I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to move his amendments first. They stand first on the Order Paper, but in the absence of his rising I would like to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Transkei, as follows—

In this amendment we seek to reduce the amount, which has been called a tax or a contribution in this debate, from the sum of R2,50 to R1. It is in fact a tax on the use of Bantu labour. No case has been made out for the tax to be so high as R2,50. If an amount larger than R1 is needed, the hon. the Deputy Minister has certainly not taken this House into his confidence about it, and I propose to substantiate that R1 is more than sufficient for the needs which are required under these measures. It is a thoroughly bad principle that Parliament should give powers to tax for more than is shown to be needed. This is a principle which is adhered to by the hon. the Minister of Finance and by the hon. the Minister of Transport and others. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory to give what is virtually a blank cheque to raise taxation at will to a Minister.

This tax is said to consolidate three out of the five imposts that arise in connection with the use of Bantu labour. It leaves of course two which are not yet consolidated for various reasons, the licence fees payable and the transport fees. Now, it is said to consolidate the following three, namely the labour bureau once-and-for-all fee of 25 cents, the registration fee of 20 cents per month and the services levy fee of 20 cents per week, or about 85 cents per month. The monthly amounts, therefore, total R1,05. The important thing that the House must bear in mind is that on the basis of these monthly amounts of R1,05, enormous surpluses have been built up. There are R26 million in the Services Levy Fund alone. There are R5 million to R6 million already as a surplus in the account of the Johannesburg Services Levy Fund. There are clearly very big sums already in surplus in the other areas. It is therefore clear that the existing amount of R1,05 is far more than is needed and, naturally, we therefore need to be persuaded that it should be increased still further.

This was so even when money was still needed for the provision of these basic services, but what is the position today? It is quite clear that in many areas these basic services have been provided and there is no longer any need for funds to provide such services. Let us read the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard, because it was from his own mouth that we know that the services for which this money is mainly asked have been provided and are no longer needed. This is what he said in his reply to the Second Reading debate—

He was speaking of the services levy—

Then he went on—

That is what he said.

No, in some places only.

In many of these Bantu areas the basic services have been provided and it automatically follows that no further levy is needed to provide these services in all those areas. I say that, apart from the fact that there are surpluses which can be used. If, in fact, it is found that certain additional services are needed, for example in Johannesburg, it is crystal clear, to take but one example, that as far as Johannesburg is concerned, if no employer were subject to this services levy, there would be more than enough money in this fund for several years; the surplus is there to enable all possible future services to be provided. So, what is the position? The position therefore is that we no longer need these amounts totalling 85 cents per month which is the overwhelming part of the R1,05 which is at present being taken. Consequently it is quite clear that 20 cents per month would cover all that in respect of which the hon. the Deputy Minister has made a case to this committee. I say, therefore, 20 cents per month is approximately all the hon. the Deputy Minister has made a case for to this committee.

We are prepared to raise that ceiling right to the sum of R1, which is, I consider, an extremely liberal attitude, perhaps far too generous. But to go beyond that and fix it at the sum of R2,50 is to us absolutely inexplicable and unacceptable.

It is true that the hon. the Deputy Minister said that there was R6 million which would have to be covered by these levies, which at present is coming from the general rates of certain local authorities. But if one works out the proportions, one realizes that this is more than covered by even a slight increase on the 20 cents which I mentioned was left over.

Let us take the hon. the Deputy Minister’s figures. He says that approximately R15 million comes from the three existing imposts. Four-fifths of these imposts come from the services levy, namely 85 cents out of R1,05. In other words, he has been taking R12 million and he is still proposing to take R12 million per year for this services levy purpose alone. I have shown that the service levy now is in such surplus that it needs virtually no further money whatsoever. This R12 million is twice the amount that is being contributed by the urban local authorities from their general revenue account. Therefore, I submit that it is overwhelmingly established that the amount of R2,50 for which the country has been asked to give the hon. the Minister and Deputy Minister a blank cheque, is entirely unjustified.

Nobody can doubt that imposts of this kind add greatly to the cost of living, of articles produced in South Africa and to inflation. One would have thought that at a time like this we would exert and strain ourselves to keep these factors within bounds. Let me say that the hon. the Deputy Minister must not tell me that the Chamber of Industries, the Handelsinstituut and others are satisfied with the little bit of negotiation and the improvements he has produced. We welcome the slight change that has been produced, namely an agreement not to raise it above R1,50 except at the rate of 20 per cent and then on 12 months’ notice. The fact that these gentlemen may have been grateful for small mercies is no reason why the country should be saddled with a thoroughly bad measure and why a thoroughly bad taxation principle should be approved by this House. One knows that when a measure is practically on the Statute Book people in the position of those that came to speak to the Deputy Minister, would be grateful for some improvement, but this position, with great respect, is highly unsatisfactory from all the points of view I mentioned, and we cannot in any way give our support to it. We maintain that the amount we are giving is too far above what the hon. the Deputy Minister has shown he does need.

