there was underground. He then embarked upon the sphere of education and undertook the necessary sutdy, so much so that he obtained a doctor’s degree in education. Subsequent to that he served in all the various spheres of practical education and eventually became Director of Education in South-West Africa. I take very great pleasure in welcoming him here. We know him as a man who has a standpoint on matters relating to education, a man who knows what he is doing, a man who, since assuming this responsible post only a few months ago, has already proved what he is capable of doing and how he can handle matters. I think I am speaking on behalf of all of you in not only welcoming him, but also wishing him the very best in this difficult department which he has to manage.

I should also like to express another word of sincere appreciation for the valuable contribution made by teachers, male and female, and pupils in making a success of the recent Republic celebrations. It is true, of course, that there are various branches, each of which made a valuable contribution. By no means do I want to detract from any of those contributions that were made, but it is my firm conviction that the Republic celebrations would not have been what in fact they were if it had not been for the sacrificing labour of love on the part of so many teachers, male and female, as well as pupils throughout the length and breadth of the country. I take pleasure in extending my sincere thanks to them, and I think that in this case, too, I am speaking on behalf of all of you in expressing that thought.

†To my mind the most important matter that was raised during Friday’s debate was a question by the hon. member for Algoa regarding the system of differentiated education for South Africa. I would like to reply in full to that as far as it is possible to reply to it today. Having considered the advice of the National Education Council, and having consulted the Administrators of the four provinces and of South-West Africa, I propose determining policy in terms of section 2 (1) (h) of the National Education Policy Act of 1967 in connection with the system of differentiated education and guidance.

The nature of education, and more specifically, of the educational system of our country is such that it is important that changes should take place gradually. Since it is not desirable to announce comprehensive and far-reaching policy changes with regard to such an important matter, I shall confine myself to a few cardinal aspects of policy to serve as the foundation for future developments.

Since education is dynamic, further adjustments will have to be made from time to time. The divided control of secondary education has already been abolished and it has become necessary to reap the further benefits of this step. I trust that the new policy will be implemented in such a manner as to foster the interests both of our children and of our country. The period of education, which consists of twelve school years, is divided into four phases of three years each. These phases will be known as the junior primary, the senior primary, the junior secondary and the senior secondary phases. As a result the present Std. V, the seventh school year, will now be incorporated into the junior secondary school phase while the present Std. VIII, the tenth school year, will be incorporated into the senior secondary school phase. I want, however, to make it clear that this does not mean that Std. V pupils are now to be transferred from the primary school to the secondary school. The sole implication is that the syllabuses for Std. V pupils will be adapted to the junior secondary school phase while the pupils will continue to be taught at primary schools.

In the junior secondary school phase, education will be of a generally formative nature, most of the subjects being compulsory. The syllabuses will not be differentiated but the subject matter will be presented in a differentiated manner according to the educational needs of specific groups of pupils. In the senior secondary school phase, which will now extend over three years, provision will be made for extensive differentiation by offering various fields of study and certain approved subjects at an advanced level and at a standard level. This implies that the subjects which are taught at two levels will also be examined at two levels during and at the end of the secondary school phase.

This policy will make differentiated university admission requirements possible as well as a better link-up between the school and the university.

Hon. members will appreciate that the policy cannot be implemented immediately because differentiated syllabuses have to be drawn up while the Joint Matriculation Board has to make certain adjustments in respect of university entrance requirements. Provision is also being made for those categories of pupils who are unable to derive sufficient benefit from the ordinary tuition given in the normal course of education.

For the implementation of the envisaged system, it is necessary to make provision for the identification, placing and grouping of pupils by applying such criteria as progress at school, scholastic achievement, measurement by means of standardized scholastic tests, biographical data, medical reports, personality, aptitude and intelligence tests and age. A policy which provides for a system of differentiated education makes proper guidance essential, and the necessary measures are being considered. Although it has been recommended to me on good grounds that schools should offer as many fields of study as possible in the senior secondary school phase, conditions in this country are such that there can be no compulsion about providing large schools catering for numerous fields of study. However, there is sufficient room to manoeuvre within the envisaged policy to allow for the development of such schools where circumstances permit. I am convinced that under the envisaged policy a sufficient degree of differentiation will be achieved to make it possible for the present system to be replaced by a nationally co-ordinated system without streams. The envisaged policy makes it possible for the fields of study at existing types of schools to be retained or expanded.

I trust that the policy will be implemented in such a manner that the nature and character of certain established schools will not be adversely affected but that on the contrary such schools will be developed to render an even better service to the children of our country.

*Mr. Chairman, next I come to the points raised by the hon. member for Wynberg. This hon. member complained, in the first place, about the unsatisfactory standard of English in the Public Service. She linked up her argument with the report of the former Department of Cultural Affairs, which pointedly called attention to that matter. Accordingly the hon. member asked for this question of language instruction and, more specifically, the instruction of English, to be investigated departmentally or by the Human Sciences Research Council. What the hon. member has overlooked, is that in that report the same comments in respect of English also apply in respect of Afrikaans. I do not know whether the hon. member stopped reading just after the paragraph on English. If she had read on, however, she would have seen that the problems that were mentioned, also applied in respect of Afrikaans. If the hon. member has not done so, I want to suggest to her that she reads the rest of page 14 as well. The object of the comments in that report is simply to state the endeavour to bring about a greater measure of bilingualism in the Public Service. Now, the hon. member will agree with me that in order to be really effective, a bilingual Public Service is faced with problems of its own. A conference recently held in Europe, to which I sent one of my officials and which dealt with this very matter, is also proof of the fact that the people who attended that conference, are faced with the same problems with which we have to contend in our bilingual Public Service here, namely the striving after a particularly high standard of language proficiency. A mere reading and speaking knowledge of Afrikaans and English is not sufficient for the high standard required by the Public Service. J do not think I am exaggerating in saying that there are even some of us here on both sides of this House who are reasonably good at both languages, but who will perhaps not be fit for the work which the language Services Bureau of my department has to undertake. Then the hon. member should also have regard to scholastic achievement and the fact that the passmark in either of the two official languages taken on the lower grade, is 33⅓ per cent. In other words, a passmark at school may vary from 33⅓ per cent to 100 per cent. Now. one does not always know what standard of proficiency was attained by such a matriculant who is interested in and joins the staff of the Language Services Bureau. Only the very best ones can meet their requirements. Add to this the fact that all the public servants employed in that branch, have not necessarily passed university courses in Afrikaans and English. Moreover, the standard of proficiency attained by them in such courses, varies from person to person. However, I may tell the hon. member, and she will find proof of that in the report, that the Language Services Bureau is striving after enhancing its efficiency to the highest practical standard possible. This is a difficult matter, but considerable progress has been made in this regard.

The hon. member also referred to the titles of Acts which are tabled here, and which, of course, have nothing to do with my department. The hon. member will probably raise this matter on the proper Vote in due course. Nevertheless, this did arouse my curiosity to a certain extent, and ( had certain information looked up in the library. There I found, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, interesting particulars in regard to examples of the kind which the hon. member quoted. For instance, in the House of Commons Journals of 20th March, 1967, I found the following example. I do not know whether the hon. member will understand it. Here it is: “Deer Amendment Scotland Bill”. Then there was another, i.e. the Road Traffic Amendment Bill. In our House of Assembly reports the following examples are to be found: Fencing Amendment Bill, 1940, the Land Bank Amendment Bill, 1937, the Natural Monuments Amendment Bill, 1937, etc. I shall leave this aspect at that, and I think the hon. member may as well pursue the matter with officials of Parliament if she does not feel quite happy about the reply I have given her in that regard.

Then the hon. member asked for a commission of inquiry. To my mind this is unnecessary, since, as far as the teaching of the official language at schools is concerned, the education departments are doing everything in their power to raise the standard and are constantly mindful of this having to be done. There are committees which are regularly dealing with this matter, committees on which the inspector for that specific subject, be it English or Afrikaans, and senior teachers in those subjects, as well as lecturers at teachers’ training colleges and at universities, are deliberating jointly on what can be done in order to raise the standard of the subject concerned. What is more, the education departments regularly present refresher courses for their language teachers in an attempt to raise the standard. In the light of these things and also because of the fact that the changed syllabuses have not yet shown what the results of those changes are, it is unnecessary at this stage to appoint a commission of inquiry into this matter.

†The hon. member also referred to section 24 (g) of the Broadcasting Act, Act No. 22 of 1936, which requires—

She requested my assurance that when TV is introduced the Opposition parties will be given equal time to that of the Government for appearances. In reply, I want to state firstly that because of the fact that there is no existing agreement between the political parties on this matter, there has been no broadcast of political speeches in the past year. Therefore no mention has been made of that in the report. Secondly, as far as TV broadcasts are concerned, broadcasting of political speeches will only be possible if the political parties are in full agreement on this matter.

*I want to refer to other matters in regard to which the hon. member adopted a more aggressive attitude. The hon. member referred to paragraph 135 of the television report. She also referred to paragraph 4.4.9 (3) of the report of the Committee of Educational Heads. She wanted to know how these two matters tallied. The one provides that the Broadcasting Act should be amended so that it may be brought into line with the Education Act, which provides that the Christian and moral norms in our society should be respected, whereas the other provides that according to the second report the Department of Education should have control over programmes beamed on television. The hon. member wanted to know from me what my standpoint was and how I was able to reconcile these two matters. I am afraid that the hon. member quoted this passage from the report of the Committee of Educational Heads out of context. Perhaps it is because the report was tabled a short while before the other that she did not understand the whole connection properly. In fact, the three points quoted by the hon. member, are embodied in the evidence which the Committee of Educational Heads gave before the commission of inquiry into television. Their whole standpoint was that there should be educational broadcasts on television. To me this is self-evident, and I think that if we considered this objectively, all of us would concede that no educational head could allow uncontrolled TV programmes or uncontrolled video tapes or cassettes to be presented in the schools under his control. I think all of us would grant that. Furthermore, it is also self-evident to me that the education departments must at least be consulted in the drawing up and preparation of programmes which will also be broadcast for schools—not only as regards the nature of programmes, but also as regards their educational value. In the third place, it is also self-evident to me that video tapes must be prepared in consultation with the education departments. We cannot allow all and sundry to present so-called “educational” programmes on video tape, and we cannot be expected to be content with such programmes being shown in our schools.

While dealing with this point, I want to plead for a sober attitude to be adopted by us in regard to the use of television in our schools and at our educational institutions. During the Republic Festival we had here, to my mind, an excellent exhibition of audio-visual educational aids. I do not know how many of the hon. members saw that exhibition. If they did not see it and are interested in this subject, they definitely missed something. I want to emphasize what is also stated in this television report: Although television and most of these other devices which are becoming available today are extremely valuable aids, they cannot take the place of the teacher, lecturer or professor. I am sorry about having to take up the time of the House now, but I should like to read from a letter which I have here and which was written by an English-speaking South African woman, who is going to receive her M.A. degree at an American university in the course of this month. On 8th March, 1971, she wrote to me as follows—

Of course, I do not agree entirely with what this lady wrote. Perhaps it has been exaggerated; perhaps she has been overwhelmed by what she saw there. However, I want to plead with hon. members that we use these aids, which are at our disposal, in a sober, intelligent and judicious manner.

The hon. member for Wynberg went on to refer to history lessons at schools. She referred to a text-book that was compiled by Prof, van Jaarsveld of the Rand Afrikaans University. She said that it contained blatant propaganda for the National Party. The same words she used, I also found in the Cape Times of a few days before she spoke.

Copy cat!

I just want to explain to the hon. member for Wynberg how the machinery operates. I want to explain to her what I also explained last year, namely that key syllabuses are compiled for all subjects, and that this is done inter-departmentally. For the senior secondary courses they are also compiled in conjunction with the Joint Matriculation Board. Moreover, there are teachers' representatives on those various syllabus committees. In other words, these committees consist of people who are concerned with this subject. They are experts, who know their subject and know what has to be taught. Now, the hon. member made a remarkable statement by saying that we should not teach at our schools history that was not at least 50 years old. I must tell the House that I have never heard of that. I know that records in the archives remain closed for certain periods, but I have never heard that one should not teach contemporary history at one’s schools. I may say that in the course of my wanderings in Europe I was struck by the fact that, in looking at the syllabuses of some of those people and reading what was stated in them, one came to realize that some of those countries had existed and had had a history long before Western Europe existed and history was made there. That is the extent to which contemporary history is taught to those children at those schools. I want to say that it is for that reason that, on the recommendation of these experts, the population and relations policy which has been obtaining in South Africa, is also being presented in these key syllabuses. The hon. member forgets that this party has been governing for as long as 23 years, and that something must be said about that as well. But let me tell the hon. member—and this she does not want to accept—that the presentation of the National Party’s policy in the school syllabus is put in historic perspective as forming part of the development history of our policy relating to peoples. The hon. member is laughing at that. She may make it ridiculous, but this reveals her ignorance of the educational set-up as a whole. If I have to take the advice of a committee of experts in a subject such as history, a committee of the calibre I mentioned here, or that of the hon. member or any of the English-language newspapers supporting her in this matter, you should not take it amiss of me, Sir, but in such a case I have no choice and allow myself to be guided by the experts, who have knowledge of this matter.

I want to go further by telling the hon. member that the history books and any other text-books used at school, are not written at my request or at the request of the department. Every author writes his own book. Whether or not he sells that book, is a risk he takes. Now I ask the hon. member whether she wants me to ban Prof, van Jaarsveld’s book from the schools of South Africa?

Yes.

Is that what you want? Sir, now I have heard precisely what I was keen to hear. The hon. member wishes me to ban certain books from the schools. On Friday the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—in a moment I shall come to the points he raised- asked me to make certain banned books accessible to students. Where does one stand with a party in which such divergent standpoints are taken, a party which, when the Publications Board is involved, continually attacks one for having banned certain publications, a party which, on the one hand, pleads through the mouth of another member for banned books to be exempted for study purposes and which, on the other hand, says through the mouth of another member that certain historical books…

Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR; That is a poor argument.

No, it is not a poor argument. That hon. member cannot refute this argument. Sir, a point which is very closely bound up with this, is the charge that was made by the hon. member, namely that my department was allegedly collaborating with programmes of indoctrination of school-children and, more specifically, Sabra youth congresses. I must say that the hon. member does not stand alone as far as this matter is concerned; the hon. member for Durban Central is also singing in that choir, and several of the English-language newspapers have also picked up this refrain and have been blazing it forth lustily. I should like to take a closer look at this matter. I want to refer the hon. member to page 4 of the report of the Department of Cultural Affairs. There she will see that an account is given of a large number of departmental courses presented by my department itself, as it is one of the main functions of my department, apart from the formal school education, to discover and develop leadership potential in the sphere of informal education—adult education, as it is also called sometimes. For that reason my department, according to its ability, arranges for young people as many courses and as many camps as possible. [Interjections.] Sir, I am convinced that the hon. member for Wynberg has never attended one of the courses presented by my department. If she adopts a truly objective attitude to the work done by my department, I shall see to it that she is invited to the next course presented here at, let us say, Jonkershoek, since it is near Cape Town. If she does not return from it an inspired woman, and if, having attended such a course, she will not testify to our being on the right course, then I shall eat my own hat.

She will remain prejudiced.

On page 4 of that report the hon. member will obtain information on a whole series of courses presented by my department for young people in its endeavour to discover talent amongst them and to develop it. In addition we have the National Cultural Council, which, as the hon. member knows, has eight commissions, and which meets regularly every year in order to make recommendations on financial assistance to certain bodies and organizations which apply to my department for grants for recurrent expenditure. The hon. member will find particulars in this regard on page 8 of the report. I do not want to mention the particulars now, for it will take too much time. Furthermore, my department also makes ad hoc grants, i.e. grants, each of which is made on the basis of submissions to the department in respect of certain tasks undertaken by organizations and bodies which normally have nothing to do with my department.

The hon. member for Houghton asked a question about this matter. She wanted to know what other organizations also received assistance in respect of such ad hoc projects on the same basis as Sabra did. I furnished her with the list. The hon. member will find it in Hansard. I do not want to go into that again. Now I want to say that the hon. Opposition and also the hon. member for Houghton are looking right past ail the good work done by my department in this sphere and have fixed their minds on Sabra's youth congress alone, just because Sabra’s declared standpoint is known, namely that they are supporters of separate development. It is allegedly for that reason that my department is blatantly using public money to propagate this Government's standpoint. I consider it necessary to take up the time of this House to argue further about this matter.

I want to tell the hon. member that the first Sabra youth congress was held in Warmbad in 1966, with the financial assistance of the department of which I am the Minister at the moment. It granted that assistance after it had taken cognizance of what was being done and planned there, after it had approved of the entire programme. Subsequent to that Sabra has been holding such youth congresses every year, a total of ten to date. Ten congresses have been held to date. In each of these 10 cases the programme was drawn up and approved in detail by a co-ordinating youth committee, to which the hon. member fur Wynberg referred when she spoke about this matter, and which consists of representatives of cultural organizations all over the country and on which my department was also represented. Every school which falls into the area in which such a youth congress is held, is informed as the object of the course, its contents, the method of presentation and who is responsible for it; I want to state now that propaganda is out of the question. The propaganda made by Mr. Jac de Villiers in the Provincial Council, with reference to the De Aar congress, i.e. that only certain schools were allegedly invited, does not tally with the truth. The accusation which he levelled and which was so readily echoed by the hon. member for Durban Central, namely that this was a case of blatant propaganda, of indoctrination, is not true either. Every headmaster decides, in consultation with his school committee, or his controlling body, whether or not he wants to take part in that programme. The matter rests exclusively with him. Moreover, it is for every parent to decide whether or not his or her child will attend that youth congress. There is no question of anybody being forced to present that course, to attend that course, or to listen to those lectures. It is an entirely voluntary matter.

Now I want to say this. No complaints were brought in against any of those 10 congresses, until the provincial election was held last year. At that stage Mr. Jac de Villiers, probably through a United Party organizer or supporter, got hold of that document which by that time had been sent to all schools for several years already. At the time he thought that he could make election propaganda out of it, and he kicked up a major fuss about it. He carried on to such an extent that he even lost his seat in the Senate,

You have been doing it for years.

Yes, what the hon. member has just said, is quite correct. The United Party has been doing it for years, and still the effect of it is precisely what it has been over all these years, namely absolutely nothing. The people are not paying any attention to it because they know that that argument is worthless.

The hon. member referred to school halls, school grounds and school hostels being used for this purpose. I want to know from the hon. member what is wrong with that. Should we spend millions of rands of public money on halls and school buildings which are standing there for school purposes only? After all, the hon. member knows that we even use our school halls for political meetings. Has the hon. member never addressed a political meeting in a school hall? When an election is at the hand, this happens every day. It also happens throughout the year when report-back meetings are held. I see nothing wrong in it, provided that the controlling body of the school consents to it.

It is party propaganda to use them for SABRA.

It is also party propaganda for that hon. member’s party. Surely, when the hon. member holds a political meeting, she does not make propaganda for my party, but for her own party. I have no fault to find with a school hall being hired out to her for that purpose. I have no objection to the provinces making their school halls available for congresses of this nature. They themselves decide on it, and I have no objection to it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Did the hon. the Minister say that he had no objection to school halls being made available for report-back meetings by political parties?

Mr. Chairman, I say that I personally have no objection to it. I know this happens in several of the provinces, with the consent of the school committee. In the Transvaal, for instance, all of us—the Progressives, the United Party members and the Nationalists—hold our meetings in school halls. Up to now nothing out of the ordinary has happened. Everybody accepts that in every school there are supporters of all the political parties. No, I would not go quite so far as to say that there are supporters of the Progressive Party in every school. But these people use the school halls, and nothing ever happens. In principle I have no fault to find with it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to go further and say, in regard to this matter, that my department’s representative on that committee as well as the representatives of my department who have been attending these congresses, have not reported to me any complaints about indoctrination at these congresses. In fact, mention was always made of the fact that the presentation was objective and that the integrity of the persons giving the lectures, guaranteed such objectivity. Let us now take a closer look at this point. The hon. member for Wynberg gave me a very disparaging look when I made this remark a moment ago. The fact of the matter is that we all know what Sabra’s attitude is. But let us now analyse what happened there. I am convinced that the hon. member for Wynberg has not yet read the printed and roneoed papers issued at each of these youth congresses of Sabra. If the hon. member had read those papers, she would have seen that all of them were scientific and critical. That is also what happened at the congress at Robertson. Do hon. members know to what extent this happened? The method followed at the Robertson congress was so scientific, so critical, that the Opposition party found it possible to attack my department for allegedly availing ourselves of those opportunities in order to indoctrinate those pupils with the policy of the National Party. In the edition of the Cape Times published on the same day, in two different leaders, they deemed it possible to attack the Government on the basis of what was said there by some of the Sabra speakers, and which allegedly proved that there was disunity in the ranks of the Government in regard to matters of policy. To my mind this is proof of the hollowness of the argument advanced by the hon. members of the Opposition In regard to this matter. For that reason I repeat that there is no question of a unilateral indoctrination of Sabra’s standpoint at those congresses. Attempts are made to inspire the youth, to rouse an intelligent interest in them. I can tell you, Sir, that a corrective of the older generation is also taking place there, for it is a good thing to induce those young people to discuss current affairs, not only for the young people themselves, but also for the older people. Unfortunately this is sometimes abused by the Opposition, for they level criticism at the Government for certain statements made by these people while making a scientific analyses. At these congresses a reciprocal interchange of views does in fact take place in regard to the so-called generation gap. The young people tell the older generation what they think, and the older generation tell the younger generation what their views are. Therefore, at those congresses there is indeed a healthy reciprocal flow of ideas, and this flow bridges the so-called generation gap. I think I may now leave this matter at that, and I sincerely hope that members of the Opposition, who feel attracted to this topic, will make a thorough study of what really happens at these youth congresses before they exercise criticism of this nature again.