Mr. Chairman, I rise at this stage to move the amendments standing in my name in respect of this particular clause, as follows—

1. (4) If a Bantu employee was in the employment of an employer on the first day of any month and his employment with that employer is terminated before the last day of the month in question, or if a Bantu employee has entered the employment of an employer after the first day of any month and his employment with that employer is terminated on or before the last day of the month in question, the contribution payable by that employer in respect of the Bantu employee concerned for the month in question shall be an amount which bears to the amount of the contribution stated in the relevant notice referred to in subsection (1), the same ratio as that which the number of days in the period from the first day of the month in question or from the day on which he entered into employment as aforesaid, as the case may be, to the day on which his employment is terminated, bears to thirty;

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

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister immediately that I expect his enthusiastic support for this amendment. As he will see, this amendment seeks to exempt housewives and farmers from the provisions of this Bill—in other words, to avoid applying the tax to them.

During the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Deputy Minister made three references to the type of consultation that he had had before he decided to alter the present system of taxation or levy and to apply this new tax. I wonder if I may have his attention? What he told us was that this was entirely in keeping with the original pledge given by Dr. Verwoerd. What were these references which he made? It is really material to this clause.

Have you written your reply for Sunday yet?

Mr. Chairman, if that hon. member thinks that this is a laughing matter, I want to put him right here and now. This is a very serious matter, affecting every housewife and farmer in this country. If he wants to laugh about it, I suggest that he be jolly careful. It might blow up right in his face.

This hon. Deputy Minister made three references to consultation, and one common thread runs through them all. In each case he told us that this consultation was with representatives of industry. He said, for instance—

He makes two further references to this. I want to ask him what consultation he has had either with housewives or with organized agriculture. In his Second Reading speech he based his whole argument on the fact that consultations had taken place, because they were necessary before any moves could be made. In fact, he went so far as virtually to challenge us to show how he could have consulted more thoroughly. I wonder whether he could perhaps even now tell us just by nodding his head whether he has consulted with organized agriculture.

I do not want to engage in a dialogue across the floor of the House.

This is not a trick question, but simply a case of “yes” or “no”. I also want to ask him, and if he does not want to reply he does not have to, whether he bothered in any way to gauge the feeling of housewives as far as this new tax is concerned. I want to suggest to him that he has done neither.

Are you aware of the fact that the Bill was published on the 24th December?

This is neither here nor there. The hon. the Deputy Minister based his entire argument on the fact that he had adequate consultation. I am now asking him what consultation he has had with agriculture or with anybody who has to do with domestic servants. I want to go further. When he spoke in the Second Reading debate, the Deputy Minister stressed his contention that it was perfectly in line with the original pledge given by Dr. Verwoerd that this tax would not be applied further than he originally sought it to apply. He stressed that it was perfectly in order to alter this after consultation. Let me just tell the hon. the Deputy Minister what assurance he gave this House only two days ago. He said—

Now you see how “tydelik” it really was. I read further—

Now, was it not possible for him to consult with organized agriculture? I read further—

I am holding this Government and this Deputy Minister to their word and to their honour. He has not consulted, as he said he must and as he said he had, with organized agriculture, and I doubt whether he has consulted with any farmer for that matter. I have not consulted with organized agriculture, but I have spoken to quite a number of farmers. So have other hon. members on this side of the House. Farmers are horrified at the thought of this new tax being applied to them. What is more, I have also taken the trouble to talk to quite a few housewives about this and they are equally horrified. I hope we are going to get a reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister on the score of exactly what consultation has taken place and whether he proposes to stick to the undertaking of Dr. Verwoerd, as interpreted by himself two days ago. I suggest that even with the rapid changes in direction that this Government makes, two days is far too short a time for the hon. the Deputy Minister to go back on an undertaking.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pity that the United Party is making a political issue of this matter when the hon. the Deputy Minister in his Second Reading speech, and other members on this side, too, stated very clearly that this R2.50 simply was a ceiling which was being placed on the levy. The hon. members for Pinelands and Kensington dragged the question of tax into this by the hair and tried to gull the world into believing that this was a tax to be levied.

It is a tax.

It is not a tax. It is utter nonsense to allege that. These people are politicising. No jot or tittle is being added to the tax paid at present. But what does the attitude of the hon. members for Pinelands and Kensington imply? Tomorrow there will once again be headlines in the newspapers that tremendously high levies are being imposed on the housewife and the farmer. In my opinion it is outrageous that the United Party should proceed with its huckstering in this regard. To us this is once again proof of how politically bankrupt these people are when they have to try to catch a few votes by means of this matter. What is happening here, is simply that a ceiling of R2,50 is being imposed. The levy may go up to this ceiling. But if a study is made of the amendment proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister, it will be seen that he has given the undertaking to organized …

Agriculture.

No, to the Federated Chamber of Industries. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave the undertaking that if a contribution exceeded R1,50 it would not be increased by more than 20 per cent without prior notice of at least one year had been given of the intention to increase the levy. Therefore, this will be done properly. I think hon. members are using this matter as a red herring for political purposes. If we accept this proposed amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister there will be a large degree of unanimity as far as this matter is concerned. I assume that proper consultations were conducted in connection with this matter. But what is more, this Bill was published as far back as 24th December. For what reason is a draft Act published? A draft Act is published to afford interested bodies and persons an opportunity of perusing the legislation and an opportunity of putting their views concerning that draft legislation to the Minister. This organized body does not see the sinister thing in this legislation which the Opposition is trying to see in it. These people realize that nothing is being added to the present levies at the present time. These people are people who can understand what they read. They understand the contents of this legislation. They realize that what is being done here is merely the imposition of a ceiling of R2,50. It is possible to move between that ceiling and the floor levy after consultation, and this will happen. For that reason I say that we cannot understand the arguments of the United Party and consequently we have to reject them because we see that what they are engaged in here, is merely politicking.

Mr. Chairman, it was quite interesting to have listened to the hon. member who has just sat down, because he is well aware of the original purpose of the Native services levy and the reason why it was imposed. He also knows of the tremendous objection that took place at that time, right throughout the circles of commerce and industry, with regard to the form of indirect taxation on an employer. The employer was specifically taxed in order to ensure that these services would be available when the Bantu locations and townships, as they were then called, expanded at such a tremendous rate. He knows particularly well that the city which he served at one time was virtually the focal point of the establishment of the Native services levy. The cost of bringing services to the boundaries of these townships was so enormous that the State shuddered at the thought of having to find the funds. Maybe it had its difficulties then as well. The hon. member is well aware of the fact that there was a tremendous outcry because the employer was specifically taxed as opposed to the general community. The specific undertaking given at that time was not only that the funds would not be used for any other purpose, but also that the funds would not be required, or called for, once the purpose had been achieved. This is not a Statute which was imposed for all time. It was not, for instance, the Income Tax Act, or a part of it, which must continue perenially; this Act was passed for a specific purpose and the understanding was that, when the purpose had been served, the necessity for the imposition on the employer would come to an end. Committees were established on which employers together with local authorities and officials from the State Department of Native Affairs, as it was then called, were represented, in order to deal with the allocation and use of these moneys year by year for specific projects. The project had to be approved of by these committees.

What is the hon. the Minister doing in this instance? He is virtually bringing to an end the necessity for a Native services levy in terms of that particular Act because, as he says, so much has now been accumulated that there is no necessity for further levies as they do not need that money any more. “We have now come to the conclusion that, because so much has been accumulated, our eyes have been opened to the fact that it is not further required.” That is what he said in his speech, and has been referred to. So what does he do? He does not bring this particular imposition to an end, but says “Now that the pain is something to which the wearer of the shoe has become accustomed—there is a very famous story by Pauline Smith on pain, which I would like the hon. the Minister to read—he can live with it”. They must now live with this imposition. “I will therefore impose a form of indirect taxation; I need the money; I have my Bantu Administration Boards which must function; also, now that I can impose this tax without being limited or restricted by the Native Services Levy Act and the undertaking of a former Prime Minister— traversed over five pages of his speech, while he assured us that he would honour that undertaking—here is an opportunity of levying a form of indirect taxation which I can now use as I like. I can use it for administrative purposes of the board …" And, as he later endeavours to do, “I can use it to supplement all my ideological policies that I have been working out, in connection with which I find myself in financial difficulties”.

Let us get to the stage where we accept that the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he will not increase it, but is merely asking for exactly what he has. The hon. member who has just spoken said that the public knew that that was the figure and that they had got used to it. Let me give an example of one town for which I have the figures and which ought therefore to be helpful. From Johannesburg alone one finds that at 85 cents, i.e. the Natives services levy figure, he will receive R3 900 000 per annum. With the addition from those people for whom accommodation is provided—they are not excluded now—this will mount by another R500 000 to R4 500 000.