The hon. member for Wynberg also referred a sports youth camp organized by my colleague the Minister of Sport and Recreation. I do not want to discuss it, because I did not attend it. Of course, the hon. member could have raised this matter on the Vote of the Minister of Sport and Recreation. I want to say, however, that I regard this as an effort which has the same ultimate object several other bodies have, namely to help the youth to ensure a healthy flow of ideas and an interchange of views, to discover leadership qualities amongst our young people and to assist in developing those qualities. If the hon. member would indicate to me that she was interested in attending such a youth course, I would see to it not only that she was invited to such a congress, but also that she was even accorded V.I.P. treatment.

I should like to reply to a point raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He spoke about the Africa Institute. I am very grateful for his being appreciative of the work done by the Africa Institute, and especially, too, for his confidence in the new Director, Prof. Jan Moolman, who took over recently. I am pleased that he approves of a large amount being made available in the Estimates to the Africa Institute. I think it will do his heart good to know that even the amount for which provision is being made in the Estimates, is still too small, and that another R15 600 may be added in respect of salary increases granted subsequent to the Estimates being published. The hon. member made a very interesting statement. He said that he had paid a visit to the Africa Institute, and that he was so impressed by what was being done there that, if the United Party came into power, that institute would be developed into an independent centre of knowledge and information about Africa, which would gain international prestige. When the hon. member said that, I immediately thought of the play called “Waiting for Godot”. I wonder whether the hon. member saw that play. I suppose he must have seen it. If the poor Africa Institute had to wait until such time as the United Party would eventually be able to do something for it, I am afraid that it will have to wait a very long time. I want to point out to the hon. member what we have already done. Last year this Government appointed a committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Wennie du Plessis. That report has been published. It is a report which has a great deal of praise and appreciation for the work of this institute. The increase in salaries so as to put them on a par with the salaries paid in the case of statutory research bodies, has already been approved, and the increase in salaries results from that. The other recommendations are still being considered. I may tell the hon. member that what he still wants to be done if they come into power one day, is already being done by us. It will also do him good to know that this report has been translated in the meantime. I hope that it will be possible to table it as soon as next week. He will find it interesting reading matter, for I know that he is interested in this topic.

Why does it take so long before reports such as this can be tabled?

The hon. member’s question is a very fair one. As I said earlier on in regard to the television report, the translation of these reports presents major problems. Towards the end of the year and at the beginning of the year all the reports of the departments have to be translated in order that they may be in time for introduction when Parliament commences. In addition to these there are several other important reports. For instance, this year we had the television report, the report on chiropractors, a report in regard to the administration of justice, the report on the Africa Institute and several other shorter reports. All these reports widen the scope of the work to such an extent that it is impossible to have everything ready for being tabled at an early stage.

Would it not be possible to table reports such as this in the language in which they were written, and then to make available the translated versions of such reports at a later stage? As the hon. the Minister knows, it is difficult to debate a matter here when the report on that matter is not yet available.

Of course, that is something over which I have no control. The hon. member is aware that it is a rule of this House that all reports be tabled in both official languages. The television report was available in Afrikaans a long time ago, but could only be tabled after it had been translated into English, The hon. member would be well advised to put forward this proposal of his where it belongs; I myself do not know where that is.

Another matter that was raised by the hon. member, was that of making banned books available for study purposes. Of course, it is common knowledge that all material for study is not readily accessible at all times. For instance, certain records kept in the Archives remain closed material for long periods. In order to gain access to such material, one has to obtain consent first. I must say that in my experience I have never encountered any problems in this regard. But the hon. member wants banned books to be made available to bona fide students for study purposes. However, I am not aware of any complaint having been made in this regard either by any student or by any institution. Until such time as I receive such complaints, I do not think it necessary for me to investigate this matter.

For the time being I want to content myself with these comments. At a later stage I shall reply to the other matters that were raised on Friday.

At a later stage I shall put certain questions to the Minister in pursuance of his important announcement on differentiated education. For the moment I want to dwell on the statement made by the hon. the Minister with regard to Sabra. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, there is more cause for concern now. At the beginning of the year I asked the hon. the Minister whether the programmes and documents of Sabra, papers and lectures, were submitted in some form to the Minister or to his department for approval. J received the following reply to that—

This is the very gravamen of our charge against the hon. the Minister and his department. The young people are being given free rein as far as a semi-political organization such as Sabra is concerned.

Why semi-political?

If you wish, you may say it is a completely political organization. The hon. the Minister said that his department had looked into the question as to where the programme would take place, what the programme would comprise and whether there would be discussions. But what counts, is what is said there. Because of the defence put up for Sabra by the hon. the Minister, we have to accept that what is said there meets with his approval. We have, for example, the case of Prof. Spoelstra. In Prof. Spoelstra’s document mention is made of the fact that one may not speak of a White nation in South Africa. This is said at a time when we have progressed so far that even Nationalist Party Members of Parliament sometimes speak of a South African nation, and where the hon. the Prime Minister, in order to explain multinational development, said there was a White nation. However, here the hon. the Minister comes along and allows Prof. Spoelstra, as has been reported, to say: “He advocates the use of the term of Afrikaner nation rather than White nation.” A further statement was: ‘‘There is not a group within a White nation.” This forms a sharp contrast. Which way are we heading in South Africa? Has the time not arrived for us to consider the dangers to which we are exposing our children?

I was by no means impressed when the hon. the Minister said that no parent or child wanted to stand back. The way these things are presented to the child is that it is a great honour to take part. If, for example, I want to write a set-book or a history book with a view to submitting it as a textbook, strict control will be exercised in the first place so as to decide whether it may in fact be allowed. But here, according to the hon. the Minister, we are giving free rein to Sabra, The hon. the Minister actually defended this. As far as the United Party is concerned, this will be the last thing that can happen. Neither Sabra nor any other institute will be allowed to do such a thing.

Is the hon. member in favour of censorship and of those documents being censored beforehand?

We are in favour of there being control over what one does in one’s schools and to one’s children. This has always been the case. If a book is set, control must be exercised over that.

Why did you vote against the Publications Act?

This has nothing to do with the Publications Act as such. Here one is dealing specifically with the education of children at school.

I want to continue by dealing briefly with the aspect of history. I cannot understand why hon. members cannot appreciate what the charge of the hon. member for Wynberg was. The hon. member for Wynberg charged the Government with the fact that a stage was being reached where history books, particularly as far as the book by Prof. Van Jaarsveld was concerned, were being set which, in fact, were not history books.

†I honestly believe that historians one day will be very harsh on this Government. The one thing which they will be able to prove is that after 20 years of Nationalist Government rule it became so arrogant that it in fact abandoned the study of history at school. It is true. The interesting point is that it did not substitute history with a comparative study of political philosophy and theory.

What is there to compare?

It only allowed the biased instruction of the policies of one political party.

I want to move on to other aspects. I regret it very much that I must raise with the hon. the Minister the matter of the unsatisfactory answering of questions. I am not referring to the question I put to him today, as I believe he was most helpful in this respect. It is not the fault of his department that it only covers a small section of the educational field in South Africa, Neither is it the fault of hon. members on this side of the House that we have today the National Education Policy Act, which of course deprives the provinces of the right to direct and control education. I fail to understand how any person can claim that he is controlling education and directing policy unless that particular person is in full possession of all the relevant facts. I want to say that, if one analyses the replies we received to questions during the course of this Session, one must express concern at the inability of the hon. the Minister and his department to provide us with essential facts and figures.

Are you sure it is not your inability to put questions?

I am going to refer to particular matters which, in my opinion, he must also be concerned about, because every educationist in South Africa is concerned about them. A year ago I asked the hon. the Minister how many teachers in South Africa were qualified, how many were graduates, how many were males and females and how many graduated in the so-called scarce subjects of science, mathematics, chemistry and physics. At that stage perhaps it was a matter of being a new broom—I received a full and satisfactory reply. This reply clearly indicated the danger signs in education. That we have a very small percentage of teachers qualifying annually in science subjects, that there is a very small percentage of graduates qualifying in South Africa and also that there is a complete imbalance as far as male and female teachers in South Africa are concerned. This year I put the exact same question on the Order Paper.

Why?

I obviously wanted to see whether there has been any improvement. I believe that the hon. the Minister must see whether there has been an improvement. What was the result of my question? I received an answer from the hon. the Minister quite rightly giving me information about universities and information as far as the department is concerned, but he said he could not give me answers as far as the provinces were concerned. Obviously I cannot now decide whether there has been any improvement or not because I do not know the total number who qualified. The moment one leaves out the teacher training colleges in the Transvaal, for instance, one cannot determine how many teachers in fact qualified with degrees. As the hon. member for Potchefstroom, for instance, will know, one has at the training colleges such as the Potchefstroom Teacher’s Training College, graduates who qualify as teachers.

I also put another question to the hon. the Minister this year which concerned students taking teaching diplomas at universities. One thing which is worrying educationists in South Africa is the fact that there is an ever-increasing number of pupils from the ordinary stream taking up teaching as a profession. We know this to be the position as far as the teacher training colleges are concerned. We know that in the Transvaal over the last couple of years either 50 per cent or just below, of first-year students at teacher training colleges taking diplomas were only in possession of a B-stream matriculation pass.

But now the B-stream is going to disappear.

I want to come to that later on when we discuss the matter of differentiation. These are the facts today. We also know that we have a four- year teacher training diploma, which the hon. member for Potchefstroom welcomed. I am also pleased about it. The fact that one can take a four-year diploma course at a training college enables that person also to teach at high schools up to matriculation level. This, of course, includes both the ordinary and advanced streams— let us forget about the consideration that it is going to disappear. [Time expired.]

Sir, I sympathize with the hon. member for Durban Central when he comes along here with such sad tidings about youth congresses. He no longer knows what they are all about, and now he is worried and goes out of his way to conjure up spectres. He believes that since he is no longer in education, there are no United Party supporters left in education any more, and that the Nationalists are now doing what they like. That seems to me to be his problem.

Sir, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations and the welcome which the hon. the Minister extended to Dr. Van Wyk. As it happens, I was also originally in the mines, and subsequently I also landed up in education. That is a good step. He has therefore come from gold mining to gold development, because our youth is, after all, our biggest asset. I also want to give Dr. Van Wyk a very hearty welcome. May his period of service as far as this great task, education, is concerned, be a very profitable one. Sir, I should like to associate myself further with the hon. the Minister in his praise of the part education played in the ten year Republic Festival. I want to agree with him wholeheartedly. I just wondered why the hon. member for Durban Central did not express his regret at the fact that Nusas refused to take part, preferring to boycott it. In addition, it is with great pleasure that I take note of the hon. the Minister’s statement about his education policy. Last year, as you know, my point of departure here was labour-saving and labour utilization. My plea was that we should differentiate. I condemned internal differentiation and described it as a monstrosity. I advocated external differentiation and asked that we establish psychological services to develop this differentiation externally so that the right man will be trained for the right vocation; in other words, I advocated greater vocational orientation. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has now divided the twelve-year training period into four phases, and I am glad that the two-stream internal policy is now falling away. I should like to know more about the question of comprehensive schools, about what the Minister’s ideas in that connection are, and about vocational training, as far as psychological services are concerned.

Sir, I now come to the Revenue Vote in which R95 835 000 is being requested, and I refer to item M, “Financial Assistance to Universities for University Education”, R56 126 000—an increase, therefore, of R8 789 000, with this year's Estimates. It is with joy that we take note of this very big increase. It is an investment in our youth, and therefore also an investment in the development of the Republic of South Africa. I now want to refer to the conduct of some pink students and little student leaders of Nusas, who have the audacity, after they tried to boycott the Republic Festival, and after the hon. the Prime Minister remarked at the Festival that they did not take part because they had nothing to offer or to give, to ask the Prime Minister to apologize for what he said there about them. Sir, I regard this as reprehensible and arrogant behaviour. I should like to know what the United Party thinks about such behaviour. I should also like to know what the hon. member for Houghton has to say. Because certain students—and I want the hon. the Minister to listen closely to this, so that he can take note of it—do no! go to universities to study; they go to university with other purposes and other motives in mind. The claim has been made that illiteracy and unemployment form the breeding grounds for revolution. I want to tell you today that the obverse can also be true, i.e. that literacy—and then I am speaking of pure literacy—and over-employment, in other words prosperity, can also furnish a breeding ground for revolution. That is what we have in this case. There is one matter which we must, in the first instance, examine under the microscope, i.e. the education of man as a whole throughout our educational system; we must not eventually be so orientated that literacy is the only criterion, because then one gets these problems. Then we speak of literate barbarians, unbalanced individuals, people who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, people who have no conception of balance. Then one gets this behaviour. There are reasons for the behaviour of these pink students, and one of the reasons is that it has become the fashion to protest, to reject authority, to act without discipline. It has become fashionable to be grown-up, to try to be grown-up, and this is simply a way for them to try to be more grown-up, and that is why they range themselves on the side of our enemies. The second reason is that they are not kept busy. They have too many holidays. They have too much spare time, and in that spare time the devil finds mischief for idle hands. I want to tell them to spend their time wisely because these are evil days we are living in today. South Africa is to prosperous. That is another reason, because they go there in shiny motor cars, and our educational institutions, the parents and the State must take note of this. Things are too easy and too jolly. They go to university in shiny motor cars and accept it as a matter of course. In addition, they have altogether too much pocket money. It is a question of misplaced love, because today it has become the habit among some parents to buy off their responsibilities with money. Now these students do not know where these things come from. They did not have to work and study at the same time, and they do not go to university without a motor vehicle. They have no idea of what responsibility is.

I now want to make my second request to the hon. the Minister, i.e. that he should see to it that State finances are not used to promote malpractices. This behaviour on the part of these weaklings—I am calling them weaklings—is nothing more than a misuse of State financies. We shall have to find some way or other of keeping that kind of thing in check. I want to tell you that the taxpayer, the patriot, the useful citizen of the State, objects to this sort of behaviour, since the State subsidizes these people with such a vast sum of money. The money ought to be used for the benefit of the State, but they use it for their own motives. These people would do well to follow the example of a high school in my constituency, the Hercules High School. In April the pupils of that school went on a tour through Mozambique and Rhodesia, our neighbouring states. As far as I know, this is the first school touring party about which it was written that they were good ambassadors for their country, that they remained unaffected, that they held their own. The pupils of this high school were spoken of very highly. If these students would only follow their example. (Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Hercules said. However, before I come round to that, I just want to refer to what the hon. member for Durban Central said. The United Party will shortly find themselves in the same position in which they found themselves when they tried to drive the hon. the Minister of Information into a corner by stating that he uses his department for political propaganda. Eventually they had to bend before his concrete argument that his department was merely conveying the factual situation. We are governing, and our policy is the one with which our country and its people concur. Therefore it is also justifiable that the association known as SABRA should put the factual situation to our youth. I have no objection to SABRA stating the policy of the United Party and that of the Progressive Party, and I am also convinced of the fact that they are doing so. I do not find any fault with that. I have the fullest confidence that our youth will, in any case, adopt so critical an attitude towards indoctrination that they will eventually make the correct choice. With reference to the Prime Minister’s speech on 31st May of this year, that gentleman, Mr. Neville Curtis, expressed himself as follows—

We immediately want to tell these young people that meaningful and stimulating argument and criticism about all sorts of things, even though the criticism is at times clumsy and illogical, is the student’s individual right. Meaningful argument and criticism are just as necessary to our development as breathing is necessary to the body. In that way the patterns of thought of those people, who in the foreseeable future will have to shoulder greater responsibilities, are honed. In the meantime they can undoubtedly have interesting and useful things to say. But there are also factions among the students who engage in matters having nothing to do with the search for knowledge and truth. I am now referring to the continually militant indignation on the part of young men such as Joint Driver, Clive Keagan and Neville Curtis. This finds expression in all kinds of statements in which there is the longed for prospect of the overthrow of the existing order in this country, by nothing but revolution. The boycotting of the Republic Festival, the destruction of festival emblems, the encouragement of arms and trade boycotts and the encouragement of the Black power movement are but characteristics of these people’s ideals. It brands them as nothing but vehicles for anarchism Such militant interference in State affairs does not accord with the goals and functions of a student. It is particularly surprising to see how mobile a man such as that gentleman, Neville Curtis, is. For a moment, let us go into some of his activities. On 22nd August, 1970, the Daily Despatch reported that this gentleman was on a visit abroad. The Rand Daily Mail had reported earlier that he was going to attend a conference in Boston. On 25th September, 1970, the Rand Daily Mail reported that two unnamed students from South Africa had visited a certain American Congressman named Fraser. Thereafter Mr. Fraser launched a violent campaign against American companies having investments in the Republic. Who were these two so-called students? On 2nd October, 1970, the Daily Mail reported that Curtis, on his return, said that American and British students were exerting pressure on companies to stop investing in South Africa, or otherwise to give the assurance that such companies were fighting the policy in this country, i.e. the policy of separate development. Curtis also said in the Rand Daily Mail that while he was in the U.S.A. he held discussions with a number of senators and congressmen. Referring to American firms, the Star of 1st October, 1970, reported that Mr. Curtis himself was quoted by the Chairman of the American congress. On 8th November the Sunday Express reported that Curtis went to visit Peter Hain of boycotting fame. The Sunday Express’s source is a Nusas circular, stating further that Mr. Hain would probably visit the Republic in 1971. I take it that he wanted to come and enjoy the French rugby tour and take part in the Republic Festival. To Mr. Curtis and his kindred spirits we clearly want to say today—201C;If your conduct is as I have just sketched it, you have nothing to contribute to the Republic, and indeed you have made no positive contribution to date. If you, Messrs. Curtis and company, are registered students in name, you are robbing the taxpayer”. The Revenue Vote, “National Education”, makes ample provision for subsidies to universities, in fact to the tune of about R57 million. A few days ago the hon. member for Algoa referred to the fact that the unit cost to the State per student is as high as R1 500—I think it can amount to as much as R2 000. And then what about all the bursaries and other millions of rand advanced by the public? What it amounts to is that the State finances 65 per cent to 70 per cent of the universities’ budget. The question now is whether the taxpayer could feel satisfied about subsidizing students such as Mr. Neville Curtis, while he and numerous others are promoting revolution.

Another situation which the taxpayer cannot put up with, is the high failure rate for some categories of students. Up to June 1969, the overall picture of students enrolled for the Bachelor of Arts degrees was as follows (translation)—

What this amounts to is that two-fifths of this group, if this is a trend, did not achieve their goal as students. Universities are autonomous, but then they must also exercise their disciplinary powers properly. I want to state that some universities do not care for and cherish that autonomy of theirs, because they do not exercise their disciplinary powers properly. In the same breath we must then say that, instead of having their children adorning our campuses for the sake of status some parents would do well to place their children somewhere else where they cannot, at the cost of the State, cause more trouble and eventually contribute to general disorder. If university authorities were to handle their freedom and autonomy correctly, it would not be necessary for the hon. the Minister to use his powers in terms of the Universities Act. I refer to section 25 and 26 of that Act. We have not, in the words of the hon. member for Algoa and others, asked the hon. the Minister to encroach upon the autonomy of universities. We were only arguing about the fact that the hon. the Minister did have those powers. With the hon. member for Kensington as spokesman- a very sincere man at the time—the Opposition gave their full support in 1955 to the powers which the Minister must exercise. What it amounts to is that the Minister may grant a subsidy to a university, subject to certain conditions. The provision reads further that—

There was a request to us from this side of the House—it is very clear that here there is a fair degree of unanimity about this matter—that the United Party should tell us where they stand as far as Nusas is concerned, instead of moping about what SABRA is doing for the education of youth. Do they agree with Senator Horak that Nusas stinks, or do they agree with Senator Horwood and with us on this side of the House?

Mr. Chairman, in my previous speech I was referring to a particular question which appeared on the Order Paper in my name where I asked the hon. the Minister how many students enrolled during 1970 for the first time at universities in the Republic for diploma courses in education, other than post graduate education diplomas. I should like to quote the answer which I received from the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister’s reply was that:

1. (a) The figure is not available, but total entries for the courses referred to, including such students as repeated the first year, amounted to 514.
2. (b) It is understood from the universities that these figures are not readily available.

Having received this reply, I am left with the total figure of 514 diploma students. However, I do not know whether they are from the ordinary stream or from the advanced stream. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister when these figures will be available? I believe it is of the utmost importance to him as the controller of education and as the sole policy maker of education, that he should have these figures readily available. I cannot accept this. When you apply to enrol as a student at a university, surely you complete a form on which you also state your qualifications. Therefore, it is only a matter of these universities looking up the necessary information. The reason why I regarded this as important is because other educational departments in South Africa have already reached the situation where they no longer allow a person from an ordinary stream to enrol for a diploma course at a university. Here I refer in particular to the situation in Indian education. In Indian education we find that at the University of Durban Westville, a pupil with an ordinary stream pass is not even allowed to enrol for a diploma course in education. Obviously this is a matter to which the hon. the Minister should pay attention. What will be the situation in x number of years when most of our European teachers will come from the ordinary stream pupils in matric whereas we will have, say with regard to Indian education, the position that most Indian teachers come from the advanced grade in matric? I would like hon. members to think about this matter. This matter worries me, because if the hon. the Minister is unable to provide me with the information, then he is unaware of what the situation is. I would like to ask him sincerely that he should pay attention to this matter. He should instruct his department to obtain the relevant information.