If he adds the other amount, the 20 cents, he will receive something in the nature of R5½ million. This is a considerable sum of money, a sum which at the height of expenditure for Native services, will still leave an average surplus of nearly R1½ million per annum. The Minister says, and here is another amount of money he has in hand, that he is going to use the interest received from that R26 million for his administrative boards. He said: “What a lovely nest egg I have got; what a lovely nest negg for these bodies!” However, he still wants to ensure that he will have enormous surpluses. If he adds that amount of 50 cents as I have told him earlier, which is obviously what he is contemplating because he has now dropped his ceiling temporarily and will increase it only subject to certain notices, he will get an amount of money which will far exceed anything he has ever dreamt of getting. It will not only be used for administrative boards; it will not be used to provide that “contented” labour in the towns that he talks about, that “efficient, honest and satisfactory” labour which he hopes he will bring about by using the money for amenities, but he will start diverting the money.

We believe that the hon. Minister can only get what Parliament knows he requires. He cannot have moneys for which he will not have to account for in the future, because they will flow into his department to be used by him in the broad, wide sense of this particular Bill. Why then should housewives who were not included under the Bantu Services Levy Act be penalized? Why should farmers have to be penalized? Why should these people have to be penalized now because the Minister feels that the pain is there, that it is nothing new because it is the same pain that has been experienced in the past? His whole vision of contributions has expanded with the provisions of this Bill. The only reason why industry and commerce is not creating any pressure of objection at the moment, is because they may go along with the hon. the Deputy Minister to some extent in the undertaking he gives for the uses of the money, namely that it will be used for the benefit of the people working in the towns—in other words, the people working in the areas from which they draw their labour.

The hon. Minister should get nothing more than has been paid hitherto and if he wants more, let him come back to Parliament and tell us that he cannot administer with the money that he has at his disposal. Let him tell Parliament that it is not sufficient to administer his boards. Let him tell Parliament of all the surpluses which are undoubtedly going to accumulate, because this administrative board is taking over an inheritance which has a history of no deficits other than in respect of special additional services. Very few municipalities in this country have operated their Bantu Revenue Account with deficits. The Johannesburg Municipality which was severely criticized, last year had a very big deficit of a couple of million rand— the ratepayers had to pay for it—because of services which had been rendered in the form of health amenities, recreation, etc.

Generally, there had been no deficits at all and the Bantu Revenue Account had been ample to meet the requirements. The Beer Account and the liquor sales provide moneys for deficits on housing, recreation and other purposes. This particular operation of Bantu administration in the towns and cities of South Africa has a tremendous source of income and I, therefore, say that the hon. the Minister has no right to raise the levies. If he wants to maintain the status quo, as he pleads here, and the industrialists go along with him to some extent, let it stay where it was. To ask for more, to contemplate that he can build himself up virtually a complete new empire without Parliament in any way having say over the matter, I say is asking more than any Parliament is entitled to give to any Minister. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister should reconsider that situation. If he thinks that the headlines will mention the indirect taxation and that it is not warranted, I say to him this is the beginning of a new form of indirect taxation. This is only the first concept of how to handle it.

It has always been there.

It has been there for a different purpose and that is my point. You will start taking any objective which you have had in the past and which may not be necessary now and you will then gradually infiltrate into the economy of this country with a new form of indirect taxation. Your plea will be that we have always had it, whilst you have never had it save for a special purpose. That is the point I have been trying to make.

Sir, those two hon. gentlemen on the other side who spoke this morning, simply talked nonsense. In the Second Reading debate we pointed out that hon. members of the Opposition could not raise any real objection to this Bill. The atmosphere which they create is this: They do not want the Government to establish a decent administration; that is all. The reason behind the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Kensington, and the hon. member who has just sat down, is not that they have the interests of the housewives or the farmers at heart; it is all outward show. The hon. member for Kensington said that the housewives and the farmers had not been consulted. Now he is sheltering behind the skirts of the women. The reason behind their arguments is that they are in difficulty at the moment as far as the Reef and Johannesburg are concerned; there they are saddled with the Progressive Party, and the hon. member for Kensington, the prominent writer in the Sunday Times, is fencing for those Progressive supporters who advertise in his newspaper; that is all he was doing here this morning; he does not have the interests of the farmers at heart. He is fencing for those large financial organizations, those employers who do not want to accept their real responsibility in respect of Bantu workers in White areas. He is fencing for those employers who do not care for the Bantu in the White areas; that is his argument and that is what is behind his whole argument this morning.

Sir, in his Second Reading speech and in his reply to the debate, the hon. the Deputy Minister gave very clear replies to all these questions. If the hon. member for Kensington were to write less in the Sunday Times and pay more attention to the debates conducted in this House, we would not get this sort of argumentation from him.

Sir, I will return to the hon. member for Rissik in a moment, but I want first to refer to the second part of the amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister dealing with employment for portion of a month. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this is intentional, because as the amendment is worded it deals with a person who is in the employ of an employer on the 1st of the month but whose employment is terminated before the end of the month. It deals with a person who enters employment after the 1st of the month and whose employment is terminated on or before the end of the month, but it does not cover the employee who is taken into employment after the 1st of the month and whose employment is not terminated. In other words, if an employee is employed on the 29th of the month, then he is not covered by this exclusion and the full amount is paid for that employee who was engaged on the 29th but not dismissed on the 30th. Is that the intention?

That is right.

Sir, I cannot follow the logic of it. If you are going to exclude an employee whose employment is terminated during the month and you are going to exclude an employee taken on after the beginning of the month and whose services are terminated on or before the end of the month, why not exclude a person in the very same circumstances who is taken on during the month but whose services are not terminated? Because what it means then is that the employer is not going to engage employees halfway through the month or towards the end of the month if he can help it; he will then wait until the 1st of the month, and who suffers? The employee, the Bantu in whom this Deputy Minister alleges he is interested. But he deliberately wraps up this amendment in so many words and so much fluff that he hopes nobody will notice this until the employer suddenly finds that he has to pay. What the employer has now got to do is to dismiss the man on the 30th of the month, because he then gets the benefit, and then engage him again on the 1st. Sir, if technically he dismisses the employee on the last day of the month and re-employs him on the first day of the next month, he does not pay the levy, or he pays a pro rata amount.

The tax.

Yes, he pays a pro rata amount of the tax. But if he does not dismiss him and re-employ him the next day, then he has to pay the full tax for the whole month. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister can explain the purpose of this obtuse, meandering, wandering wording which has that effect and why the employer is penalized in that particular situation.

Now I want to return to the arguments of the hon. members for Langlaagte and Rissik. The hon. member for Rissik said that the United Party was opposed to good, decent administration.

*No, that is not what we are opposed to. We are opposed to concealed taxation. We should like to have good, decent administration, but in that case the money required should be asked for openly in this House. It should not be concealed in the name of levies so that no-one may know what is spent and what is collected. We say that this Parliament is the boss and that this Parliament is the responsible body. Let the Minister come forward with a budget so that the people may see what the employers have to pay and how the money is spent. Why is the Minister afraid to come to this House and to say what amount he wants for administration and how he is going to spend the money? Is he afraid of the searchlight of Parliament falling on his actions and his administration? Now he wants to take the money from the public and he does not want the public to know how much is taken from them and how it is spent. All we are asking for, Sir, is for this Parliament to obtain and retain control.

And yesterday afternoon you were afraid of that.

Sir, the hon. the Minister says that we are afraid—the hon. the Minister who is avoiding Parliament when it comes to the real duty of Parliament, which is to deal with taxation and with the expenditure of money. He does not want Parliament to do its job there; but he wants Parliament to do the job of a Judge. He wants Parliament to play around with mock high courts of parliament. He was prepared to be a judge of a high court of Parliament and now he accuses us of being scared.

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

Sir, I am replying to the hon. the Minister; but I have made my point. We do not want to be judges; we want to be controllers of the fiscal purse. We have moved a simple amendment here. A housewife today employing a domestic servant does not pay the services levy. She pays the registration fee.

She is not going to pay the services levy in future either.

Who says so?

The Deputy Minister says that she is not going to pay it. Let him then amend our amendment.

Will he accept it?

Will he accept our amendment? Will he accept an amendment that a housewife shall not pay more than 20 cents a month for a domestic servant?

No more than she is paying now.

What notice can we take of the word of this Deputy Minister? He has stated across the floor of the House that the housewife is not going to have to pay, and when I take him at his word and ask him to accept an amendment in this connection, he sits there zipped and dumb.

Come off it, man.

Sir, I intend to move a further amendment that, in respect of a domestic employee, the levy, the tax, shall not be more than 20 cents, and this the Deputy Minister himself says the housewife is not going to have to pay. Then we shall test their sincerity and we shall see whether in fact the Deputy Minister intends her not to pay that levy. If he does intend that she should not pay the levy, and if we can take him at his word, then he will accept such an amendment. The same applies to the farmers.

The farmers’ friend.