I now wish to pay attention to the matter of differentiated education. I would say, in broad outline, that one naturally welcomes the fact that we in South Africa will now move into a sphere where, according to the hon. the Minister—I did not have the time to study his full statement— we will have a better form of differentiation in education. I want to say that it was high time for such a step. Where most other European countries have already reached the stage where they have come to grips with the whole problem of differentiated education. South Africa is still trying to find its feet. I think it would be most fitting for the hon. the Minister at this stage, to thank the two provinces of Natal and the Transvaal for paving the way in this direction. In these two provinces we have had courageous experiments in the field of differentiated education. No matter how much we would like to condemn certain aspects of how it was applied in those provinces, the fact remains that they were the ones who in fact led the field. I think the hon. the Minister should thank them here today.

I have a large number of questions to ask the hon. the Minister. First of all, we do know that he received these recommendations in March, 1970 from the National Educational Council. I should like to know whether he, in fact, gave teachers associations in South Africa the opportunity to study these recommendations? I am not only referring to the Federal Council of Teachers’ Association. I am also thinking of the 11 bodies constituting the Federal Council. If we want to assist teachers in attaining professional status, the time has come for us to treat them as professional people. I believe that teachers have a valuable contribution to make. After all, they are the people who are in a classroom situation. I know the hon. the Minister has a large number of educational advisers. I have mentioned the National Educational Council. But let us face it; those people are no longer in the classroom situation. It is a very important consideration that we are now going to expect teachers to implement a new policy, but have they been consulted in this regard? I do hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to reply to this question today, and that he will say: “Yes, we have submitted these recommendations to the Teachers’ Associations. We have given them the opportunity to study these recommendations, and they have commented upon them”. If this has not been done, I am convinced that he will be guilty of a grave insult to teachers.

Secondly I want to ask to what extent these recommendations have been studied by the universities. Here, I am not referring only to the education departments of the various universities. The universities have to deal with the end product from the schools. We expect them to train these students, so it is also their business to know bow the preparation is being conducted at high school level. Then, another important question is the following: To what extent has the Minister satisfied himself that a study in depth has been made regarding the requirements for commerce and industry? I cannot think of a more disastrous educational system than one which will produce end products which cannot be absorbed in the outside world. We are today living in a technological age. We are living in a modern society which differs so greatly from the past that there is a tremendous danger that a person can become a foreigner in his own environment. Unless we have the sort of educational system at schools which develops youngsters into happy adults who can fit into their society, we are in fact courting disaster. One only has to read, for instance, the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into Drug Abuse to see to what extent boredom has resulted in frustration, and to what extent this has in turn led to drug abuse in this country. This phenomenon is also evident in schools. One cannot judge to what extent this new form of differentiation will prevent this tendency, and this is why it is so important to have a proper form of differentiated education. We all like to feel that we are the same, but we do differ as regards our abilities and aptitudes. Unless we have an education system which can in fact develop each individual to the maximum of his ability by means of catering for his particular aptitude, we shall produce people who cannot fit into our modern, complex society.

A remark was made earlier today that there is no longer going to be any streaming. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us more information in this regard. I want to say to him that I welcome the fact that there is going to be a three-year orientation period. I believe that a one- year orientation period as we had in the Transvaal and in Natal, is inadequate. You cannot, for example, expect a Std. VI pupil to cope with adjustment problems at a new school, and at the same time determine his whole future. It is therefore unfair to stream pupils into different forms of education at that stage, the one form leading to a university, and the other not. A child aged 13 does not realize the importance of such a step. I therefore welcome the fact that there is going to be a three-year orientation period. I would also like to know why the hon. the Minister is against splitting the Std. V and not adding this to the high school. Here you will have a situation where pupils will start in std. V with an orientation period, but then there will be a break again and they will move to Std. VI and once again they will have to struggle with new adjustment problems.

The hon. member for Durban Central comes along with so many questions that it seems to me as if things went very much awry in Natal in the days when he was teaching there, and now he takes this opportunity to ask questions in Parliament, in an endeavour to put things right in Natal.

They are much better off now.

Sir, if he had bothered to go through this report of the National Education Council, he would have obtained the answers to those questions he was so fervently asking here. At a later stage I also want to come back to the hon. member in connection with his famous article that appeared in the Sunday Times a while ago.

Sir, I should also like to say a few words to the hon. member for Wynberg, who is so worried about our present-day history syllabus; it ostensibly has a political slant and the teachers are supposedly prejudiced in teaching this history to the children. Sir, I always find it interesting that people who have never been involved in education have so much to say about this profession. I myself also taught history at a high school, probably for 10 or 12 years, and I want to tell you, Sir, that if one teaches that subject with love, one cannot help teaching it scientifically. One is not prejudiced, and one does not give the child one-sided facts. Sir. I had the privilege—I cannot actually call it a privilege—of being in matric at the time the United Party was in power. We learned about the Black Hole of Calcutta, about Hastings and Clive of India. Sir, what is more important for the Std. X child of 1971? Is it more important for him to occupy himself with the politics and the military escapades of Britain and other countries of the world, or to make a scientific study of his own country’s population problems, that healthy arrangement on which our future depends, and also the future of all the races and population groups in South Africa. I wonder whether she would tell us what aspect is the most important. The hon. member’s colleague, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, contradicted her on Friday because, just after she had resumed her seat, he stood up and said—

He contradicted her.

Sir, she then complained about the regulation and control of television programmes. In the past they also complained about the Government’s policy of Christian national education, and they are still complaining about it today. They called it indoctrination of the Middle Ages, brainwashing and the enslavement of youth. I want to ask her: Why is South Africa's youth still basically so sound, when one compares them with the youth of other countries? Why do we not have the situation that one finds in America, where teachers and lecturers have to be guarded at institutions by the so-called “Brat patrols”? There teachers and lecturers must be guarded and protected against the pupils. We do not have that here. Why do we in South Africa not have the position that one has in America, where investigations have proved that the 15-17 year age group is the most lawless in the country? Sir, we do not have that situation in South Africa. I wonder whether the hon. member will agree with me when I say that we do not have that situation in this country because this Government does give our pupils and students the opportunity to study, but it also teaches them that there is something called discipline, respect and veneration. What is more, the Government is not ashamed to tell our children that religion forms an important part of a child's training programme.

We frequently have the opposition saying that the Government is neglecting education, and that parental choice is now being ignored. Sir, here I have a cutting from the Sunday Times in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, on 25th October, 1970—

In their day. I too was in Std. X. I also had such a “free choice”, and my “free choice” in a platteland high school was that I had to take four of my subjects through the medium of English and two through the medium of Afrikaans. That is the “free choice” they gave us in our days. No, this Government employs educationalists to advise it, and that is why we have implemented the principle of mother tongue education and will stick to it.

As far as the hon. member for Durban Central is concerned. I do not think that it befits him, as a backbencher, to give statements so freely to newspapers, but soon after he became an M.P. last year, he gave a statement to the Sunday Times of 11th October, 1970, in which he said the following. inter alia—

But we can, after all, give him dozens of figures to prove that this statement of his is absolutely wrong. I do not even want to go as far back as their day, but let me just mention one figure. In 1948 the total amount provided for White education was only R47 million, and in 1970 it was R294 million. [Interjections.] Sir, at that time the hon. member for Turffontein was wearing something altogether different. He must keep quiet, because he knows nothing about the days I am speaking about. We know that the amounts spent on schools are a tremendous increase on what they once were. Then this hon. member tells us that we are not spending enough. Let me tell him further that our subsidies to universities have increased from R1 million in 1948 to more than R31 million last year—this relates to the subsidy on current expenditure. Aid for capital needs has increased by more than R12 million in the past two years. The number of students at the universities is increasing: In 1947 there were more than 18 000, and in 1969 there were 70 000. I wonder whether the hon. member knows that university enrolment amongst our South African population amounts to 16,83 per thousand, the highest in the world? Sir, that hon. member, therefore, does not know what he is talking about if he says that this Government is not sincere in its attitude to the education of our children. The hon. member went further and said that he was disappointed, and I again want to refer to this report of the National Education Council. Here we are told very clearly, inter alia, about the National Conference on Education, which is planned for 1973, and will deal with the entire field of education.

What report is that? 1969 or 1970?

These people say that the Government does not know what it is doing, what it is busy with, what road it is following as far as the youth of South Africa is concerned, but I tell you that this Government is transforming our youth into people that any country in the world would be proud of. We are giving them what they need. Through the department this Government is conducting studies about differentiated education, as we heard this afternoon from the hon. the Minister. There was talk here of a registration board. We have been speaking about that for years. It is not coming, as the hon. member for Durban Central said in his article, as a result of his representations. [Interjections.] A scientific study was made. And we know that attention is being given to this mat ter, and that we can expect that in the near future there will be a registration board for teachers. And we do hope so, because as an ex-teacher I have the utmost respect for what these people are doing, and I think they can also obtain professional status. Then the hon. member for Durban Central also says in his article in the Sunday Times that the Government ignores the teacher and his views. Today the hon. member again had a lot to say about this. Sir, surely the hon. member ought to know that the National Education Policy Act of 1967, act No, 39 of 1967, very clearly provides in section 2 (1) (i) that—

The hon. member is shaking his head; in other words, be knew it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the Opposition welcomes the increased financial expenditure of R15 155 000 on National Education and, in particular, the increased financial assistance to universities, and bursaries for university training to the tune of R 8 789 000, as set down in the Estimates. But this hardly compensates for the increase in the number of students and scholars and for the depreciation in the value of our money. This assistance is not altogether as wonderful as it may perhaps appear to be, because while Santa Clause gives with the one hand, he takes back with the other. He does this by means of levying a sales tax on the essential purchases of State-aided schools, colleges and universities. A sales tax is even levied on purchases in respect of short term State loans, whereby the State pays 85 per cent of the costs of a project and the institution pays the remaining 15 per cent. It is estimated that on loans and subsides of R10 000, only R8 000 is applied, because R2 000 is subtracted as a result of sales tax. The sales duty affects all schools, colleges and universities. This reduces the effect and impact of State aid to universities and other institutions, and annually it amounts to hundreds and thousands of rand. We cannot afford to neglect education to such a degree. A sales duty is levied on hundreds of essential items and articles for educational use. There are, for example, school and university buses, on which a sales tax of 10 per cent to 15 per cent is levied. Office requirements and articles for commercial classes, even pencils, propelling pencils, ballpoint pens, fountain pens, inking pads, typewriters and ribbons are all taxed by 15 per cent. Laboratory requirements such as vacuum flasks, mounted lenses and telescopes, electric lamps and infrared and ultraviolet lamps are all taxed. Even watches for laboratory use have to be taxed with a 30 per cent sales duty. Language laboratories are hit by a 30 per cent sales duty in the purchase of articles such as tape recorders, tapes and record players. All universities, colleges and schools which use radio receiving sets, microphones, loudspeakers and other articles have a 30 per cent tax imposed in this respect. Thus one could go from class to class. Even in the woodwork classes there is a 30 per cent taxes on the glue they buy. In the music classes there is a 30 per cent tax on the glue they buy. In the music classes there is a 30 per cent tax on musical instruments and strings. Audio-visual aids such as projection screens and projectors carry a 15 per cent sales duty. On kitchen and laundry equipment for boarding schools and hostels, as well as on sports accessories, there is a sales duty of 15 per cent. It is a long, monotonous and bitter list that affects every facet of university, college and school activity. Loans and debts have mounted up at many private schools until recently some of them have even had to close down. I now want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to persuade the Minister of Finance, in the interests of the children's education, to urgently remove the sales duty, or to grant concessions on essential purchases of equipment and furniture for all relevant educational institutions.

I now want to say something about the South African War Graves Board, and more specifically about the activities of the Boer Graves Committee. In the Boshoff Cemetery lies the grave of a brave combat general who fought and died on the Boer side during the Anglo Boer War. He is the Frenchman, Comte de Villebois Mareuil. He organized a foreign legion with 100 foreigners, mostly Frenchmen, and 25 Boers. After the siege of Kimberley had been raised, he learned of Boshoff’s defenceless position and joined 600 Boers with two cannon in order to defend Boshoff, with a well-thought-out surprise plan against the advance of Lord Methuen with six-and-a-half battalions of troops, consisting of 1 000 mounted troups and 22 cannon. On the morning of 5th April, 1900, Gen. de Villebois Mareuil took up a position with his men on two hills on the farm Tweefontein, five miles southeast of Boshoff. Lord Methuen set out with 750 mounted soldiers, including 500 members of the Imperial Yeomanry under Lord Chesham and 250 members of the Kimberley Mounted Corps under Major King. Apart from these men, he also used his fourth battery to surround the Boer forces in the hills where they had taken up a position. A major portion of the Boers managed to escape, but Gen. de Villebois and his foreign legion very courageously held out on one hill for four hours, only surrendering after a bayonet charge reached to within 30 yards of their position. Gen. Mareuil was killed by the shrapnel from a bursting cannon shell. He died a brave death on the battlefield in the service of a cause he believed in. On the orders of Lord Methuen the loyal Lancashire Regiment arranged a military funeral with full military honours. Lord Methuen had a gravestone erected there to the honour of Gen. Mareuil. One could really not have expected more from the British soldiers. But now the Boer Graves Committee wants to dig up Gen. Mareuil’s grave and rebury him in the mass grave at Magersfontein, 40 miles from there. The family in France has been invited to attend the ceremony on Saturday, 14th August. Public opinion is opposed to this step. The inhabitants of Boshoff, including the hon. member for Fauresmith, are also opposed to it. However, the Minister has approved the application and refused a request to the contrary, although it was still possible for him to do so. It surprises me that the Minister, who comes from Boshoff, has so little feeling for the locality and its national history. I myself am strongly opposed to Gen. Mareuil being removed from the historic context of his area, the area in which his memory is held in high regard.

I fear that the same could happen to him as happened to another Boer hero, Kosie Briedenhann. Last year I referred to the violation of his grave by the Boer Graves Committee. On the farm Downs, near Campbell, his family picked up his braces, a few bones and a tooth at the grave, If the Boer Graves Committee wants to spend money they can have Gen. Mareuil’s name engraved at Magersfontein, but leave the bones of our brave heroes to their rest. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Benoni must excuse me if I do not follow him up in his arguments. I shall leave him to the mercy of the hon. the Minister. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that this side of the House stands firmly rooted in our history. We are not afraid of our history. The one sector of our population which is true to our history, and gives effect to it, is specifically those of us on this side of the House. I am afraid that I cannot always say the same for that side of the House. A few days ago when the Transvaal anthem was sung at the festivities, I noticed that some of these hon. gentlemen did not even bother to stand up.

But I want to go further. I want to remind hon. members on that side of the House, as far as education is concerned, about the conditions that prevailed under their policy and during their term of office. I am reminded very well of the fact that in 1948 there were only three fully Afrikaans-medium high schools throughout the entire Witwatersrand, from Randfontein to Springs. These three schools were the Monument High School, the Helpmekaar High School and the Voortrekker High School at Boksburg. We had to get along with junior high schools. Our children were not given the opportunity of attending full-fledged high schools. That was the legacy when we took over the reins of office.

There are a few other matters I should like to mention to the House. I should like to link up with the previous speaker in thanking the hon. the Minister and the Government for the salary increases. As far as I could determine in my area, the prevalent feeling is one of great satisfaction and gratitude. I think this will have a very favourable and salutary effect on education. The teacher himself is the best recruiter for education. He is in the unique position of being able to influence the pupils, and this goes for their choice of profession as well. The classroom is the place to recruit the right people for the teaching profession. With love and conviction he sows the seeds for that profession to which he belongs, and according to the teacher’s example the pupils desire to emulate him or her. If the teacher is satisfied and happy and can carry out his task with a feeling of security and inward peace, free of the worst financial worries, he can give not only the best to his pupils, but he can also inspire them as far as this very noble profession is concerned. I believe that conditions will gradually improve, that many teachers will return to teaching and that the teaching profession will entice those that we would like to have in that profession. We are grateful for the fact that we can have our children’s interests, and those of our teachers, in such good and competent hands as those of our esteemed Minister and the Government.

I should also like to endorse the hon. the Minister's praise for the part played by the thousands of children and teachers during the Republic festivities. It was these very children who added lustre to this festival. Behind the fine and spirited behaviour of those children, there were a large number of teachers who worked with tireless zest and toiled and sweated to make all this possible. The present-day teacher also plays a very important role in the development of our sport, not to mention the academic side of things. Several present day sportsmen were moulded in the schools where they received the coaching of a dedicated teacher to place them on the road towards their eventual achievements for the benefit of our country.

Mr. Chairman, in the second place I should like to dwell for a moment on another matter, i.e. the first-rate work that is being done by the teachers’ associations. The chief aim of the teachers’ association is to promote the interests of the teacher. The organized profession has an opportunity to make a contribution, on all levels of education, through its representatives. In the past, the teachers’ associations have made a big and unmistakable contribution, and they will continue to do so in the future, particularly with the aim of thereby promoting the status of education. I want to pay tribute to the teachers’ associations for the first-rate service they furnish to their members at present, and will continue to furnish in the future. I want to praise them for their responsible behaviour in the past. But it is unfortunately also true that there are thousands of teachers who are not members of the recognized teachers’ associations.

According to the T.O. Onderwysblad of July, 1970, there are, by calculation, about 5 000 serving teachers in the Transvaal Education Department who are not members of a recognized teachers’ association. I believe that since membership is voluntary, it is the duty of every teacher to become a member of one or other of these associations. I do not think that it is right for teachers to share in the benefits and privileges these associations have obtained for their members, while refusing to accept the obligations of membership. Here the motto “Unity is Strength” is also applicable. The teachers’ association is the best link with the Education Department. The best interests of each of the various interested groups are served. The organization of subject symposiums, discussions, meetings, the establishment of holiday resorts and the issuing of publications are all functions falling within the province of such an association’s job. I want to express the hope that the Federal Council for Teachers’ Associations in South Africa will still play an important role in the future as far as educational policy, educational planning and educational practice is concerned.

As a result of the National Education Policy Act, Act No. 39 of 1967, and the amendment Act of 1969, the Federal Council became a very important body representing teachers throughout the country, and this body has been placed on a very sound footing for the future. It is the task of the Federal Council to improve the image of the teaching profession and to promote the interests of the individual teachers. I do not want to venture too far in. this field, but I want to ask whether the time has not come to link up the teachers’ associations and place them on a national footing? Education in our country has already been placed on a national footing, and the question that arises is whether the time has not come to also place the associations on a similar footing?

In the third place I want to elaborate a little further on the status of the teacher and turn my attention to our parents. The respect the parent has for the teaching profession, and the parent’s attitude towards teachers are aspects determining the status of teachers. It is truly regrettable that there are parents who sometimes talk disrespectfully and with contempt about schools and about education. Every parent ought to realize his obligations in collaborating to develop the image of education. It is very important to note that this 1967 Act provides, inter alia, for a place to be given to the parent community in the educational systems. There is a very big field here for the parent community.

One finds it very regrettable that only a small percentage of our parents organize and integrate themselves into the parent teachers’ associations. Particularly with respect to the high schools on the Witwatersrand, which I am familiar with, one gains the impression at times that the parents do not accept this responsibility. The parents must have a say in the training and education of their children, but they must also accept the responsibility of making a positive contribution to the education of their children. Many parents evidence little or no interest in the school. This is not only detrimental to the child, but also to the school. The parents must be involved to a greater extent in every sphere of the school's activities, but particularly in the provision and collection of school funds. This task I believe to be exclusively the obligation and the responsibility of the parent community, and the teachers must be freed from this obligation in order to be able to devote themselves to their task of education. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Umbilo raised certain matters last Friday to which I should now like to reply. In the first place, he referred, on the basis of the departmental reports, to the large numbers of temporary staff, i.e. teachers, controlling staff, administrative staff and hostel staff in the Children’s Act schools in particular, and specifically the schools of industries. He then asked what the explanation for this was, and whether we could not do something about it. But before doing so, Sir, I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Durban Central had to say about this matter. On 20th April the hon. member had one of his periodic interviews with a newspaper, in this case the Cape Argus, in which the following appeared?

Sir, I do not want to speak harshly to the hon. member for Durban Central. He probably meant well, but I want to give him a piece of good advice, as a man who has had a little more experience in this House than he has. I think that on the basis of his background and his training he should be able to make a good contribution in this House, but it seems to me that he has grown entirely too fond of newspaper publicity. If he would instead do his work quietly and act in a positive way, he would be able to make a far greater contribution here and he would find his name appearing far more frequently in the newspapers on the basis of that work than by means of this kind of publicity-seeking.

Sir, what are the facts? The hon. member asked what we were doing in connection with this problem of temporary staff at these Children's Act schools. Sir, it is true that there is a great shortage of teachers and that we are making use of temporary staff. It depends on the nature of the work. I can tell you that no one who is employed at an industrial school or in any of those Children’s Act schools is having a holiday there. The task which these people are performing is an extremely difficult one; it is a labour of love which is being performed there, and the hon. member for Umbilo will know what I mean when I say that. The work being done there is work of a difficult kind.