Assurances are given, Mr. Chairman, but the assurances are worth as much as the assurances of that sporting Minister for Yo-yo!

Get off your soapbox.

The hon. the Minister is much better at playing with yo-yos than dealing with serious matters. Let him go to the farmers of Caledon and say: “I sat there and made jokes in Parliament While my colleagure passed a law putting an extra hidden tax on you.” We pay enough taxes, Sir: There are all sorts of taxes: Excise tax, sales taxes, personal tax, income tax, etc. There are taxes from all sides, and this is just one more tax to be added to the burden. We want to control these taxes through Parliament. The Deputy Minister and the Government’s policy seems to be that if you take little nibbles here and there people will not notice what is being done to them. People do notice, Sir, and the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation must go to Caledon and tell his voters, the farmers there, that he sat here with an inane grin on his face and did nothing to protect their interests, and in fact was happy to see an extra tax included. I intend to move the amendment I have mentioned, as soon as I have written it out, and I shall base it on the assurance given by the hon. the Deputy Minister across the floor of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, gave so much evidence of his virtually boundless ignorance concerning this matter that I am obliged to reply to that first. I want to explain the present position in connection with Bantu servants, as far as it affects housewives. All of a sudden this morning the Opposition has a great deal to say about the housewives, but let me say at once that this side of the House will look after the interests of the housewives in this country, just as we look after the interests of the farmers as well. They have every reason for trusting us 100 per cent, just as they can trust us in this connection as well. Let me now give the hon. member the facts of the matter. At the moment each housewife pays in respect of a Bantu domestic servant in her employ a labour bureau fee of …

20 cents.

No, it is not 20 cents. She pays a once-only labour bureau fee of 25 cents. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District must help the hon. member for Durban Point a little.

I have the stamps in my office which prove that a fee of 20 cents per month has been paid.

The hon. member is completely at sea. He does not know what he is talking about. I shall explain the position once again. In respect of each Bantu domestic servant the housewife pays a once-only labour bureau fee of 25 cents.

I am speaking of the monthly amount.

This morning the hon. member’s powers of comprehension evidently are very weak. I do not know what his trouble is. In addition to that the housewife pays, in the second place, in respect of each Bantu woman in her employ a registration fee of 20 cents per month. This is what she is paying now.

That is what I said.

This has been the position for a long time. Now the hon. member has heard of a levy, in terms of the Services Levy Act, but about this the hon. member apparently knows nothing. The levy, in terms of the Services Levy Act, has never been paid by the housewife. I said across the floor of this House to the hon. member that the housewife need not pay that fee now either. Does the hon. member understand this? Does the hon. member know of that levy? Has he ever heard of it?

Where is it written in?

I think the hon. member for Pinelands and the other-hon. members on the opposite side should inform that hon. member a little so that he will not make such a fool of himself in this House and in the eyes of the housewives of this country. Let us now have some clarity in respect of this matter. The housewife pays those two fees I have mentioned, i.e. the labour bureau fee and the registration fee; she does not pay the levy in terms of the Services Levy Act. The three fees I have mentioned, are now being consolidated into one fee, which is going to be paid on a monthly basis, and I repeat: The housewife is not going to pay the levy in terms of the Services Levy Act; she has never paid it, nor will she have to pay it in future. Of the three fees I have mentioned, the housewife has always paid two. The third she has never paid. Those three fees are now becoming one fee and yesterday in this House I said in my reply that for the present the housewives will not pay more than they are paying now.

You say, “for the present”?

Yes, I say for the present. Does the hon. member want me to give an assurance that the housewives will not pay more for the next hundred years or for all eternity? Is that what the hon. member wants? Surely I cannot do so. Now, I say once again: If hon. members want to play politics with this situation, I am depriving them of that privilege because I am informing every housewife in this country —I include the housewives of Brakpan as well as those of Gezina, because they are the reason for all the talking of the hon. members—that this legislation does not envisage their having to pay more for the present than they are paying now. Do hon. members understand this now? Now I have dealt fully with the question of the housewives.

At this stage I should like to put something very clearly to the hon. member for Kensington, who spoke about the farmers. The hon. member for Kensington is the one who tried this morning to act as the mouthpiece of the farmers. It is Hogarth de Hoogh, who wants to act for the farmers. Sir, I should like to see him on horseback on a farm. He will have to take a bottle of castor oil or something along with him. Sir, as far as the farmers are concerned, I said very explicitly in this House, in reply to the Second Reading debate, that it will not be expected of bona fide farmers to pay any fee in respect of this Bill for the present. Under no circumstances will it now be expected of them to do so. Let the bona fide farmers know this. I myself did not consult with the farmers and with organized agriculture, because there was no need to do so; bona fide farmers are not going to be brought into this for the present.