For that reason the teaching staff, as well as the controlling staff at Children’s Act schools and schools for special education which fall under my Department, are receiving a pensionable allowance of one additional notch, in view of the degree of difficulty of the work they are doing. Sir, this is not an arbitrary allocation or a deviation from the salary policy, as the hon. member for Durban Central alleged in his Press interview.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? On what grounds are teachers who are doing the same type of work in special classes at normal schools denied that R15 per month? They are doing the same work.

Sir, the reply is very simple. They are not doing the same kind of work. I shall come to that in a moment. I do not know what experience the hon. member has had, but if he will accept an invitation to visit one of these Children’s Act schools to see what is going on there, that should prove to him in the best and most convincing way that the statement he has now made does not tally with the actual facts. I shall deal with this matter now. I maintain that that additional allowance of one notch which those people are receiving in addition to their salaries, was granted in conjunction with the Inter-departmental Advisory Committee on Educational Services which, as the hon. member for Durban Central knows, is a sub-committee of the Committee of Educational heads.

The Public Service Commission also recommended it, and the Treasury approved it. In other words, it was first passed by the body on which the teachers are represented. They agreed to this additional allowance being paid to these people, and it is not being paid without reason. The hon. member has now stated that the work being done in special classes at normal schools is the same kind of work. Does the hon. member realize that the people in the Children’s Act schools board with those children, that they sleep, eat, teach and maintain supervision there, and that they are on duty day and night, 24 hours out of the 24, while the teacher taking special classes at provincial schools merely teaches, and is not at all subject to the same extent to this considerable stress and strain. You must remember that the children attending Children’s Act schools are in most cases children who have been committed. Unfortunately there are some of them who verge on being criminals. It is a far more difficult task which these people are performing than a teacher of a special class in a primary school or a high school. That is why all these bodies agreed that an additional allowance should be paid to these people. If the hon. member now claims that my Department is robbing teachers by paying this additional allowance, then I say that he does not know what he is talking about

I can mention specific cases. May I ask another question? Is the hon. the Minister aware that the teachers holding special classes for children who are hard of hearing are doing precisely the same work as that which takes place in an ordinary school?

I am well aware that in Natal, and also in the Cape Province, there are classes for children who are hard of hearing exist.

That is precisely the same work.

No, it is not precisely the same work. It is the same work when they are actually teaching in the classrooms, but after that it is quite a different matter. I want to emphasize again that an additional allowance is being granted here with the knowledge and the consent of all these bodies. Now I am asking this hon. Committee to weigh up the opinion of the hon. member for Durban Central in regard to this matter against that of all these bodies I have mentioned and then to decide for itself which way the scales should tip.

I want to say to the hon. member for Umbilo that it is a problem. It is a major problem with which the Department is struggling. But I think he must have faith, as we do, that we shall find the solution when we all put our minds to work on and co-operate on this matter.

The second point raised by the hon. member for Umbilo was in regard to the bursaries which are being granted to matriculants from Children’s Act schools, enabling them to do post matriculation study. You will note, Sir, that under subhead M of the Estimates provision is being made for 25 bursaries which, for appropriation purposes, are being calculated at R800 each. These are intended for such children at Children’s Act schools but who have displayed such aptitude, mental ability and character traits whilst attending those schools that it is felt they can benefit from studying further at colleges or at universities. The State felt that it should do something to make it possible for those children as well to further their studies after matriculation. The hon. member asked how they are being screened. I can inform hon. members that the screening of those students is being done jointly by the Department of Social Welfare and ‘he Department of National Education. They are doing it in consultation with the school principals. Obviously indigence plays a major role, but so does the child’s school achievements, his character traits, his perseverance and all the factors which gives one an indication of a child’s determination to make the best of those facilities being placed at his disposal. The hon. member pointed out that it is difficult for these children, for example, to gain admission to the medical faculties of universities. This is true, but it does not only apply to medical faculties. I can assure hon. members that there are certain universities—I do not want to mention names unnecessarily—which only admit students, for example, who had an average of 50 per cent or more at school. In other words, there are many other good matriculants who are being excluded from attending such a university. This is one of the privileges the universities enjoy and which they set great store by. The so-called autonomy of the universities is such that they control the admission of students. I cannot therefore intervene in that sphere. I can just mention to the hon. member that one of our colleagues in this Parliament, living here in the Cape, was for example, unable to have his son enrolled at the university to which he wanted to send him. He was unable to send him there as a result of this requirement set by the university. It is therefore not only children from schools of industries and schools which fall under the Children’s Act in regard to whom these problems are being experienced.

I want to inform the hon. member that admission to medical faculties has increased considerably. The Government, as the hon. member knows, decided that the number of students who qualify annually at the existing medical faculties must eventually be doubled. With a view to that, expansions are in progress at all the existing medical faculties. Obviously the effect of this cannot be determined at this early stage, for this programme, of course, extends over a period of five to six years. The expansion is well under way and we shall therefore have results. In due course the new faculty of medicine established at the Free State University will also produce results. There will then be more openings for students, so that more students may be enrolled.

The hon. member also asked, more specifically, what the standpoint of the Government is in regard to a White medical school at the University of Natal. In this regard I want to point out that the Monnig Commission recommended that a medical faculty ought to be established at the Free State University, This has already been agreed to. In addition the Monnig Commission found that the University of Natal and the Rand Afrikaans University could cope with a medical faculty. Up to now the Government has taken no further decision in regard to this matter. Representations in regard to a medical faculty have in fact been received from both the University of Natal and the Rand Afrikaans University, and certain investigations are being instituted into medical training. The fact is that no further decisions have been taken in regard to this matter. I am afraid that the hon. member and those on behalf of whom he inquired here will have to exercise patience. This matter is in any case being studied at the highest level.

I come now to the hon. member for Springs. He is not here because he had to leave for the Transvaal last Friday. He asked me to make his apologies for not being able to be here. He asked whether the survey of social life which the Directorate of Cultural Affairs undertook, could also be made available to M.P.s. I want to inform him that the information is being processed on behalf of two subcommittees of the National Cultural Council, i.e. the one for communication and the other for cultural dissemination. In the form in which it will then be made available, M.P.s and other interested persons will in fact be able to get to see it.

He also asked whether it was not possible for my Department to establish a camping site for the East Rand where, he said, youth leadership courses and recreational camps could then be arranged. If hon. members know of any scenic spots where such camps could be established, we would appreciate it if they would bring it to my attention. Hon. members will of course realize, as I do, that it is impossible to establish a camp in every area, owing to the high costs involved. There will inevitably have to be centralization.

In the third place he asked why only R100 appears in the Estimates for the purchase of art treasures. My reply to that is that this is merely a small amount in order to maintain the item on the Estimates. If there are art treasures available and these are purchased, provision is made for that in the revised Estimates.

In conclusion he then asked me why a Verwoerd Award was not made to an English writer this year during the Republic Festival. I am sorry that I have to disclose the facts in regard to this matter. However, I am grateful that it can be done after the festivities are over. I must say that the reply I have to furnish in this regard, gives rise to a very serious question, one in regard to which each one of us has to give an account. Hon. members will recall that at the time when the prize was introduced by the Government, it was said that at every Republican Festival a prize of R1 000 would be allocated in each section, in the Afrikaans as well as in the English section. My Department, who administers this matter, approached the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns to appraise the works which have appeared over the last five years and to make a recommendation in respect of Afrikaans. Some of the hon. members attended the Republican Festival, and they saw Prof. S. A. Louw of the University of Pretoria winning this prize for his work “Die Afrikaanse Taalatlas”. In the announcement I made I said that the counterpart of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns, the English Academy of South Africa, did not see its way clear to making a recommendation in regard to a work in English, and consequently no award could be made this year. The hon. member for Springs asked me what the reason for this was. Now I want to inform hon. members, and I regret having to do so, that the reason was that the English Academy wrote to my Department in March of this year, and I quote from their letter—

Disgraceful!

The hon. members for Boksburg and Potchefstroom asked whether there was not another method of determining how an engineering faculty could be allocated to one of the universities which did not have such a faculty. Hon. members will recall that there were two reports on engineering training—the Straszacker Report and the A. W. Schumann Report. The Cabinet accepted the recommendations of the latter report, which in the first place amount to there being an expansion of the facilities of the existing engineering faculties. This is being proceeded with, and reasonably good progress is being made. In the second place the Cabinet decided that the recommendation should be accepted that those universities which do not have engineering faculties could in fact continue to offer training in engineering up to the second year of study, but within the faculty of natural sciences. Students would then be able to obtain a B.Sc. degree which was engineering-oriented, and subsequently be able to attend a university which did in fact have an engineering faculty. The implementation of that recommendation is at present receiving attention from the universities. I must say that there has been considerable criticism in regard to the practicability of this recommendation. Cognizance has also been taken of considerable problems in this regard. I want to tell those hon. members who are interested in this, that if these problems are really as serious as they seem to be, the Cabinet will probably have to consider whether this matter cannot be accomplished in some other way.

The hon. member for De Aar referred to the bilingualism tests for the promotion of teachers. I want to tell him that this is actually a practice which applies only in the Cape. At this stage I cannot, to my deep regret, do anything about it. However, this matter relates to the more general problems in connection with the training and the certification of teachers. When we have reached the stage at which co-ordination in that connection has been achieved, it will be possible to give attention to this matter.

The hon. members for Boksburg, Algoa, Hercules and Bloemfontein-West mentioned the behaviour of certain students at our South African universities. They asked whether it was not possible to take steps against them, perhaps even by way of a reduction in the grants to these universities. This is an extremely important matter which was brought up for discussion here. At present the State is spending at least R1 000 per annum per student in South Africa, money which the taxpayer has to pay out of his own pocket. I find it quite natural that there should be a reaction from members of the public in general to the behaviour of some of these students. This does not mean that these people want to deprive the students of the right to protest or to differ in the sphere of politics, because that is a right which we in this country acknowledge. However, I can quite understand that the taxpayer, who has to stump up at least R1 000 per year for each of those students, will rebel against the idea that there are students at some of our South African universities who are disturbing the peace there, who are making it difficult for lecturers to undertake their research work, and who are making it difficult for other students, who do in fact want to study, to do so. I can understand quite well why certain hon. members have even advocated the measures they did. However, I want to refer to the type of argument one comes across in this connection. The leading article which appeared on 7th June in the Argus in pursuance of this matter stated for example—

There is therefore no possibility of curtailing the rights of any citizen to protest in a political sphere. There are few students attending universities in our country who are not 18 years old, and it is the full right of any 18-year-old in this country to speak out strongly in regard to any aspects of policy. He is not being deprived of that right. The feeling which has been aroused, has been aroused against those people who want to protest in a different way to the way in which the laws of the country allow them to protest.

I want to read something to you, Sir, from an article on The Crisis in American Education by Mr. Roger Freeman, who is Special Assistant to the President of the United States, and leave it at that. I am quoting from the publication entitled Vital Speeches of the Day, dated 15th July, 1970. He said—

I think that all sensible people in South Africa will associate themselves with what Mr. Roger Freeman said on this subject with reference to student disturbances in America. I think that we want to apply it to our situation in South Africa too. I maintain that I can understand why people are thinking in this direction. However, I want to add that at the present moment we have a commission of inquiry into the universities in this country. I think that it would be wise to wait and see what the findings of this commission of inquiry into universities are going to be, inter alia in regard to these matters as well, before we take any hasty decisions. With that, I have dealt with this topic.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Durban Central. He accused me of not replying to his questions satisfactorily. I want to tell the hon. member that I am sorry if this is the impression he gained. Perhaps he does not know, as a member who has not been in this House for long, that it is the duty of the Minister to reply to the question as put. Perhaps it was not my unwillingness to reply to his question, but his inability to state the question precisely, so that I could reply to it. The hon. member is laughing at this, but this is quite honestly what I mean. The hon. House will remember that I replied to a question of his today. Actually I should have stopped after I had said: “No: (a), (b) and (c) fall away." Then, out of consideration for the hon. member, I added that my Department had not purchased land for those schools, but that other bodies had in fact done so. According to the rules of this House. I did not need to tell the hon. member that. I therefore think that the hon. member is suspecting me unnecessarily. He has the problem all researchers have. To obtain data is extremely difficult; to supply data in the form in which the researcher wants it, is also extremely difficult. In addition to that the hon. member must remember that I, as Minister of National Education, determine the general policy on the advice of certain advisory bodies established in terms of the Act, and that I also have to respect certain demarcated spheres. I am not supposed to venture into the sphere of the provinces as far as these matters are concerned. I cannot tell them that they must furnish me with these particulars. Take the universities for example. Their census-taking time is June of every year. The hon. member for Umbilo put a question to me in which he required certain particulars relating to universities. I told him that I was unable to supply him with those particulars, because the universities did not have them at their disposal. Their census-taking time is June of every year. The hon. member did not mean it in this way, but I think he will understand why it is not always possible to reply to the question as put by him.

But I want to come to the other matter he raised, i.e. the question of differentiated education about which I had something to say earlier this afternoon. I am glad he approves of it in so far as he has been able to make a rapid appraisal of it. The hon. member put a few specific questions, for example whether the teachers were consulted. whether the universities were consulted and whether the needs of trade and industry in that respect were taken into account. Now I want to inform the hon. member that in the bodies that advise me, that is in the Educational Council and also in the sub-committees of the Committee of Educational Heads, there are teachers serving who still, as he said, know the classroom situation, and that they expressed their opinions there. Of course it is not possible for me to consult every teacher, but their representative bodies were in fact thoroughly consulted in this respect. Obviously, the needs of the universities were also taken into account. The universities are represented on the Joint Matriculation Board. Because this matter also related to the linking of schools to universities, we had to consult the universities. This is one of the reasons why I was not able this afternoon to elaborate more specifically on this policy of differentiated education.

The hon. member also asked why Std. 5 was not transferred physically to the high school. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to go out and advocate this? In our set-up, as we know it at present. I do not think it is a likely matter of practical importance to advocate this at this stage, because we will immediately, by so doing, have all the rural areas schools up in arms against a policy in regard to which the success is more important in the interests of education.

You must get a move on now.

The hon. the Leader of the House has said that I must get a move on now. I shall gladly do so, but I cannot omit to react to what the hon. member for Benoni said. The hon. member for Benoni discussed the matter of sales duty and said that I should plead with the hon. the Minister of Finance for the exemption of educational equipment from sales duty. Why does the hon. member not plead this matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance himself?

The hon. member for Benoni again raised the question of the South African War Graves Board. He referred to the disinterment and the re-interment of the remains of Count De Villebois Mareuil of Boshof. The hon. member also mentioned the fact that I knew Boshof. I just want to tell him that I was not born in Boshof; I taught there for a long time. I can inform the House that many of the particulars raised here by the hon. member this afternoon, were particulars which I communicated to him in a personal conversation.

Oh no, I communicated them to you.

The hon. member is now saying that he communicated them to me. Sir, I spent 11 years of my life at Boshof. I think I can with a clear conscience state that I probably know the history of the Count De Villebois Mareuil and his grave which is situated there better than the hon. member does. That matter was brought before me shortly after I became Minister. The War Graves Board wanted to disinter the remains of De Villebois Mareuil and re-inter them at Magersfontein. I said in this same debate last year that there was a difference of opinion in regard to the centralization of war graves and burgher graves. It is not only in South Africa that there is a difference of opinion; there is also a difference of opinion overseas. In Flanders, Austria, Germany and France—wherever there are war graves - there is a vehement difference of opinion in this regard, but practical considerations for the most part form the decisive factor. As far as this specific case is concerned, I said, because I know Boshof and because I know the Boshof people, that I wanted more information about this case. I asked why it was necessary for the remains of De Villebois Mareuil, which are lying in the town cemetery, to be disinterred and re-interred at Magersfontein. I received the reply to that, and I have the facts before me, that his family in France and family of his in the Malagasy Republic prefer this and that they have been invited to the reinterment and that they will attend it. I have also been informed that the City Council of Boshof have agreed to 1bis reinterment; that the provincial administration of the Free State have agreed to it and now the hon. member for Benoni comes along…

Who has never yet heard of Boshof.

No, he does know something about Boshof. His late father came from the Boshof area. Perhaps he still has property there, but he does not live there. The hon. member said that public opinion was opposed to this. I want to ask him how he gauged public opinion. I received one letter in regard to this matter, and another person discussed it with me personally, apart from the hon. member himself. How did he gauge public opinion? Sir, I shall tell you how he gauged it.

What does the hon. member for Fauresmith say?

I asked the hon. member for Fauresmith as well, I have here a letter from the town council of Boshof, stating (translation)—

This the town council, as a responsible body, did, and after they had done so, they let me know that they were satisfied that this matter could be proceeded with. Only then did I give my consent.

Mr. Chairman, I conclude by thanking everyone who participated in this debate sincerely. I think that we have had a good debate on this very wide field of education, and I am grateful that we have not always been negative, but that we have in many respects also been able to discuss these matters positively.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 42.—201C;Planning”, R17 547 000, and 44. — “Statistics”, R4 000 000, Loan Vote H— “Planning”, R9 000 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 24.— “Planning”, R172 000:

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? Mr. Chairman, I am entering this debate on the Planning Vote to reply to a challenge made to me through the Press and elsewhere by the hon. the Prime Minister, reiterating challenges made by the hon. the Leader of the House and the Minister of Community Development, as to the wisdom or otherwise of Cabinet Ministers owning shares in public companies and as to the wisdom of their participating in decisions affecting those companies when they were shareholders in the said companies. Sir, the opinion of the Government was stated by the Leader of the House and by the Minister of Community Development and amounted to this. They would buy what shares they wished in public companies regardless of the numbers involved, although they did not say so, and regardless of whether those companies had contracts with their departments or not.

Not with the departments—with the Government.

No, no. The hon. the Minister may say “with the Government”; I say regardless of whether they had contracts with the departments or not; there was no distinction made.

I said “with the Government” in my speech.

Very well, the hon. the Minister said “with the Government”; I say “with the departments”. That is what I want to talk about. Sir, as it happens I have strong views on this issue and I believe that they are relevant under this Vote because there is no Vote which has more to do with the private interests of companies and individuals than the Planning Vote and the activities of the Minister of Planning. He, Sir, is responsible for the proclamation of group areas; he is appealed to when they have to be reproclaimed or altered. He is the Minister who administers the Physical Planning Act, and I see that he has made many hundreds of decisions in the last year, according to the report of his department, concerning that particular Act. Sir, I want to make two points plain before I start. The first is that I am not discussing corruption, and the second is that I am not much interested in past practices. [Laughter.] Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised at the nervous laughter, because there has been a considerable change in our traditions in this House, even over the period that I have been in this House, concerning what Ministers could and could not do.

There has been no change.

The hon. the Minister says that there has been no change. I will prove how wrong he is. He is usually wrong when he interjects. In 1944 there was no rule in this House that Ministers could not hold directorships in public companies while they were in the Cabinet. Did the hon. the Minister know that? He was in the House then. Then as the result of a debate initiated by the late Dr. Donges, the late Gen. Smuts came out very strongly and said that he was opposed to Cabinet Ministers holding directorships in public companies. In the 1950's that rule was changed again and it was decided, although there had been no firm rule in the past, that Ministers should not hold directorships in public companies other than mutual life assurance associations and newspapers. Then it was changed again. It was changed in 1962 when, as the result of a private motion in this House, there were discussions—inter alia. discussions between the then Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, and myself—on the propriety of Ministers holding directorships in those two types of companies.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT; But we are concerned about shareholding, not directorships.

I will come to shareholding. The hon. the Minister must not get so nervous.

I am not getting nervous

When did that discussion to which you referred take place?

In 1962, as far as I remember, after the private motion introduced by Mr. P. A. Moore, the then member for Kensington. The hon. the Prime Minister I believe then further restricted the right of Cabinet Ministers to hold directorships in mutual life assurance associations but he would not go further in respect of newspapers to my very great regret.

No newspaper wants you.

Sir interference of the Government in our everyday lives and our businesses is growing all the time. If the hon. the Leader of the House tells me that since he has been a member no restriction has been placed on holding shares in public companies I accept that that has been his experience.

Over all the years—in your time too.

I am not so sure about that.

I can quote instances.

I have some instances too. Sir, that may be good enough for the hon. the Leader of the House. I want to tell him quite frankly it is not good enough for me. It is not good enough in other countries I know about, and I do not believe it should be good enough for South Africa. Now, what standards should we apply in this matter?

When did you find this out?

I believe we should go, as a preliminary guide, to the rules laid down by the late Sir Winston Churchill when he was Prime Minister in the House of Commons in 1952.

This is not the House of Commons.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF; No, but it would be well to follow some of its practices. We would have a lot less trouble if we did. The first rule is this—

That is most important—

The rule goes on. I do not want to waste time and I will leave out a portion. Then I come to the third rule—

Then comes the fourth rule—

Now, that is a rule which applies, of course, in certain other bodies. Company directors have to make full disclosure when purchases are made. Town councillors have to make full disclosure if they participate in any decisions, and I think we are considering legislation now where stockbrokers will have to make full disclosure if they issue circulars about shares to their clients.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT; What about farmers in the Cabinet? Must they withdraw from the Cabinet when we are discussing the price of agricultural products?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF; I will deal with this hon. gentleman later. I am coming to some of his problems. Then there is the rule for directorships, stated very widely and embracingly and then comes the question of shareholding—

Controlling!