For the present?

Yes, for the present, because, surely, I am unable to give assurances which are to hold good for all times and for eternity. Do hon. members expect me to do so? Surely it is impossible.

Yes.

My department consulted the farmers and the agricultural unions in connection with this Bill. This Bill was circulated to them for their comments, and apart from that, it was published for general information on 24th December. What more would any farmer want to know in connection with this matter than what I have just said, i.e. that in the present circumstances he is not going to be assessed in respect of these fees? Surely there is nothing more to say in connection with this matter. Whereas I have just said this, the United Party moved an amendment this morning asking for a fee of R1. By doing so the United Party has given crystal clear proof of their complete lack of understanding of future planning or of any responsibility towards this country as regards ensuring that the administration of Bantu affairs will at least be placed on a firm basis, because if I were to accept this amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei, i.e. that the fee should be determined at R1, I say now that there would be areas in South Africa in which it would be necessary to operate at a loss right from the outset. In that case there would be no question of future planning and no question of any streamlining of Bantu administration or of anything of that nature.

But you have a surplus.

It is completely impossible for me to accept that amendment. I just want to mention this, Sir. Furthermore, you should see how poor the United Party’s knowledge and background are regarding this matter, as was evidenced here once again this morning. At the moment something in the vicinity of R6 million, despite surpluses in the Levy Fund, is taken from the White Revenue Account and utilized for Bantu affairs on the part of some of the United Party-controlled city councils. Let the country, for once, take some cognizance of this. In Johannesburg, I think, the amount taken from the White Revenue Account is R4 million, or something of that order, which is then used for Bantu affairs.

But this has been done openly.

In all the other 300 or 400 places, with the exception of these few, the Bantu Revenue Account is more than sufficient for maintaining proper administration in those places. Now you have to understand what these hon. members are asking for by means of their amendment, i.e. that the amount be pegged down at R1. If one were to agree to pegging down the amount at R1, it would mean that instead of an amount as high as R6 million being taken from the White Revenue Account for Bantu affairs, as at present, in the places controlled by them, this amount would have to be increased considerably and that the House of Assembly would, in that case, have to accept this important principle that henceforth it would have to finance Bantu affairs from its White Revenue Account in all these places in which Bantu administration is essential; and on that basis we shall be able to play a nice game of politics in all those places in which it is possible to play politics with this matter. For all these reasons it is completely unacceptable to me to agree to this amendment moved by those hon. members. I already have an amendment on the Order Paper which makes it possible for proper notice to be given 12 months in advance if that amount has to be increased. Furthermore, I want to point out that each amount to be levied, will be levied by means of Government notices and, surely, the hon. members are aware of the fact that Government notices have to be tabled here and may be debated here. Therefore it is not at all true, as the hon. members over there want to insinuate, that we are trying to avoid Parliament as regards this amount of R2,50 mentioned in the Bill—not at all—because the procedure of determining the amount and publishing each amount determined in this respect, in a government notice, ensures the safe right of those hon. members to raise the matter here and to debate it in this House of Assembly. Therefore, the House of Assembly is retaining its full right to discuss the matter here.

Unfortunately the other amendment which the hon. member for Kensington has on the Order Paper is not acceptable to me either. In view of the fact that assurances have been given, as I have given them, we cannot now introduce another very important principle here, one which we would have to introduce if I were prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington, i.e. a principle of discrimination. Because in that case we would be able to say that some people were to pay in respect of their Bantu employees and other people not. We cannot introduce that principle of discrimination here. We say there is a principle of differentiation. We accept it. We had very full discussions with all interested bodies, representative bodies, on the question of the necessity to spread the burden of finding the necessary funds for administration as evenly as possible over the general public of South Africa. Surely this is a principle which is acceptable. It is an acceptable principle and it was decided—because one wants to spread this as evenly as possible with due regard being had to the actual position of all concerned in this matter, which, surely, is fair so that one may grant exemptions where necessary and so that one may reduce the amount where necessary, etc.—that, arising from this, we also had to accept the principle, with which these people with whom we had conducted the discussions were satisfied, that we could not accept any principle of discrimination by saying certain groups of employers would pay nothing whereas other groups would in fact pay. Surely this is unfair. Do those hon. members really want to advocate this morning that some people have to pay and others not? Surely it is foolish. I can tell you that the representative bodies do not advocate this. What they do advocate and what has been written into this legislation is the other principle of differentiation and this, we feel, is a very fair principle. Lastly the hon. member for Durban Point advanced an argument here regarding this amendment standing on the Order Paper, i.e. the new subsection (4). I want to tell the hon. member at once that this clause was drafted in this way by the law advisers so as to try to express in words and embody in this Bill the principle we had discussed with the representative bodies, i.e. that since we now concede that an employer need not pay the full amount in general in respect of his employee if the employee absconds or does not work the full month, we should like to facilitate as far as possible the administration in, connection with this matter and retain the principle we had at the very, outset, i.e. to simplify the administration as far as possible as compared to the levy which now has to be paid in terms of the Services Levy Act. For that reason a month is deemed to have 30 days, whereas we know that some months have 31 days, merely for the sake of avoiding administrative confusion. For that reason we have now accepted here—and in our opinion this is perfectly fair, although I want to make the hon. member a present of saying that this point may be argued —that if a Bantu starts working for the employer on the fifth of the month and is dismissed or absconds on the 12th, the employer pays only for the period from the 5th to the 12th, in other words, for seven days. If he is employed on the 2nd of the month and he is dismissed or absconds on the 10th, he pays for eight days only, but if he does not abscond or is not dismissed in the course of the month, irrespective of the date of employment of that Bantu employee, the employer is expected to pay the full amount in respect of that employee, because, after all, he will be carrying on in employment into the following month.