It continues—

That rule is further expanded later in some other rules I am coming to. I should like to read the last of the Churchill Rules—

Now Sir. I said that I believed that we should be prepared to go further than the Churchill Rules I say that on the authority of the present Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Gorton, who had to deal with several matters of this kind over the years. I want to read from “The Parliamentarian’’ for July, 1970, certain of his statements on this subject. He stated in reply to a question without notice in March, 1969, that in accordance with the practice of past Governments there was no prohibition on Ministers in his Government holding shares in oil or mineral companies. He stated, however, that the Minister for National Development, that is, the man who had to deal with those companies… had at great personal sacrifice divested himself of shares in the type of company mentioned, because he felt it improper to hold them and remain in the Ministry with that particular portfolio. In reply to a further question in 1969, Mr. Gorton advised that he had been assured by members of the Ministry that none of them held directorships in any public company. And then— this is the important one—in May, 1970, he confirmed the statement he had previously made when he said—

He obviously goes further than the Churchill Rules. He obviously confines it to cases where there is negotiation with the Government and quite clearly to cases where there is negotiation with a particular department.

There are other countries that have had to go even further. In the United States of America members of the Civil Service— and I believe those include the Cabinet because the Cabinet there is not elected as it is here from members of Congress—are expected to file with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct a report disclosing certain financial interests as provided in that rule. The interests of a spouse or any other party if constructively controlled by the person reporting shall be considered to be the same as the interest of the person reporting. They are called upon to give connections in any business entity doing substantial business with the Federal Government or subject to Federal regulatory agencies. They are also l upon to list the fair market value of each item listed and the income derived therefrom. Certain of that information is sealed and filed and only opened in the event of there being any necessity therefor by any investigating committee.

One government has decided that Ministers should furnish annually by the 31st March to the Prime Minister a declaration regarding their assets and liabilities for each year while they are in office. I wonder whether that is not a rule which we here in South Africa should consider. I wonder whether the right rule would not be to accept the Churchill Rules as expanded by Mr. Gorton of Australia and to add that each Minister shall furnish annually to the Prime Minister a detailed statement of his assets and liabilities, which the Prime Minister shall refer to such officer or adviser as he thinks fit for scrutiny and report. When the hon. member for South Coast was appointed Administrator of Natal he was called upon by Gen. Smuts to divest himself of a business which he owned.

Did Gen. Smuts divest himself of his shares?

Wait a moment; do not be in such a hurry. The hon. member for South Coast was asked to divest himself of a business which he owned. I know also that there was a Mr. O’Brien in Pietermaritzburg who, I am told, the Genera] wanted in his Cabinet. He would however, not divest himself of his business interests and the General refused to appoint him. I know also that, when the late Mr. Mushet was appointed to the Cabinet, he was called upon by Gen. Smuts to divest himself of his shares. I happen to know this, because those shares were sold to my brother, who was shown a letter from Gen. Smuts instructing Mr. Mushet to rid himself of control of his business and to sell his shares.

What is the position today, Sir? The position is a perfectly simply one. We have more interference with the private lives and the business activities of individuals than we have ever had under any other government in South Africa. Therefore Ministers must be placed, far more often than in the past, in positions where they have to make decisions concerning public companies in respect of which they may or may not be shareholders. They may often have to make decisions as well in respect of public companies of which they are shareholders doing extensive business with their own departments. One may also be faced with the fact that Ministers may have to take decisions which will have a tremendous effect on the financial interests of those companies, despite the fact that they are shareholders of them. This matter is the responsibility of the Prime Minister. No House has ever attempted to lay down rules. I believe that the Indian Government did attempt to lay down rules for its ministers and for its members, but our tradition here has been that it is in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day. We cast a very big responsibility on certain of the servants of the State. The Prime Minister knows better than anybody else that no member of the Police Force is allowed to hold shares in a liquor company. That is in the regulations, as a result of the Hoexter report, which became available in 1950 or 1952. There was no question of abuse, but it was felt that a situation should not be created where interests and duty could conflict.

I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that he is responsible for the conduct of the members of his Cabinet. I am in the position where I can only say this: If I were in his position, I would not be satisfied with the rules as I understand them, and as they were enunciated by the Leader of the House and the Minister of Community Development. Those rules do not cover the number of shares or the question of controlling interest in companies. They have no regard as to whether those shares were held before those companies were doing business with the departments of either of the Ministers concerned. As a result questions have been raised which I felt, deserve the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to say to him that if I were in his place, the rules that I would insist upon would be the Churchill Rules, as varied by the suggestion made by Mr. Gorton of Australia, with the addition that there should be an annual declaration of interests made to the Prime Minister of the day so that he will have available all the facts for scrutiny and report by any officer whom he thinks fit. I have been asked for my views: those are my views and I hold them very strongly.

Mr. Chairman, this matter first came to the fore as a result of the very distasteful way in which it was raised by the hon. member for Port Natal. The hon. the Minister of Community Development raised the matter on the floor of the House and referred to the insinuations contained in what the hon. member had said. As far as I can remember, he asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he agreed with the hon. member and with his point of view in this regard.

You are not quite right.

I was not in the House at that juncture. I also understand that the hon. the Leader of the House, as a senior member of the Government, put his point of view and that of the Government. I understand that he also called upon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to put his point of view. As usual, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said he would do so, but did not.

He has done so now.

Yes, I shall come to that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity then to do so while it was relevant, but he did not do so. I know why he did not do so. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along today and takes part in this debate very piously. He now tells us that he feels very strongly about this matter. If one feels so strongly about this matter. I am astonished that one does not raise it at the very first opportunity that presents itself. The hon. the Leader had that opportunity when the matter was debated here. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition felt so strongly about it, why did he not raise it when the hon. the Leader of the House practically begged him to put his point of view? That is what I think of the hon. the Leader’s point of view that all of a sudden he now feels very strongly about this matter.

Now I may ask him since when he has been feeling so strongly about the holding of shares. I may ask him this, for I have, after all, been sitting in this House since 1953. In the course of that time we have had several discussions across the floor of this House about what the position of Ministers should be as regards directorships of press concerns. We have always adopted the attitude on both sides of this House that Ministers should not be directors of companies, with three exceptions. Firstly, a Minister has the right to be a members of a press company.

Why?

hon. members should not be in too great a hurry to ask me why this is the case, for in a moment I shall give them examples which will make them feel ashamed of themselves, if they are capable of feeling ashamed. The attitude has been that you can be a director of a press company. Then a Minister can be a director of a mutual assurance company and he can retain an interest in a family or private business. These are the three exceptions that were made. We debated this matter across the floor of this House for years while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition occupied that position. Never was any voice raised in this House against shareholding in public companies.

Mention the debates to us. When did they take place?

Since I came to this House there have been two debates in this connection. One of them I handled myself on the instructions of the late Dr. Verwoerd. [Interjection.] Never was any thing raised in connection with shareholding in public companies. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has come along and taken a stand. After members on his side, and the press that supports him, tried to cause a stink over this matter, after the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself was not innocent of this kind of practice in the last election, the hon. the Leader adopts a very pious attitude in connection with this matter. As a result of the publicity given to it, as a result of the insinuations made in certain English-language newspapers, it is necessary for the whole history of this matter to be placed on record.

Now I want to say at once that, as far as Prime Ministers are concerned, I have gone into the matter. From Gen. Botha’s time up to this day there has not been a single Prime Minister who did not have shares in public companies. Gen. Botha had shares. Gen. Smuts had shares in companies ranging from O.K. Bazaars to De Beers and Dr. Malan had banking and industrial shares. Mr. Strydom had, inter alia, press and banking shares. Dr. Verwoerd had press, industrial and banking shares. There has not been a single Prime Minister since 1910 who did not have shares. This is reflected in the inventories of their estates.

Jan Haak as well, then.

I am coming to that. Nobody ever said anything about it—but now, all of a sudden, after the stink has been caused and the way has been paved for them, it is, according to the Sunday papers, a mortal sin for me to possess certain shares as well. I do possess those shares. I bought them just as any other member on that side of the House bought his shares. I now want to adopt the standpoint here that in bur South African politics it has never been regarded as a transgression for any Prime Minister to have shares and they have all had them.

But I want to go further. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there has never been a single Minister, whether under the United Party Government or under this Government, who did not have shares in public companies. I could not find a single one who did not possess shares. But let me put it very clearly now in the days when we were in opposition our sense of decency prevented us from trying to cause a stink about it.

For the record, and because it is always being insinuated that Ministers on this side of the House are favouring themselves or their companies, let us just take a look at the history of that side of the House for a moment. Sir, you will remember that there was great hostility—I want to say this to Gen. Hertzog’s credit—between Gen. Hertzog and Nasionale Pers. But in the days when Gen. Hertzog was Prime Minister of the United Party, Nasionale Pers printed Hansard. However, the moment Gen. Hertzog left in 1939—hon. members can look up these Hansards and they will find it there—Die Suiderstem. of which a Minister, Minister Conroy, was chairman, and in which all other Ministers, as far as I have been able to ascertain. had shares—in the Unie-volkspers— suddenly received the contract for not only the Afrikaans Hansard, but the English Hansard as well. It was taken away from Nasionale Pers. [Time expired.]

I rise to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to continue.

I appreciate it. I am saying that this was the way things were handled in the time of the United Party. As a matter of interest, Sir, you will see that when the National Party came into power in 1948 they retained their contract because the party was afraid of being accused of giving preference to its own press. Die Suiderstem retained that contract until it went bankrupt. I am not laying this at the door of the hon. member now, because he did not make that insinuation, but I am laying it at the door of other people inside and outside this House who are always pointing a finger at the Government in this connection. I remember very well that the rule was that in respect of press companies, mutual assurance companies and your private business you could be a director and you could have certain interests. But I remember very well that a Minister reported to Dr. Verwoerd in the early sixties that he had been approached to become a director of a mutual assurance company, and asked whether it met with his approval. Dr. Verwoerd then had the Government consider that whole matter. The Cabinet’s decision was that, although it had been quite in order to be a director of a mutual assurance company in the past, they now tended to invest over a wide field and had deviated from their original purpose. Therefore it was better for Ministers not to become directors. At that time Mr. Sauer was still a director of the Old Mutual and the late Mr. Eric Louw was a director of Sanlam, and it was decided that they could stay on for as long as the case might be, but that new Ministers would not be allowed to become directors.

When was that?

If I remember correctly, it was in 1962, at the beginning of the sixties.

As a result of the motion?

No, it had absolutely nothing to do with that motion. It was a discussion which took place in Pretoria when Parliament was not in session. [Interjections.] I repeat that I was present at the discussion. The hon. member was not there. It was in Pretoria, and naturally it was after the session, because one is in Pretoria after a session. I am saying that this is the standpoint which the Government adopted; it is the standpoint which I adopt, and it is the rule in respect of directorships.

But there is the question of interest in a company. At the time Mr. Jan Haak was appointed by Dr. Verwoerd, Mr. Haak had extensive interests in diamond mining developments. I personally know that Dr. Verwoerd told him that he would not only have to relinquish his directorship, but he would have to divest himself of his entire interest in these developments, because this was necessitated by his specific portfolio, i.e. Mines. When I was Minister of Justice I specifically refrained front having any interest in any liquor undertaking because it did not become a Minister of Justice, and my colleague, the present Minister of Justice, also adheres to that. But when it comes to other Ministers, I am now putting this question, because I should like to know this from the Leader of the Opposition. As always, he said he would come to it and would reply to the question but he never came to it. The Minister of Transport asked him the question: What about farmers?

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

Evening Silting

Mr. Chairman, as I have said, there has not been a single Prime Minister or Minister since 1910 who did not hold shares, but this is the first time since 1910 that the matter has been raised in such a distasteful manner as was done here by the hon. member for Port Natal. For the first time it has been raised by a section of the English-language press in the manner in which it was raised in this case, with the insinuations connected with it. Formerly there was not only respect, but also acceptance of one’s integrity; there was respect for one’s private affairs. Let me give you one example, Sir, and my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate this: De Beers had large, profitable contracts with the Department of Defence. Gen. Smuts was Minister of Defence. He held shares to the value of R30 000 in De Beers, but no one ever made any insinuation against his integrity; no one ever dared say that because he had those shares he gave preference to De Beers, because we do not know that sort of thing in our public life. I now want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition frankly what I would have expected of him and what I in fact expected of him; I would have expected that, when this matter was raised and when the newspapers wrote about it in that vein, he should, for the sake of the decency of our public life, have taken a stand and said that it had always been the case in South Africa and that no one had ever been guilty of enriching himself or bestowing favours. Sir, let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I am ultimately responsible for every Minister who sits in the Cabinet. I am responsible for them and I accept the integrity of each of them. There is not a single one whose integrity I do not accept. I also want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I am not aware of anyone ever having abused his position to gain advantages for himself or anyone else. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows my standpoint in that connection very well.

But, Sir, in the nature of things there is not a single business undertaking which is not at some time or another affected by decisions of the Government, whether by way of legislation or otherwise. Take the case, Sir, of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, to whom the hon. the Leader of the Opposition never came. Ministers of Agriculture have always been farmers, as far as I know, except for Mr. Strauss, but Mr. Strauss also had interests in real estate and farming. Surely it would be ridiculous for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell him that he should withdraw from any discussion on agriculture. I magine, Sir, that you have to discuss agricultural matters and that the Minister of Agriculture, because he is a farmer and has a farm and interests, may not attend the discussion. If the argument advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is right, a Minister will not even have the right to invest money in a building society because for reaching decisions are taken with regard to building societies. Then the Minister will not have the right to have any interest in trusts—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows a lot about trusts—because the Government takes decisions concerning them. Surely the matter cannot be judged and dealt with in this ill-considered manner. As far as this matter is concerned. I want to say that I have the fullest confidence in the integrity of my colleagues, of the people sitting on my side of the House. I can understand very well, after having delved into the past to some extent, why my friend the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said he was not interested in what had been done in the past. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister has stated his point of view and frankly has disappointed me to some extent in what he said. He has dealt with shareholdings in public companies generally. I was at pains to point out that there are shareholdings and shareholdings. One of the cases I hoped he would deal with was shareholdings in a public company doing business with the Minister’s own department. A second case I wanted the hon. gentleman to deal with was where the Minister concerned had a controlling interest in a company doing business either with the Government or his own department. Other cases I was anxious the hon. the Prime Minister should deal with were those where a Minister may be thought to have peculiar knowledge and nevertheless invests in a company.

What do you mean by “peculiar”?

The hon. gentleman wants to know what I mean by “peculiar”. I refer to knowledge about which it would be presumed that a Minister might know as to future developments in his own department or in the Government, for that matter.

Then I wanted to suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister that he indicated the reasons why it was decided to discontinue ministerial directorship in mutual life assurance companies.

By the way, the decision was taken on 11th June, 1964. I checked it during the dinner hour.

Thank you, Sir. The hon. gentleman indicated why that decision was taken. I wonder whether we have not reached the stage with some of the newspaper companies that their proliferation is so great that they are today in the same position as mutual life assurance companies. The hon. the Prime Minister has reiterated the question of the Leader of the House: What is the position in respect of a farmer who is Minister of Agriculture? It is perfectly simple, Sir. In so far as he is interested in the fixing of prices, he reveals his interests to the Prime Minister, explains the position and asks whether it is felt that he should go on to participate in fixing prices in agriculture… [Interjections.] There may be one Minister of Agriculture who is a dairy farmer. There is no reason why he should not participate in the fixing of mealie prices.

Not the dairy prices?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF; When he fixes dairy prices, he must declare his interests and then he can go on with it. The hon. the Prime Minister then knows what the situation is. I am very satisfied that if that hon. Minister had a corner in making railway trucks, he should not be Minister of Transport.

I agree with you; I am a man of integrity. That is the difference.

The difference of what? Are you suggesting that I am not?

You are making insinuations.

I am making no insinuations; I am trying to answer a rather stupid question put by an hon. Minister who does not seem to understand the situation. If a man has an interest, it is his duty to declare it and the Prime Minister decides whether he will go on or not.

Do you object to his having shares in Roberts Construction?

I have no idea what Roberts Construction does. Nor do I know anything else about it. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that we know that he is a farmer, that we know that most of his farming interests are in the hands of his sons and that we know that the Prime Minister knows what his interests are. There is no question why the hon. the Minister of Agriculture should not participate in price fixing. I know what the hon. the Minister of Transport is arguing for. He is trying to say that nobody can sit in the Cabinet and take decisions. He is being a bit ridiculous.

That is what you say.

No. I have stated my rule perfectly clearly. I abide by that. If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to say anything further, I am happy.

Order! Before listening to any further hon. members in this connection, I want to say that we are dealing with the Planning and Statistics Votes. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has, in respect of the hon. the Minister of Planning, raised the question of shares and directorships in this Committee. This is a very delicate matter and I was obliged to allow the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to go beyond matters relating purely to the hon. the Minister of Planning, to enable him to state his case. Subsequently I afforded the hon. the Prime Minister the opportunity to reply to this question in broader terms than the rules allow. Consequently I cannot allow ordinary hon. members, in participating in the discussion of this matter, to go further than is allowed by the rules, which I am obliged to apply. I can only allow hon. members to attack the hon. the Minister of Planning on his shares and his directorships. I cannot, however, allow a general discussion here. I want to point out that there will be an opportunity at the Third Reading of this Bill to take this matter further. I am only prepared to listen to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the more genera! matter.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I want to ask you with all due respect to reconsider your ruling. This is a particularly important matter. You afforded the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to put his point of view. I am not arguing with you about that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not discuss only the shareholding of the hon. the Minister of Planning. On the contrary. He did not refer to it at all. As far as we are concerned, we still do not know whether or not the hon. the Minister holds shares in any company. Mr. Chairman, with respect, you allowed the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to discuss the general principle of this matter, in broad terms, and it is a principle which does not affect me only, a principle which does not affect my col league only, but, with respect, a principle which affects each of my colleagues in the Ministry. I respectfully suggest that it is not fair to Ministers who have been implicated as a result what was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, not to afford them an opportunity as well to put their standpoint in this debate. I respectfully suggest that it is not fair that I should be the only one who is allowed to put his standpoint and that the hon. the Minister of Planning, who has not even been implicated at all as yet, should not be afforded an opportunity to put his standpoint. I put this to you very strongly.

Order! Are there any other hon. members who wish to address me on this point of order?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I fully agree that a Minister has no other rights in this Committee than an ordinary member has. Therefore, if you allowed the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Prime Minister to discuss this matter in broad terms, every member of this House is entitled to address you on the same matter. I mention this only because I think you will agree with me that the rules are the same for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Prime Minister as they are for other hon. members of this House.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that when I first heard that the Leader of the Opposition intended to deal with this matter under this particular Vote, my view was that he was not allowed to do so, because it was against the rules of this House. I thought that if he wanted to deal with it, he would have to do so at the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. Then, however, I understood that the Leader of the Opposition, or at least his Whips, had approached Mr. Speaker. The decision was then that he could in fact do it. If the Leader of the Opposition is allowed to do it, and if the Prime Minister is allowed to discuss the matter under this Vote, every member of this House must be allowed to do so.

Order! I am prepared to afford hon. members an opportunity to discuss this matter if the Committee is in favour of it and so decides. Is there any objection? Then the discussion may continue.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopted a very pious attitude this afternoon. He said he felt very strongly about this matter. I am telling him to his face now that I do not believe him. He does not feel strongly about this matter. He has never felt strongly about it. and the only reason he entered this debate was to add weight to the gossip of the Tribune and the gossip of certain members of the United Party. I say he ought to be ashamed of himself. [Interjections.] It does not matter to me whether that hon. member takes any notice of me or not. I expect from him what I expect from that hon. member. He will only make insinuations without levelling a direct charge. This is the type of person one has on that side of this House. I am telling the Leader of the Opposition that he does not feel strongly about this matter. He is simply trying to participate in and give strength to one of the most scandalous campaigns I have never come across in South African politics. [Interjections.]

Order!

When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, or the hon. the Prime Minister, referred to Mr. Jan Haak, who had to dispose of his diamond interests at the request of Dr. Verwoerd because he had become Deputy Minister of Mines, the hon. member for Transkei said: “And now, Blaar, what are you going to do now?” The insinuation is very clear. The insinuation is that, because I am Minister of Community Development and Minister of Public Works, who has to deal with 90 per cent of the Government’s building programmes, I should not have shares in a building company.

Yes, precisely.

Very well, Sir, let me say to hon. members: Never in my life have I seen a contract for any buildings. My task is only to decide what is to be done. Let me mention an example. When the building of the Department of the Interior had to be built in Pretoria, the matter was submitted to me for approval. It was a project that would cost R18 million. I did not want to decide about it on my own, and submitted the matter to the Cabinet. The Cabinet then decided that this R18 million project should be proceeded with immediately. I wrote a letter to my Secretary and said: “The Cabinet has decided that the building of the Department of the Interior should be proceeded with. This was the last I heard of it.

Did you recuse yourself when that decision was taken by the Cabinet?

Why did I have to recuse myself? After all, it is my work. Sir, they want to suggest that I misused my position to send building contracts in the direction of certain companies. I repeat, this was the last I heard of that work. Subsequently tenders were invited. I did not invite the tenders, nor did I receive them. A tender was then accepted. I did not accept it. I was not asked to approve the tender. It was done by the Tender Board. I say: Anyone who knows how my department functions, will know that I am the last person who can give undue preference to a builder by misusing my position. The simple reason for that is that I never see the matter again. In that case, what conflicts can there be?

[Inaudible.]

I have nothing to do with the Tender Board. I do not decide about those contracts. Hon. members do not know what happens. They do not know their politics and they are not conversant with the administration of the country. The Tender Board decides.

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to put his case. I can hardly hear what he is saying.

Mr. Chairman, when I was appointed Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, I sold all my private interests without any request having been made to me. All that I hold today is a portfolio of shares. This is all I possess. I am willing to show it to the hon. the Prime Minister every year. I shall go further. I shall show it to the Leader of the Opposition every year. But I now challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, we cannot hear the hon. the Minister, because the hon. members at the back here are making too much noise. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may that hon. member use the indecent language he used a moment ago? I request you to ask him to stand up and repeat what he said.

Order! Did the hon. member use un parliamentary language? [Interjections.]

I used un parliamentary language.

Will the hon. member withdraw it?

I withdraw it.

I am sick and tired of these insinuations now. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that I am earning much less today…

You coward.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, he is a coward, but I withdraw it.

The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it.

The Leader of the Opposition knows as well as do—and I am talking only about myself now and not about other members—that I am earning much less today than I earned before I was appointed Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I now challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I want him to listen to me. He, his press and some of his members have made these insinuations. I now challenge him to appoint any firm of auditors and I shall submit my hooks, etc., in respect of the past 15 years to them. If they find that I was enriched by one single cent because I was Deputy Minister, because I was a member of the Executive Committee as a United Party member, or because I am a Minister, I shall immediately resign as Minister. But I shall do so on one condition, i.e. that if they cannot establish this, he must resign as Leader of the Opposition. He does not have the courage to do this. The only courage he has is, together with a thing like… a member like… [Interjections.] I have not yet said someone is a thing; I have not mentioned anyone’s name yet.

Order! The hon. the Minister may not refer to an hon. member as being a “thing”.

No, he is not a “thing”.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, but I do not know of whom I said it. Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accept that challenge. He and his newspapers, the Tribune and the Star, and that hon. member make these insinuations. That hon. member openly told the Sunday Express that he would raise this matter here in order to prove how Ministers were misusing their positions.

[Inaudible.]

I shall read it out to the hon. member. The hon. member said: “I intend to tackle the position under the Vote of the Minister of Community Development or Planning in the House of Assembly next week on how this other Pretoria-based construction company was given State projects in the Newcastle district. It will be interesting to see how many Cabinet Ministers are involved in that company”. This is a base insinuation. That hon. member does not have the courage to level a specific charge. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also does not have the courage to level a specific charge. I now challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to level a specific charge. He may sit there laughing, because this is the honourable man that he is. Sir, De Villiers Graaff, the so-called honourable man!

The Select Committee man.

I still want to tell him: If he levels one single charge at me, I shall request a Select Committee!

Level one charge at me and I shall request a Select Committee.

No, what for? I am not the one who is making insinuations. [Interjections.] Very well. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition…

Order! The hon. the Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Community Development has now tried to create the impression that this is the first time the United Party has raised this type of matter. However, the hon. gentleman has forgotten that it was not the United Party who raised the matter for the first time. I want to refer that hon. gentleman, and at the same time the hon. the Prime Minister as well, to a report which appeared in Dagbreek on 20th October, 1968. This report states very clearly—and I shall read the headline (translation)—

I shall now read from the report—

It is already two years ago that this was envisaged, and it was not envisaged by the English press or the Sunday Tribune, as that hon. Minister tried to suggest, but by his own press. It was envisaged two years ago already, and not only M.P.s were mentioned in this newspaper, but the hon. the Prime Minister himself was quoted. It was mentioned how strongly he felt about this matter. I quote—

What is the charge?

Wait a moment, I shall tell the hon. member. This article relates not only to directorships held by M.P.s, but goes much further than that. I now want to read out to the hon. members…

What newspaper is that?

Dagbreek en Sondagnuus of 20th October, 1968.

Ben’s newspaper.

They mention the hon. member for Moorreesburg in particular here. I quote—

It is only directors…

Give me a chance. I want to tell the hon. member…

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that this Committee has granted special permission for Ministers’ shares and directorships to be discussed. If hon. members eventually discuss ordinary M.P.s, we shall not know where things will end.

Mr. Chairman, I understand your decision completely. I just want to raise the point that that hon. Minister said it was the United Party and the Sunday Tribune who had started spreading this type of story. I want to point out to the hon. gentlemen that the question of shareholdings and directorships is a matter which concerns not only this side of this House, but also the supporters of that party, and that is why we had this article at the time. In this article which appeared in Dagbreek and Sondagnuus even the names of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and others were mentioned who had embarrassed the Nationalist Party because of interests they had in certain companies. This is the reason why I am mentioning this. For that hon. member to come and suggest here that this is a matter which the United Party has raised, is the biggest nonsense in the world, Because, Sir, what is the cardinal charge levelled by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

He did not level a charge.

The charge is that we are concerned here with Ministers who have shares in certain companies which have contracts with the State. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put it very clearly. He said at the beginning of his speech that he was not making any insinuation of corruption. Sir, no Minister who possesses shares in a company which does business with the State or with departments can expect the people outside to welcome it. Sir, this is the only point of importance which has been made here. That is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that if he could put his standpoint into effect, he would expect every Minister to disclose to the Prime Minister at the beginning of the year what his assets and liabilities are. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with the request that this information should be disclosed by anyone occupying a ministerial position, so that the people outside will not only know, but will also be able to see that he is completely beyond suspicion? This is the only point at issue, but hon. members opposite…

If you are under suspicion, you must not judge others by yourself.

Who is making insinuations now?

Come to Vereeniging, then we shall see who is under suspicion.

Sir, the people of South Africa are concerned about this particular matter. What did the hon. the Prime Minister say this afternoon? He told us that in the late Dr. Verwoerd’s time Mr. Haak had been asked to resign as a director of mining companies, etc. That being so, surely the then Prime Minister agreed with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and this is all the hon. the Leader of the Opposition requested of the hon. the Prime Minister. If the former Minister of Economic Affairs and of Mines could relinguish his interests in mining companies, what is wrong with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition expecting that no Minister should hold shares in a company which enters into contracts or does business with his department? The precedent was created by the previous Prime Minister himself, because he requested Mr. Haak to relinguish his interests in mining companies, which he did. But all of a sudden we now get this reaction from the hon. the Minister of Community Development. Why is he not prepared to follow the example of the former Minister of Economic Affairs?

What do I have to do with building contracts?

What did Mr. Haak have to do with concessions?

That is Mr. Haak’s concern.

I can go so far as to say that Mr. Haak was as innocent as that hon. Minister. He relinquished his interests, which is all we are asking of that hon. Minister, The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made it very clear this afternoon that under a United Party Government the interests a Minister may have would have no connection with his activities in his department or with contracts or tenders. This is the difference between the hon. members on that side and us.

Many years ago Dr. Malan made a speech in which he said inter alia: “If I perish I perish”. I think those words should be applied to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because as usual he started off with a heated attack and not long after wards he started running away. He started off here with an attack on Ministers holding shares in public companies. This was the gist of his speech. He made this speech after the Tribune had guided him and told him what he should do and when he should act. [Interjections.] Those hon. members at the back who have come to Parliament only recently should rather hold their peace. They know nothing about these matters. And that hon. member for Kensington who has such a sneering expression on his face is the type of man who attacks his political opponents under a pseudonym in a newspaper and not here across the floor of this House. He should rather hold his peace. The whole Press gallery knows this to be so. He does not have the courage to put his own name to an article when he attacks his opponents. But he is of lesser importance and I am not dealing with him now. I am dealing with the Leader of the Opposition.

What do the people outside say?

What about the people outside? The only contact the hon. member bad with the people was when he was a policeman and arrested the people and put them in prison. He should rather hold his peace. I say the attack made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition concerned Ministers’ shareholdings in public companies. This is what was started by that hon. little member for Port Natal and the Sunday Tribune followed it up. Subsequently and after we had challenged him they insisted that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should also take up a standpoint. Now he has run away so far that he no longer makes Ministers’ shareholdings in public companies the point at issue. Oh no, that hon. member says the point at issue simply is shareholding in companies which have business dealings with one’s particular department. It has been watered down to this extent. The hon. member for Newton Park said we were concerned here with Ministers who held shares in certain companies which had contracts with the Government. I wrote down his words. [Interjections.] With departments yes. Now it has been watered down altogether as opposed to the original attack.

Afterwards the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said “Public companies doing business with his own department”. In other words after the Prime Minister had laid open the whole matter and had revealed what the position had been in the past the only attack now… [Interjections.]

Did you not listen to the Churchill Rules I read out?

Sir, I am not concerned with the Churchill Rules; I am concerned with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition promised to give certain replies. When I asked him whether Gen. Smuts had disposed of all his De Beers shares he said he would come to that but he has not done so yet. But let me put it as follows. The Government the Cabinet is responsible for the determination of all company tax and usually diamond companies are taxed more heavily than ordinary companies. Gen. Smuts was a major shareholder in a diamond company De Beers apart from the fact that De Beers had large contracts with the Government concerning explosives manufactured by De Beers at the time when the war was in progress and Gen. Smuts was Minister of Defence. Do hon. members want to suggest that Gen. Smuts was dishonest and was influenced? I knew Gen. Smuts personally while most of those hon. members did not know him. I had a very high regard for Gen. Smuts's integrity and shall take the strongest exception if any insinuation were to be made that Gen. Smuts had been unduly influenced because of his shareholdings in De Beers. It would be a shameful accusation. Now those hon. members are making not accusations but insinuations against members of this Government because we happen to have shares in certain companies. I agree with him that if it was a controlling share and in a particular company it would be wrong. A Minister should not have a controlling share in a public company but not one of the Ministers has a controlling share in any public company. Neither I nor any of my colleagues have the slightest objection to providing the Prime Minister with a list of our shareholdings. We have nothing to hide. [Interjections.] Just see how they are running away from the original standpoint! Where does the whole standpoint of the shareholdings of Ministers fit in now? All they want now is that we should just disclose our shareholdings to the Prime Minister. Of course we can do that. As I have said we have nothing to hide. If I had a few thousand shares in Afrikaanse Pers I would furnish the Prime Minister with those details. I am not ashamed of them. I paid for them. Now the hon. member for Newton Park speaks of shareholdings and directorships held by members of Parliament but how many of the hon. members on the opposite side do not hold shares and directorships in companies? Let them rise.

It has nothing to do with the State.

The innocent people opposite who are prepared to throw stones are all living in glass houses.

Let me just say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that after the Prime Minister has dealt with him he is running away as usual. He has watered down his whole attack to such an extent that all it amounts to is that we should disclose our shareholdings to the Prime Minister.

What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that but that was not the original attack. The whole attack made by him the Sunday Tribune and by that hon. little member for Port Natal was that Ministers might not hold shares. All he is requesting now is just that the shareholdings of Ministers should be disclosed. He said he felt very strongly about it but it took him weeks to work up that strong feeling. Well I feel truly sorry for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Once again he has been urged into adopting a certain standpoint. He has again allowed the English newspapers to guide him and now again he simply has to follow that guidance submissively. In this attack he has once again made such foolish statements and such a fool of himself as he usually does.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the House has given a remarkable exhibition here this evening. First of all he said that he accepts one of the three basic rules laid down by my leader. However he has just conveniently forgotten about the other two. He accepted the fundamental issue put by my leader which was that the responsibility rested on the Prime Minister. Earlier this evening before supper the hon. the Prime Minister turned round and referred to the hon. the Minister of Planning and said. “I do not know what shares he has”. This will stand in Hansard.

Yes.

The hon. the Prime Minister confirms it. The hon. the Minister of Planning is responsible for the administration and control of the Physical Planning Act of the declaration of group areas and he is responsible for the industrial planning of South Africa. In fact he is the key figure in the industrial development of South Africa. We accept that the hon. the Minister carries out his responsibilities completely honestly and without favour. The hon. the Prime Minister however does not know that. He takes him on trust and we are asked to take him on trust as we do; but it is on trust and not on fact. What my leader has asked is that the hon. the Prime Minister does not work by guesswork that he does not work on judgment of character; because no man can judge character and say “I am absolutely right”. No man can look at another man and say that “I know him; I can trust him to the grave”. And the Prime Minister is in a different position to any other person judging his friends or his colleagues. I Can say to my colleagues here “I trust you to the grave” but I am not responsible for running South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister is. We can say to anyone of the Cabinet Ministers “We trust you” but we have no responsibility the hon. the Prime Minister has the responsibility. What my leader has proposed is that the Prime Minister should know that he should have knowledge. That is the first point. But then there were other proposals. One was that he should not hold shares in any undertaking doing business with his department—clear specific unequivocal. We are not interested in what safeguards there are because the fundamental issue is not that justice should be done but that it should be seen to be done. Again the hon. Leader of the House put his finger on it when he said that the late Gen. Smuts held certain shares but that he would not for one moment dream of even thinking that he would abuse the ownership of those shares —and neither did South Africa. The people on both sides of all political shades of opinion in South Africa accepted that unequivocally and unquestionably.

The question is whether circumstances have changed or not whether South Africa today has unqualified unquestioning and undoubting belief and faith in every single aspect of government in South Africa. This does not necessarily mean corruption. We have not linked this in any way with corruption. But the people of South Africa have lost faith in the ability of this Government and this Cabinet to govern South Africa. They have lost confidence in the administration. When a country and a people lose faith in its administration then more than any other time is it necessary that what is so must be seen to be so. When a people ceases to have total faith in their Government we suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister should accept the method offered to him by my leader a method to which the United Party is committed when it is in power. My leader has committed this party when he becomes Prime Minister. He has said: “When I am Prime Minister my Cabinet Ministers will declare their share holdings. My Cabinet Ministers will not have interests in firms doing business with their department and my Cabinet Ministers will dispose of any interests which could in any way link them with the activities of public businesses dealing with the Government”. These are three clear unequivocal undertakings on behalf of the United Party. They are not accusations but promises of what the United Party will do. What we ask of the hon. the Prime Minister is whether he accepts these three standards and whether he will apply them to his Government. This is what we feel irrespective of what the past may be. I know what was said of Cabinet Ministers in the United Party. I am not going to quibble about whether that was right or wrong. I know what has been said of Cabinet Ministers in the Nationalist Party. I am not interested in whether that is true or not. I am interested in the present; I am interested in today. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister: Do you accept these rules or do you not for the conduct of public life in South Africa?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point, who has just sat down, and the hon. member for Newton Park, who both referred not only to Ministers, but to members as well, should be much more careful when they make insinuations of this nature. All I can tell the hon. members is that they should look up the Hansard of 23rd January, 1942. There they will see that the question was put to the then Minister whether it was true that certain members of the House of Assembly on the Opposition side had participated in a radio programme entitled “Why South Africa Fights” and that they received three guineas for their participation in the discussion. They fought for patriotic reasons, but they were paid a fee tor saying a few words about it over the radio! This is the type of hon. member we have to deal with.

Is this the level on which we are going to deal with this issue?

No, I am merely mentioning this. I just want to say to the hon. members for Durban Point and Newton Park that they must be very careful with the insinuations they make in this regard.

For the purposes of the record, I want to make it very clear here that the day I became a Minister, Dr. Verwoerd did not ask me what I possessed and what I did not possess. I would have been disappointed had he put that question to me. Dr. Malan did not ask Mr. Schoeman in 1948 what he possessed and what he did not possess, nor did he tell him that he should report to him every year on what he possessed and what he did not possess. Mr. Strydom did not ask this. Dr. Verwoerd did not ask it, nor am I prepared to ask a man this. If I have to appoint people to my Cabinet and have to play policeman every year in respect of what they possess and do not possess, I am not prepared to have them in my Cabinet. But Gen. Smuts also did not ask his people what they possessed and what they did not possess. Honourable people do not deal with one another in this way. Let me put it like this, and this applies not only to this side of this House, but to all people: Before a Budget is introduced, the entire Cabinet knows the secrets of that Budget in respect of taxation, etc. There is not a single Minister in any Government who, if he wants to be dishonest, cannot enrich himself to a certain extent by means of the information he obtains. But it has never happened in our political history. And it will not happen either. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now wants to water this matter down by speaking of the “controlling interests”. But surely it always falls within the category that if a man owns a controlling share in a company, he owns that company. In that case he would not be a Minister. He would himself disclose his interests in that regard. No Prime Minister would appoint him under those circumstances, but the Prime Minister would in the nature of the matter, tell him that he must relinquish his interests. This is not a matter in respect of which rules and regulations, laws of the Medes and Persians, can be laid down; it is a matter in which a man's integrity is relied on. This is what one should do. I want to repeat that I have faith in the integrity of all my colleagues. Since the hon. member for Durban Point has now said that “the people have lost faith in this Government", I want to say to him that I know him to be a fighter, that I know him to be a man who will not insinuate something and then run away from it. Was the hon. member insinuating something with that or not? If the hon. member was insinuating something with it, I say to him that he should be courageous enough to level a charge at me.

I specifically said that I was not talking about corruption or dishonesty.

I now wish to put a question to the hon. member for Durban Point. He is not one who is lacking in courage. If what the hon. member told me is true, why did he raise it in this regard in this debate, which is in fact concerned with shareholding, favouring and enrichment? Why did he mention it in this debate?

I said that if the people had lost faith, it should be put clearly and beyond all doubt…

If the hon. member wants to make an insinuation, he should have enough courage to do so across the floor of this House. If not, he should not use words of that type at all.

Then I want to say something in regard to Ministers of Mines. In the same way as the conscience of the Minister of Justice dictates to him that he should not have shares in liquor because he deals with that matter, the conscience of the Minister of Mines dictates to him in another respect. When he became Minister of Mines, Dr. Van Rhyn divested himself of all his interests in that regard. The present Minister of Mines did the same. All previous Ministers of Mines did this. It is expected of one.

One’s inborn decency tells one what one must and must not do in that regard.

I now want to address a serious word to the other side of this House, to the responsible members and the leaders sitting there. If we are not prepared to accept one another’s decency, integrity and honesty in South African politics, and above all, if we do not have the courage of our convictions to speak honestly and openly to one another instead of making insinuations, it will be an evil day for South African politics and for all of us. I want to make a sincere appeal. Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has assailed us under the fumes of the stink caused by the hon. member for Port Natal and the Sunday Tribune, I want to make a very earnest appeal. Public life demands enough of one that one should not have to contend with this type of thing as well. I think we have known one another long enough across the floor of this House not to question one another's integrity here.

I want to conclude by saying that I accept full responsibility for the members of the Cabinet. I accept full responsibility for South Africa’s affairs being managed and conducted honestly and sincerely by members of the Cabinet, otherwise they would not have been members of the Cabinet. Let us oppose each other on the basis of our political policies. Let the Opposition try to come into power by means of the policy it has to offer the electorate. But let us not try to come into power in this way, by means of character assassination.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have made considerable progress this afternoon and this evening. How very different is the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister from the provocative statement of the hon. the Minister for Community Development and the statement by the Leader of the House at that time. As far as they were concerned a Minister could have any shares he liked and that it had nothing to do with us. He could buy any shares he wanted to; it had nothing to do with us and the public. We have come a long way from that. The hon. the Prime Minister agrees that it would be wrong for a Minister to have a controlling interest. He has not taken the point that there are exceptional circumstances where it would probably also be wrong to have a large shareholding in a company doing business with a Minister’s own department. The hon. the Leader of the House and, I think the Minister of Community Development, to give him credit, were both prepared to make lists of their shares available to the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister says he does not feel he needs them but at least the offer is there. The fact that we had the statement from the Prime Minister that former Minister Haak was called upon to sell his shares in mining companies when he became Minister of Mines, is in accordance with the traditions of the Churchill Rules.

The hon. the Prime Minister has made an appeal for integrity in public life. I shall support him to the full in that regard, but he made a statement this evening which I was sorry about, because I do not think it was true. I think he was wrongly informed. The statement was that when the United Party came to power they took the contract for the printing of Hansard away from Nasionale Pers and gave it to Unie-volkspers. I have taken the trouble to inquire into the matter during the dinner interval, and I am informed by one of those who was engaged on those matters at that time, and whose integrity I have no reason to doubt, that the contract was in fact awarded on a tender basis. The contract was awarded to the firm which submitted the lowest tender.

When it was suggested in the Press that the Prime Minister and I might discuss this matter privately, as I did with Dr. Verwoerd in respect of directorships, it seems to me extraordinary that the Prime Minister was so anxious to run away from this. We might have discussed this matter in full. We might have agreed or disagreed, and I have never broken any confidence as to what happened between a Prime Minister in his capacity as Prime Minister and me, as Leader of the Opposition. Sir, it seems to me that the Prime Minister is prepared to accept almost all the rules that I am struggling for, save the one in respect of the list of shares. I just want to say that I have stated my point of view. It has been criticized from the other side. I still believe that that is the right answer. I still commend it to the Prime Minister.

I want to say just one more thing. The hon. the Leader of the House has rushed in, as he so often does, and accused me of running away. He knows me so well, that it is very unwise to accuse me of saying something I did not. Here are my notes, Sir. Right at the start he took exception to the fact that I spoke about contracts for the department for which you are responsible. He did so straight away, the first time I spoke.

Are you quoting me?

Yes.

Then you are misquoting me.

No, I was not intending to quote you. I told you what I was going to talk about and I then spoke about it. Sir, let us hope that as far as this matter is concerned, there will now be a better understanding on this subject.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now come to light with a strange argument, and I should like to reply to it for two reasons. I want to reply to it, firstly, because the argument is a strange one and, secondly, because it was subsequently denied by him. In the Cape Times of Wednesday morning a report appeared under the heading, “Graaff hopes to meet Vorster”. The report went on to say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would probably want to see me about this matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows I had to be absent on that Wednesday. He knows I wrote him a letter. In that letter I told him, with reference to what had appeared in the Cape Times, that I was not prepared to discuss the matter with him in private because of what had happened here in public in this House. I told him, however, that he should raise the matter in public in this House, and that he should put it across the floor of this House. This being the case, on what grounds is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accusing me now of wanting to run away from it? These are the words he used, that I want to run away from the matter.

You do not want to talk to him.

I did not want to have a “hush-hush” discussion on this matter. I wanted the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to show the courage to discuss it across the floor of this House. As far as the second matter is concerned, Sir, I know as well as anybody else does—I have made inquiries in this regard—that the Hansard contract is fulfilled on behalf of the Minister who is in charge of the Government Printer. In that case it was a United Party Minister who was in charge of the Government Printer; it was a United Party newspaper; it was a United Party Minister who was its chairman and it was other United Party Ministers who held shares in it. For them this was perfectly in order, but if the hon. the Minister of Community Development holds a thousand shares in a company with a share issue of a few million, charges are levelled at him on that score, even if he never saw those contracts.

Who prints three- quarters of the documents of the State?

The Cape Times prints some, Die Burger prints some and the Afrikaanse Pers prints some; the printing is given out on tender. Apparently this is wrong when the National Party is in power, but perfectly in order when the United Party is in power. This is the argument I want to advance in that regard. Sir, I am glad that this discussion has taken place. I am glad that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has stated his standpoint at last, and I am glad that we have had the opportunity of clearing the air in this regard. I trust that this kind of mean insinuation will now come to an end once and for all.

Sir, I cannot allow the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to get away with the allegation he made here to the effect that I had suddenly adopted a standpoint which differed from what I had allegedly said when the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Community Development was under discussion. At that time I stated very clearly that any Minister was at liberty to buy shares in any public company; surely this is so. I went on to say that it could not be expected of any Minister to conduct an investigation into every company in which he wanted to buy shares in order to ascertain whether that company would be doing business with the State at one time or another. Surely this is so. There are dozens of companies that are quoted on the Stock Exchange. Does the hon. member expect of me first to check before I buy shares whether there is some company or other that may possibly do business with the State in the distant future? Surely it is madness to make such an allegation, and that is what I said. I did not change my standpoint. The hon. member ran away from his standpoint altogether. The whole point at issue was the shareholding of Ministers in public companies, and what has it been reduced to now? All we are left with now is that a Minister may not have a controlling interest in companies; this is number one; the second is that he should reveal his shareholdings to the Prime Minister. What has become of all their attacks? What is he going to tell the Sunday Tribune now? The Sunday Tribune expected much more of him than what he has done tonight. Sir, I have not changed my standpoint; I reiterate it, and I mention this one typical case once again: Gen. Smuts was Minister of Defence and the Department of Defence entered into major contracts with African Explosives, contracts we had to cancel after we had come into power.

May I ask a question? Was there any other company from which South Africa could have bought explosives?

Of course. Those hon. members do not even know what those contracts were. I do not want to go into the details, because that would simply disgrace them. But when we came into power we had to cancel those contracts with African Explosives. They had been granted so many privileges that the position was simply indescribable. In other words, not only had they been working on a cost-plus basis; they had erected buildings for themselves on their grounds; those buildings belonged to them and the State simply paid up, paid up some more and yet some more. The hon. member should not oblige me to reveal these things, because these things will simply disgrace them This is only one case. Gen. Smuts was Minister of Defence and he concluded those contracts with African Explosives for the manufacture of explosives. Do they want to suggest that that was wrong? Is there one member on that side who will suggest that Gen. Smuts acted improperly? This was a company that was doing business with his own department, irrespective of whether this was the only company or not. Do they want to say that that was wrong? You see, Sir, this is what we have to contend with. Everything they do is right, but if this side of the House does so, it is wrong. I am chairman of the company Afrikaanse Pers. We have certain printing contracts with the State, but all contracts are given out on tender, and only the lowest tender is accepted. Do the hon. members want to suggest that this is wrong? If they say this is wrong, they distrust the Tender Board and are saying that the Tender Board is corrupt, because they award contracts to companies because Ministers are shareholders or directors of such companies.

May I ask a question? Do you agree with the Churchill Rules or not?

No, I do not agree with those rules, because those rules of Churchill were never applied to his own Ministers. I myself know that if one checks the estates of the deceased Ministers of Churchill one finds that they had major shareholdings in many companies. The hon. member spoke here of the United States. Did he ever see the inventory of Kennedy’s estate after his death? Is he of the opinion that Kennedy divested himself of all his interests on the day be became President of the United States? Surely it is senseless to allege this.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I know what I am talking about. Of course, I do. But I should like to know this from the Leader of the Opposition. First he came forward with his attack on the shareholding of Ministers in public companies, That was the attack of the Sunday Tribune. They guided him by telling him what to do How he has watered that down to the extent that Ministers need only reveal their shareholding to the Prime Minister, and the second thing is that they should not hold the controlling shares in any company. Now I want to go further.

What about a private company? What about Graaff's Trust, in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has the controlling share? If he were to become Prime Minister, would he withdraw from the company on that day? [Interjections.] Does he not have any shares whatsoever any longer? Would he sell those shares if he were to become Prime Minister?

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF; If my shareholding were to conflict with my position, yes.

But how does the hon. member know they are going to conflict? Sir, after this ridiculous performance we have just had from the Leader of the Opposition, I do not believe there is anything more to say.

We have had another ridiculous performance by the hon. the Leader of the House. Despite the fact that he has been virtually repudiated by his own Prime Minister, he still tried to get back to the impossible situation in which he placed his party and the Government during the debate on the Community Development Vote. Now, I stated my rules and I stated them very clearly. I came to the second rule of the Churchill Rules—

Then there was one other rule. That was that in dealing with shareholding, there may also be exceptional cases where even though no controlling interest is involved, the actual holding of particular shares in concerns closely associated with a Minister’s own department may create the danger of a conflict of interests, and where a Minister considers this to be the case he should divest himself of the holding.

In other words, Gen. Smuts did not comply with the Churchill ruling.

The ruling is perfectly simple. Where he considers this to be the case, that there is a conflict of interest, he should divest himself of his holding. Quite clearly Gen. Smuts did not think so. Are you suggesting that he acted wrongly?

No. You are suggesting that by implication.

There was only one factory which could manufacture explosives during the war years. No, I have stated my rules, and I stand by them. This side of the House stands by them, and if I were to become Prime Minister tomorrow, those are the rules I would apply.

Mr. Chairman, I have no particular desire to participate in this debate. However, the fact of the matter is that this matter has been raised on my Vote. It cannot be argued away that my questionable integrity has given rise to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raising this matter at this stage and in this way. The hon. members may say what they like, but they will not budge me from this belief. He has had other opportunities of doing so. Next week we shall have the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, during which he could have done so, but he has raised the matter on my Vote. He also said I was the one who proclaimed group areas, and that I could benefit companies. He said I was the one who zoned industrial land in terms of the Physical Planning Act, and that I could enrich people and companies in that way. He said I was the one who issued permits for the location of industries in certain controlled areas of South Africa which were not zoned. He said I was the one who issued permits in terms of the Physical Planning Act to industries to employ additional Bantu so as to enable such industries to expand and to grow. For those reasons, he said, he was raising this matter on my Vote.

I asked what your standpoint was.

I want to say here this evening that I do not regard this as an isolated event. I cannot see it as such, because it links up with the whole. During the election last year the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, “Concern is spreading throughout South Africa like wild fire”. What concern? About Nationalist politicians making money. He spoke of, “the strange ways Nationalist politicians are making money”. What am I but a “Nationalist politician”? His backbenchers took this matter further and his newspapers took this matter further. They did so a few weekends ago and again last weekend. Now he has been too pious for words. These are their tactics. They besmirch and blacken people in order to create the impression that a cloud is hanging over the country. Jan Loots, Blaar Coetzee and those people are abusing their positions so as to promote the few miserable shares they hold—and we are poor people, we are not millionaires—by providing favours for companies. Now the country has been left with the impression that this is so. This was written about and tens of thousands of people, no, hundreds of thousands of people, read about it. Then they come here this evening and pretend to be so very pious. This whole matter is to be settled now, in a pious way by means of a lot of things Churchill said once upon a time. I want to say that I take exception to this kind of allegation. After we had been insulted and after insinuations had been made against us, we had to witness a fulsome performance here this evening. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a beard, syrupy stalactites would have been hanging from his beard this evening. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to talk to the Prime Minister. Why did he raise this matter on my Vote? He said he felt very strongly about this matter. In fact, he said this evening he felt very strongly indeed about this matter; he could not feel more strongly about it.

He had been feeling strongly about this matter for years.

But I do wonder since when he has been feeling so strongly about this. Not so very long ago we discussed the Vote of the Prime Minister for three days, but at that time he did not feel so strongly about this. He did not say one word about the matter at the time. He had not even thought of it, but his newspapers had. He has to look alive, because he is losing field very rapidly to Colin Eglin amongst the Opposition section of the people in this country. Now he wants to rehabilitate himself.

I want to conclude by making one minor point concerning myself. I do not want to speak about the Leader of the Opposition, because then we would be lowering the debate. The old saying goes that one judges others by oneself. Now I want to say that the Opposition should not listen to the adviser they have acquired from the U.S.A. They should stop listening to that man. That man advised them: Disparage the leaders; assassinate the characters of the leaders. Earlier on it was: Divide and rule. They are no longer succeeding in that. There are no more renegades left. Now they have to disparage the leaders. As far as I myself am concerned, I want to tell the Opposition, and any newspaper that cares to listen, and the country: I shall do my work as well as I am capable of doing my work in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of South Africa alone. If J were dishonest, the few shares I might or might not hold, would have made no difference to me; in that case I would have found other ways and means of using the information I have—and, upon my word, I have a great deal of information in advance—in order to enrich myself. There are more than enough other ways of doing this if one wanted to be dishonest. But if I am honest there is no need for me to listen to a whole sermon from the Leader of the Opposition and his newspapers. I am telling the Leader of the Opposition—he is being so pious this evening: That is not the point at issue; the point at issue is a continuous gossip campaign in South Africa, character assassination, directed at the leaders of this side. I want to tell them this evening, “As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to continue. You are more than welcome to do so. Ferret out whatever you may learn about me and publish that in bold letters in your newspaper.” Of one thing I am certain: This kind of attitude is wrong, and in the end it will boomerang on the Opposition and do them more harm than it will do us.

Mr. Chairman it seems to me we have now reached a stage where we have almost reached saturation point in this particular discussion. For that reason I should now like to steer the discussion in the direction in which I think it should be steered.

Order! Before the hon. member proceeds to do so I just want to say that this discussion is a special concession. We cannot return to this sporadically once we have started discussing other subjects. Because this is a special concession I want to appeal to those hon. members who want to participate in this debate to do so now. Once the discussion is closed we cannot reopen it tomorrow. The hon. member may proceed.

Certainly Mr. Chairman I accept this as being the position but am I allowed to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that his integrity was not at stake in any way whatsoever? That this specific matter was mentioned on this Vote was merely because this was the first possible opportunity we had of putting this forward. Now we hear from the opposite side that we could have done so during the Third Reading debate but there are a hundred and one other problems we should like to raise during the Third Reading debate. Merely for the sake of giving the hon. the Minister this assurance as well I want to mention it to him that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the hon. the Prime Minister several days ago to warn him that this matter would be broached and that he would do so on this Vote.

He did not write to the Prime Minister—ask him yourself.

Of course I did. Here is the letter.

Now we have the position here that my word is being doubted. My hon. Leader tells me that he wrote to the hon. the Prime Minister but that is not being accepted now.

Now I want to come back to the discussion of this specific Vote. There are quite a number of matters which fall under the control of this hon. Minister. Time does not permit me to refer to more than only a few of them. In the first place I should like to make a few references to the Department of Statistics. There is no need for me whatsoever to point out or to emphasize here the necessity of statistics. Therefore I am not unaware of the good work which is being done by this department but there are certain matters about which we are perturbed.

Order I just want to ask the hon. member whether he wants to proceed to a different subject now? There may be other members who still wish to speak on the matter with which we are dealing. If that is the case I want to suggest that the hon. member resume his seat. If there are other hon. members who want to take this argument further I shall again call upon the hon. member to speak on this subject a bit later.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the Department of Planning. We are not dealing with a special debate.

Indeed we are.

Do I understand that all this time comes off the Planning Vote?

It comes off the Planning Vote.

Then I submit that the hon. member is in order. He is speaking on the Vote.

Yes, I did not say the hon. member was not in order. I only appealed to him that we should first dispose of this subject in respect of which a special concession has been made by this Committee. I cannot allow us to return sporadically to this subject tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Therefore I want to address an appeal to those hon. members who wish to participate in this discussion to do so first. After that we shall continue with the ordinary discussion.

In order to illustrate what I have in mind I should like to refer to the 1970 census.

Mr. Chairman on a point of order are you satisfied that the hon. member for Carletonville who has indicated that he wants to speak does not want to do so on this particular point?

Yes, but I take it that the hon. member for Hillbrow wants to speak on this subject.

I have indicated very clearly that I am discussing the Department of Planning and its activities. This being so do I still have the floor Mr. Chairman?

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, if the hon. member wants to proceed to a completely different matter, i.e. statistics, may the hon. member for Carletonville return to this subject if he wants to do so?

The hon. member may do so. I am just not going to allow us to return to this subject sporadically.

In order to illustrate what I have in mind, I should like to refer to the 1970 census. This census was completed quite some time ago, but we are still patiently awaiting the really meaningful data which will emerge from this census. It is true that in October last year the hon. the Minister made an ostentatious appearance before us to submit certain general data to us aimed at illustrating the success of the philosophy of separate development, but since that time we have received nothing more. There still are all the meaningful statistics as to where the non-Whites are employed, as to where they are making a living and all the data which will indicate that the policy and the philosophy of separate freedoms have already failed, but these statistics are not made available to us. We have been awaiting these statistics for a long time, and I think this particular Committee as well as the public outside is entitled to get an explanation from he hon. the Minister as well as a statement as to when these statistics will be made available to us.

Of course, this example of delay runs right through the entire department. I notice that the latest annual report at my disposal, is that of 1969. I have also made a survey of certain essential data and of the length of time we in South Africa have to wait before it becomes available, and, in comparison to that, of the length of time this takes in most of the overseas countries. I have ascertained that in many cases it takes less than half the time overseas it takes here. Here we have the important Economic Planning Report, which actually forms the basis of the Government’s economic development as a whole.

When we look at Table C, which is supposed to set out the population surveys and the population projection for the future, we find that it is blank. How can one do long term planning and set store by this when certain of the essential data is not available? In an active economic programme it is essential for this data to be available immediately. Often it is more important to know in what direction one is heading, rather than to know at what rate one is doing so. Our whole argument is that some of this data is essential, and is not available or not available timeously. The problem seems to be that this department attempts to collect too much data and attempts to collect too much data in too much detail. One can easily become hopelessly immersed in figures. I see in the annual report that mention is made of a whole series of reports. Seventeen of them appear monthly, six appear quarterly, while 11 appear periodically.

I think the time has arrived for the hon. the Minister to check priorities. I think too many statistics are being collected. Many of them are never even used. It seems to me that we should check the whole matter again right from the start so that it may be placed on a better basis. It seems to me that there is still too great a tendency in our Department of Statistics to follow this kind of census survey approach. Most of the other countries in the world have the very same problems, and they have found that the random test method as well as the method of taking samples yields information which is quite adequate. It may also be obtained timeously. Because of the limited time at my disposal, I cannot take the matter any further, I should like to create the opportunity for the hon. the Minister to inform us further in this regard.

Is that the American concept?

This is throughout the world. That hon. member does not know what I am talking about.

In the second place, I should just like to refer in brief to the Riekert report. Here we have been embarrassed, because the report has not yet been made available to us for perusal. However, the report has been in the possession of the Government for a long time already. In presenting the Budget in March this year, the hon. the Minister indicated which of the recommendations he was going to accept. When is this report going to be made available to us? This is virtually on a par with what happened in the case of the Agliotti report. That report was drafted on 14th December last year, but apparently it took six months to translate. This must be the most thorough piece of translation we have ever had! Now we are asking when this Riekert report will be available to us. This is embarrassing the hon. the Minister as well. The very point of the Riekert survey is to go into the Government’s policy of decentralization and into the matter of how the Physical Planning Act is to be applied. These are both matters which fall under the department of this hon. Minister. We find all his colleagues referring to it. They tell us what has been incorporated in the report, but we have not as yet heard a single word from him. I think this, too is a matter in respect of which an explanation from the hon. the Minister will not be inappropriate.

I cannot elaborate on the merits of the Riekert report. The only thing that has filtered through from the colleagues of the hon. the Minister, is that a whole new procedure is going to be introduced. From the colleagues of the hon. the Minister we learn that difficulties are going to be eliminated, that uncertainties are going to be reduced and that the emphasis should fall on incentives and not coercive measures. However, if the hon. the Minister were to take the trouble to check in Hansard what we said when this measure was discussed in the House two or three years ago, he would see that these were the very arguments this side of the House advanced to the Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put only one little question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tonight. Even if we prohibit Ministers from having shares…

You are a little too late for that now.

No, wait a minute, it is not too late for that. Even if we prohibit our Ministers from having shares, even if the hon. the Prime Minister requires them to declare their shareholdings and even if Ministers are required to submit an annual balance sheet to the Prime Minister, I want to ask tonight, in all honesty and quite calmly: What practical consequences will that have? There is only one consideration that counts, and that is a person’s integrity. I have not risen to my feet to start any quarrel now. I only want to ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he were to become Prime Minister, and if he did not have any appreciation for the reliability and the integrity of the Ministers he appoints, where will he end up, despite all his checks and balances? I want to ask this in all sincerity, without kicking up a row and without picking a quarrel. He will have to agree with me that the decisive factor is the integrity and the credibility of a person who has devoted his life to politics and to public life. It is not a question of measures which may be applied to such a person. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition states that he would prohibit a Minister from taking up shares, what is to stop that Minister from transferring the shares into his wife's or his child’s name? How can we prevent that? What is there to stop such a Minister from transferring the shares to another person acting in his interests?

I want to put a second question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: How can a person build up public goodwill if there is no confidence in our public life, if no value is attached to the integrity of the person himself, and if the public does not have faith and confidence in one’s integrity? That is all I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tonight. All this skirmishing and all this casting about, with a minor argument seized upon at random, does not get him any further. I am just putting this question to the Leader of the Opposition tonight, and he must give me an honest reply. If he were to become Prime Minister what would the first standard be? The shares a man owns, the interests he has, or the public, political goodwill he has in the country, linked to and based on his integrity?

I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now: What will the first norm you are going to apply be? You will not then simply have recourse to Churchill’s rules, nor will you have recourse to what Mr. Gorton of Australia did. You will consider the men you have and you will say: To my mind, that man’s credibility is unquestionable. His integrity is unimpeachable. You will appoint him as a Minister of the basis of his public goodwill, which will also be of value to your party. That is all which is at stake, and not this laying down the law by and this political agitation of the English newspapers. All I want to say to the Leader of the deposition, for whom I have had a great deal of respect over the years as a person—and there is a world of difference between us as far as our politics is concerned—is this: Tonight you said something and adopted an attitude which I find inexplicable and irreconcilable with the view I have of you.

There is one thing you must guard against in this Parliament, and my leader, the Prime Minister emphasized this very strongly in his last speech. If we in this Parliament must take the lead in undermining the integrity of our people in public life, then it is all over with our public life. Then we no longer have any control or confidence in this Parliament. And although you may differ with me, I want to tell you tonight that I have great credibility in your integrity, but then you must be worthy of my confidence in you. You must also display this in respect of the ministry of my party appointed by my Prime Minister; and if you display a distrust in their integrity, then you must not take it amiss of me. when you appoint ministers, if I go and ferret about in the personal activities of your ministers. [Interjections.] One can make a very great issue out of a minor matter. A small balloon that one inflates becomes a big object. I want to end with what my leader, the Prime Minister said this evening. If we begin to tackle one another in regard to integrity in this Parliament. what example are we setting for our followers outside, your followers and mine? We would then be corrupting the entire community by the example we set. I have no reason whatsoever to assume or believe or suspect that Ministers on this side of the House will allow themselves to be led astray by material benefits to the exclusion of national interests and the general interests of our country and our administration. I want to make an appeal to the hon. Leader of the Opposition tonight, and I am being completely honest when I say this. This entire debate has given me cause for grave concern; a tendency is emerging here which I find disquieting. For many years I have thought that we are sitting here to thrash out our points of policy man to man. You have mentioned many things which impressed me, and I admit it. There are many people in this country who differ with me and who state points of view to which I pay attention. But tonight the Leader of the Opposition revealed, to my mind, a tendency, a facet of his political method which I find disquieting. What I find dis quieting, is that owing to a lack of success in putting over his policy, he is rammaging about and grabbing at straws like a drowning man. That I find disquieting. (Time expired.]

I just want to complete my argument in regard to the Riekert Commission, and I was trying to make the point that but for the Government's shortsightedness, but for the hon. the Minister’s predecessor’s obstinacy, the provisions of the Physical Planning Act, as we warned two years ago, would never have been introduced and South Africa's economy would not have had to suffer from the reeling blows it has been struck. That is why we feel that the Riekert Commission’s proposals, as we see them now, fully vindicate the position that we took up more than two years ago. What is more, the Government is going to use this report merely as a massive smokescreen to camouflage a major retreat on their side as far as this issue is concerned. But I want to say this, too: Although it undoubtedly represents a major improvement on what we have at the present time, from what we can see, the Riekert proposals, as has been stated by several Ministers on the other side, once again perpetuate the idea of trying to put our economic development into an ideological straitjacket. This cannot work; it has never worked and we therefore envisage the Government coming back to us again in the near future to change even the Rickert proposals.

The third issue to which I briefly want to refer is group areas. Here we have a major function of this Department of Planning, the planning and demarcation of group areas. In a country like South Africa, which is a heterogeneous one, where we are dealing with many different population groups, this obviously is an issue of very great importance. The Government is bent on this massive problem of trying to unravel the effects of 300 years of our history, and once you begin to start on this unravelling process, certain people are going to get hurt in the process, and in a society like ours it can seriously harm the sort of harmony we are all trying to achieve. The White people have very special obligations in this regard, because we are dealing in a general sense with less privileged groups who are not consulted about these moves and cannot put their point of view here. The Government in particular has very special obligations because it is the Government which is imposing upon our whole society this dogma of separatism. The Government always holds out to the outside world that their philosophy is separation with equality. It is equality that we seek on this issue in regard to the group areas, because equality must not only exist but it must be obvious to everybody that it exists. You are dealing here with a man's home which still in a very special sense is his castle. If you uproot him and push him elsewhere and assign him to an area which he regards as inferior, you create a traumatic experience of the greatest possible consequence and you invoke human passions of a very deep seated kind.

This applies particularly to the Indians and the Coloured people in this country, because with the Black people it is still possible to have this ideological escape valve of a homeland. But apart from the odd harebrained conjecture which comes from that side, nobody of any political consequence or any perspective is seriously propagating a homeland for Indians or for Coloureds as a viable policy. These people live here where they are and they will have to continue doing so. This is a massive and gigantic problem on which the Government is engaged. From statistics supplied in this House, it is clear that it has already affected 110 000 families. By even a conservative estimate this means that about ½ million people are involved, ½ million people who can no longer live where they have been, but now become liable to removal to an area which the Government regards as ethnically correct. Needless to say, only a small percentage of them are White. In fact, at present the statistics show that only 1,5 per cent of them are White. This immediately introduces an element of dis equality which the Government will find it very hard to justify.

We believe, too, that some of this new militancy and hostility which we observe amongst some of our Coloured and non-White groups can be traced back to this sort of development and that it might well be that the grievances which arise from group areas are triggering off the kind of disturbances that we recently had in Port Elizabeth and elsewhere.

To illustrate what I have in mind, Sir, let me take the example of Newcastle, not only because it has been in the news recently, but also because the hon. the Minister earlier on in this session told us how well planning is being conducted there. Mr. Chairman, in the Newcastle area certain areas were proclaimed for Indians and were set aside for them in 1962. Then recently the Department of Planning came with completely new proposals which will have the effect of deproclaiming this existing area and which will assign them to three new areas. Sir, i have looked at the maps of the area and it is quite obvious that the new areas to which the Government is assigning them—and I am referring particularly to the Boshoek area which seems to be favoured by the department—is not suited for the purpose. To begin with there are no proper buffer zones to separate them from the White areas. Secondly there is no possibility of extension of these areas; thirdly, ideologically the area is unsuited because it will be surrounded by White areas and, fourthly, it contains hilly ground which will obviously involve the people in high building costs and would therefore put it beyond the reach of most of the Indian people. The question then arises: Who has asked for this; what are the motives behind this new provision? My information is that the local authority had plans which are diametrically opposed to these. The Indians certainly have not asked for this. But to make it worse, Sir, in this particular case there are also important business interests involved. This Boshoek area covers some 7 400 acres, and my information is that 4 000 acres belong to the Bester Homes Group and to the Model Homes Group or to wholly-owned subsidiaries of them. I might mention too that apparently options were taken out and in many cases purchases made from some five to three days before the official announcement was made about the establishment of a third Iscor there. The timing, Sir, might be fortuitous; on the other hand, it might signify business anticipation of the keenest possible kind. I do not know anything about the antecedents of these companies and I do not know anything about the connections that they have or might not have, but it would be idle to pretend that there is not considerable public speculation in this regard. The important issue, furthermore, is that these companies bought this land at a time when they thought that it was White land and they paid prices which would be in accordance with a zoning of this land as White land. The proposals which are now before us, Sir, are that this area should be deproclaimed and that it should become an Indian area. This immediately puts them in a most invidious position. It means that their business interests will be very considerably affected.

Sir, there is confusion in the area; there is uncertainty; there are obviously major sums of money involved; some people stand to make a lot of money and better themselves and others again stand to lose money, and not at any stage of this Newcastle deproclamation have we had a satisfactory explanation as to how these proclamations and deproclamations are being done. Quite obviously the Government must realize that the position is becoming impossible. We cannot continue like this. There are more and more people who believe that this is a growing canker in our whole social system and that it will bedevil race relations. It is for this reason, and to obtain clarity on this matter and to satisfy whatever speculation there might be that we request that this Minister should agree to a full investigation of the planning of group areas not only in Newcastle but wherever else it might be conducted. We feel that he will be doing himself and the Government an injustice if he does not immediately agree to a commission of inquiry into this whole matter. Sir, our people have a new conscience in this regard. All our White people, whatever their political persuasion might be, sense intuitively that there should be a fair deal for the other man, and if we look at group areas as practised in Johannesburg, here in Cape Town, in Ladysmith, in Newcastle, then we find it extremely difficult to reconcile it with our consciences. [Time expired.]

Sir, I just want to tell the hon. member that I am not going to reply to everything he said here about Newcastle; I think the Minister has far more particulars at his disposal in regard to that matter than I have. But I should like to return to one thing the hon. member said here. I really think that we are slowly but surely becoming sick and tired of this Opposition and the English-language press…

You are still going to hear a great deal from them.

… who are always insinuating that Afrikaans companies which own certain properties or have certain interests, are always being favoured. The hon. member for Hillbrow again mentioned, in a very sly political way, the names here of Bester Homes and Model Homes, two companies which are controlled exclusively by Afrikaners. What was the hon. member trying to insinuate? Why did he not mention the other companies which also had interests there?

You can mention them.

Sir, I have no desire to do so, nor do I have any desire to do any political snooping around with the aim of dragging companies into this debate for political gain.

Disgraceful!

This entire attempt by the Opposition is aimed at suppressing and trampling upon the Afrikaner who is making progress in the business world today; that is what they are doing.

(Inaudible).

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member allowed to say, “You know it is untrue”?

Which hon. member said that?

The hon. member for Umlazi.

I said it was an absolute untruth.

No, the hon. member for Umlazi said it.

Order! Did the hon. member for Umlazi say it?

I said that it was not true.

Sir, on a point of order, I heard the hon. member say, “It is untrue and you know it is untrue”. Let him now be a man and admit to it.

I said it was not true.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, I have said that we are sick and tired of this. We are taking cognizance of the fact that the Opposition is trying to bring the Afrikaner into discredit. That is what this whole matter is all about; that is also what this debate here this evening was all about; that is what the entire campaign in the English Press is all about, and we have taken cognizance of it.

Sir, the great success of the over-all development of the policy of separate development is related very closely to the successful establishment and the development of growth points in our homelands and in other areas. When we consider the activities of the Department in this latest report, then we can say that in this sphere, namely the establishment of growth points, great success has already been achieved in our country. We are pleased to see here that major growth points have been established in areas like Rosslyn. Brits, Rustenburg, in the Northern Transvaal in places like Pietersburg, Phalaborwa, Tzaneen and Potgietersrus, in the East London area, the Berlin area, in Ladysmith in Natal, in Newcastle and in the Richard’s Bay area. Then there are still another two areas, namely the Babalegi area in Tswanaland near Hammanskraal and the Sitholo area which is now being developed in Zululand. Sir, the development of these areas comprises the establishment of growth points which provide work not only for the Bantu working in those areas, but also the Whites there.

Sir, problems have been experienced with the establishment of certain of these growth points. I think the time has arrived for the hon. the Minister to be given the statutory power, when these growth points are being established, to take immediate action in conjunction with the local authorities and in conjunction with other bodies, such as the I.D.C., and establish in these industrial areas the complete infrastructure to enable the industrialists to proceed with his industrial development there immediately. There are certain areas where this has been done with great success. I want to mention Rosslyn here as a particular example. When a start was made with Rosslyn the immediate co-operation of the Peri-Urban Health Board and the Transvaal Provincial Council was obtained. In this way the necessary infrastructure was established there, and the industrialists could make an immediate start there since the infrastructure had already been established and placed at his disposal. The same pattern is now being followed in the Richard’s Bay area. We want to speak tonight with great praise of what these various major organizations have done to establish this. As I said, there are many examples of other areas where things are not going as well. This is particularly the case where the local authority has to establish infrastructure. Quite probably the local authorities are not to blame for this, because I think that, quite probably, they do not have the necessary finance. Nor do they have the necessary knowledge and the necessary manpower to do this. That is why I think it would serve to promote this development if the Minister took the necessary powers to have this infrastructure developed in conjunction with strong organizations such as the I.D.C.

As far as physical planning is concerned, we advocated last year that a comprehensive national physical development plan should be introduced in respect of the whole Republic. We are grateful to note here, on page 2, in paragraph 14 to 17 of the report, that reference is made to this matter. We should like to know what progress has been made with the processing of the draft report which is in the possession of the hon. the Minister. We should also like to know whether this report has already been referred to the Planning Advisory Council for consideration. I think we are all looking forward eagerly to South Africa having such a comprehensive national physical development plan. I also want to plead this evening for larger growth points to be established elsewhere at other places as well, in our country towns. I am convinced that there are quite a number of our country towns which lend themselves to the establishment of growth points. I want to mention a practical example of a country town where for many years there was absolutely no development. A growth point was established there and today it is developing into a wonderful town in the Highveld of the Transvaal. I am referring here to the town Machadodorp. The development of the industries which have been established there, has turned Machadodorp into a beautiful town. If we take into account today the fact that 50 per cent of the total population of South Africa are living in our urban areas and that more specifically with reference to the Whites, 86 per cent of the White population is living in our cities, we must establish these growth points in our country towns to attract the urban population to these towns. As a result of the depopulation of our rural areas, our people are inclined to move to larger towns and to the greater metropolitan areas. If we establish these growth points in our smaller towns, we shall draw the rural population to these towns where they can then make a livelihood. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the speech of the hon. member for Langlaagte was symptomatic of the political decline of the Nationalist Party. We heard here this evening an attempt to whip up the emotions of the Afrikanervolk of South Afrika again. I do not believe that even the hon. member himself believes what he was saying. I want to say that I am sure that the people outside, if they even hear of this, will not believe it either. They are not going to take any notice of it.

He is a racist.

Yes, Sir, I think we could almost call the hon. member a racist. He has attempted once again to whip up the antagonism which existed between English and Afrikaans-speaking people, which has to a large extent disappeared. Even the hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me. But as long as he goes on in this way, he is only going to make matters worse.

The hon. member spoke of growth points. He spoke of giving this hon. Minister more power than he has got. The last thing I, and others on this side of the House want to see, is any more power than he has now, I believe he already has too much power. But I want to talk about growth points too, although not the same sort of growth points about which this hon. member has spoken. On the 21st January, I was reported in the Daily News as having said in a speech in Durban;

I stand by that statement tonight. However, as a result of that report, a joint statement was issued by this hon. Minister and his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, on the 3rd February, which drew attention to this report in the newspaper. It said that I had said that Indians and Coloureds living in their proclaimed group areas, could not hope to live in them permanently, because the Government would sooner or later deproclaim those areas and force them to settle in so-called “growth points”. It goes on:

I intend setting out tonight to show that this is Government policy, that it is their intention. If it is not their intention, I hope to get a categoric assurance from the hon. the Minister tonight—because these people who are living with this sword of Damocoles hanging over their heads, deserve such an assurance from the hon. the Minister. What we find is that on 11th June, 1968, the then Minister of Planning, Minister Carel de Wet, told us here in this debate that in the Transvaal all Coloureds outside the Pretoria-Vereeniging-Witwatersrand complex will be settled in five centres, namely in Klerksdorp, Potchefstroom, Witbank, Middelburg and Standerton. He went further and announced similar plans for the Indians in the Transvaal. I do not believe that that hon. Minister will deny that they are implementing this policy already, that they are already busy on it in the Transvaal, and that they are collecting these unfortunate people of the Coloured and Indian groups into the so-called growth points.

But then I call further as a witness the statement by Minister de Wet when he was Minister of Planning (Hansard, 1968, column 6949), where he said:

You might note, Sir, that the hon. the Minister said “at this stage” it is not their intention to deproclaim them, but there was no guarantee that they would not be deproclaimed. He left the door open for the very deproclamations which are taking place today, referred to by my hon. friend from Hillbrow a little earlier, particularly in Newcastle. What is the “encouragement” which is given to these people to move to these so-called “growth points”? The withholding of amenities where they are in their existing group areas, not allowing development in those areas, not providing room for expansion, not providing adequate employment opportunities —in fact, making it as difficult as possible for them to continue to live where they are. We have statements by leaders of the Coloured Representative Council. I refer particularly to Mr. Middleton who said that the fear is growing amongst Natal’s Coloured population that the Government is planning to uproot thousands of Coloured families and resettle them at four so-called growth points. He goes on to name the growth points in Natal as being at Marburg on the South Coast, at Marian-hill, in Pietermaritzburg and in Estcourt.

But the most important justification of what I have said, lies in the answers which this hon. Minister himself has given in reply to questions during the last two years. His own replies show that 50 proclaimed group areas have been deproclaimed and reproclaimed. Can the hon. the Minister really take me to task and say that my statement is untrue in the light of these facts? But the statement of the hon. the Minister goes further as follows—

What exceptional circumstances existed in Ladysmith, what exceptional circumstances existed in Howick, what exceptional circumstances exist today in Newcastle other than the greed of the White man? That is all it is—the greed of the White man to take over those plum areas which the non White people have in those towns today. Those are the only exceptional circumstances which exist. But what was published in the Press on the same day when this hon. Minister and his colleague issued this joint statement? It was reported that Newcastle is being replanned! What did this hon. Minister’s representative in Natal say at that time? According to a report in the Daily News on the 5th February, 1971, he said—

The hon. the Minister’s own chief in Natal denied the very point that he has made. I am very glad that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is here, because he associated himself with this statement which is devoid of all truth and which allegation, as I say, I can now justify.

I do not think anybody listens to you.

But let us go further and look at this latest report of the hon. the Minister’s department. I want to ask him why he is so coy this year? In the past we have had a full schedule of group areas proclaimed, deproclaimed and reproclaimed. But what do we have this year? The whole question of group areas demarcation is dismissed in a paragraph no more than five inches long. It covers only half the width of the page on which it is printed. That is the way in which this hon. Minister is going ahead. What do we find here? In paragraph 57 on page 7 of this report it is said that—

It goes further to say—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister today how many more group areas he is considering deproclaiming and reproclaiming? In paragraph 59 it is also stated that attention was further given to and investigations were held in respect of various items. There is no need for me to read them all, but item (b) is the regional areas for Coloureds in the Transvaal. That is exactly what his predecessor said he was going on with. However, this hon. Minister now denies it in his statement issued jointly with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. Item (h) is the position of Coloureds in Natal, excluding Zululand. This is the very item which the hon. the Minister denied in the statement issued jointly with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. Yet here it is in his own report. I want to say today that not only was my statement which I made in January, justified, out that it was the truth. The function of the other half of this hon. Minister’s split personality is to look after Coloured people. It is up to the Ministers to tell the Coloured and Indian people of South Africa what the future holds for them and whether they will be placed in these so-called growth points which will be nothing more than vast ghettos of frustration. Or else, if he is not prepared to tell the people today what lies in store for them, then I want to challenge him to introduce legislation to entrench the rights of the people in those areas once their areas have been zoned. What is the position in Newcastle? We find that in Newcastle 5 000 families will have to be moved. Why? It is because this hon. Minister cannot make up his mind and because, as I have said before, for the greed of the White man he will now deproclaim their area and proclaim it for some other race group. (Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, but it is no easy matter because he did not really say anything. He merely kicked up a row and carried on here again. Perhaps he should rather have raised his points under the Vote Coloured Affairs, but I think the hon. the Minister will still reply to him. He referred to an article in a publication in which the Government was accused of being irresponsible and illogical. I think that to a certain extent the hon. member was describing himself with those words; we should just add the word “senseless”. How can he make the statement that a removal takes place owing to “the greed of the White man”? That hon. member should not talk about “the greed of the White man”. If he considers the labour policy of his own party, he will really see “the greed of the White man”. I want to deal with this matter further now. The hon. member also stated that the Coloureds were being removed to “vast depots of frustration”. I think that a responsible member should be careful not to make statements such as that, because it is irresponsible to say a thing like that, I do not think it is right,

He is not responsible.

I do not want to reply any further to the nonsensical and irresponsible things the hon. member had to say here.

I want to return to an argument which has been conducted for a long period now between this side of the House and that side of the House. It deals with the best method of utilizing Bantu labour. The Opposition regards the unrestricted utilization of labour as the magic solution to all economic problems, but their arguments are not genuine because their standpoint results from their basic views in regard to a federal political state, of one Parliament in which it will be possible to accommodate all peoples. In addition their standpoint arises out of the 19th century viewpoint that the Bantu is a chattel of the Whites and that his labour should be available to the Whites whenever and however they require it. That side regards the Republic, from an economic point of view, as consisting of one homogeneous population of 22 million people. The standpoint of the National Party, on the other hand, results from the view that this is a multi-national country, and its policy comprises, inter alia, the political development of the various ethnic groups, which is already beginning to take shape. These peoples are not part of the permanent population of the Republic. Nor is the labour available at the disposal of the Whites; it belongs, in fact, to their own homeland or state-in-the-making. That is where the basic difference arises, and that is where the “greed of the White man”, as far as they are concerned, comes into the picture. The measures contemplated by this Government for the promotion of decentralization will, as far as I am concerned, set in motion a progress which will be of such a vast magnitude that the face of South Africa will be completely changed in years to come. I think we are now standing on the point of the second phase of decentralization. The first phase taught us a great deal, and the course has already been plotted, I think that this second phase is going to dwarf the first phase completely in its magnitude. I think that the industrialist of today is ripe for this. Industrialists will realize that those of them who do not avail themselves of this opportunity will be losing their chances. I think the industrialists realize fully how seriously this Government regards this matter to be, and that a confrontation to avert the progress will no longer help. The story of the Opposition to the effect that the inflation we are experiencing has its origin in our labour policy and that the Government will concede, and change its labour policy owing to pressure from their side, is no longer being accepted either. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said some time ago now that national accounts for the developed homelands are already being drawn up, and that it is already possible to calculate the gross national products of the areas, based on their geographical boundaries. Since these areas are now receiving a political content, it will be sensible and right that they should also receive a fully economic content. It is a fact that South Africa has a permanent population. It also has a temporary population. It could happen that in times to come South Africa will have to rely solely on its permanent population, i.e. when the temporary population will have been absorbed into their own permanent homelands. One can argue that this will not happen soon. But one must take into account the fact that this is possible, depending on how rapidly the economic and political development of the homelands takes place.

What is temporary about it, and what do you mean by that?

Just listen, I therefore want to make representations to the effect that this possible development should in future be recognized in our economic development programme. The obvious way to do this would be in the first place to draw up an economic development programme on the basis of the permanent population figures. This figure will be made up of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians who, together, will amount to a total of approximately million people. Secondly, an economic development programme must be drawn up for every political-unit in-the-making which has to be incorporated into the economic master development programme as a subsidiary part. Thirdly, an overall economic development programme must be drawn up along the lines of the present programme which will be a consolidation of everything else. I think that great benefits could be attached to this. It could be of incalculable value to a prospective industrialist who wants to make an investment, because it could give him an indication of the buying power of a specific homeland, of the population of the homeland, the labour resources and natural resources in every area. It could be of incalculable value for every emerging state in drawing up of its own budget. The planning of its own economic future could become clearer and more purposeful. Such an economic development programme, which could be drawn up for them, could also give the lie to this unfounded story the Opposition is bruiting abroad, i.e. that the Bantu homelands have no growth potential, that they are not economically viable and that they have no future. This will be worth a great deal to us in future and will form part of our view of ethnic and separate development.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down made one reference to which I should like to refer. He criticized my colleague, the member for Pietermaritzburg District, for using the term “the greed of the White man”. Next time when the hon. member gets up to make a speech, I should be very pleased to hear him explain the proclamation of District Six as White when the predominant number of people living there are Coloureds. If that is not an example of the greed of the White man in South Africa, I should like to know what is.

I should like to come back quickly to the hon. the Minister of Planning. I have a number of things to ask him. In the first place, I hope that he takes the opportunity in this debate to tell us of the decision of the Government in regard to the Grey Street complex at Durban. This is a matter that has hung on now for ten years. It is about time that the Government simply made a declaration declaring it an Indian area because it is in fact an Indian area. It is about time that it was declared an Indian area in name as well.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.