But where is the logic in that?

The logic of this, in the first place, is to try to simplify as far as possible the confusion of administrative complications. This, in the first place, and in the second place, the following: Take for example the case of a Bantu whose employment is continuous into the next month. This should not be seen in terms of one month only, because I repeat that if he is dismissed in that month the employer pays only in respect of those days the employee was employed. But if the employment of a Bantu is continuous into the next month, irrespective of the date on which he was employed in the previous month, and he absconds in the month following his employment or is dismissed, the employer pays only in respect of those few days in the new month for which the employee was employed. I hope the hon. member understands this now.

He does not want to understand it.

We understand it, but where is the logic in that?

Suppose he worked only to the 2nd of the next month. In that case he does not pay for the whole of the following month; he pays only for those two days of that month, because on the 2nd of that new month the Bantu was dismissed or, if he absconded, he is no longer in employment, and the employer no longer pays the levy. Therefore this whole aspect canalizes itself and even a child will be able to understand it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it would not be administratively far simpler to state in the Bill that he pays so much per month or one-thirtieth thereof for each day worked? Is that not simpler administratively, legally and in every other way?

Sir, the officials who work with this matter heave a heavy sigh when they hear the idea the hon. member has just expressed. They assure me—I discussed the matter with the law advisers, too, in the course of this week —that this will result in a tremendous amount of extra administrative work, which we want to try to avoid. I have here a note from one of the officials, which I should like to read to you (translation)—

Surely these are the responsible bodies which deal with these matters, but now the hon. member for Durban Point wants to elevate himself, as it were, to the position of a powerful personality who knows so much about these things, whereas he showed that he does not know even the first thing about the Bantu Services Levy Act. We think this provision, as it is worded, is very fair, that it is in fact very simple and that the matter will solve itself in the next month or the month following that in view of the fact that the employer will pay only for that part of the month worked by the Bantu.

I think I have now replied to the most important questions which were raised, except that I want to content myself by coming back to this question of the R2,50 which was forcefully raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. He is an hon. member with whom one likes to cross swords in this House because of the courtesy with which he puts his case. I discussed this issue at length during the Second Reading debate and I do not want to cover the same field again now, but let me just say the position is that one finds oneself faced with the situation that one simply cannot determine one amount for the whole of the Republic, Something like that is impossible. One has to determine a maximum amount, because if one does not determine such an amount, the Minister has carte blanche to levy any amount, just what he likes—R10 per month or even R20 per month—and then we would have heard what would have happened if that had been the position. Therefore, one has to mention an amount and the question arises what amount one is to mention: Is one to mention R1,50; is one to mention R2,00; is one to mention R2,50?

I want to say that a tradition has been built up over many long years in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development that as far as amounts of this kind are concerned the country should be spared this kind of emotional debate as we had in the past and as we shall in all probability have in future. To spare the country that and also for other reasons, which I do not want to go into now, we say we determine an amount which will hold good for a long time to come. In this way I may mention the example of the registration fee, the amount of which was determined in 1923 and remained the same up to 1972. We believe it wise to determine the amount in this way and we should like to see this tradition being maintained in the department. We have made it clear several times, and we have embodied this in the Bill, that the amount of R1,50 which is accepted from all quarters by FCI, Assocom and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut is the level at which it is pegged down. We say it is a reasonable amount and this is in fact the amount at which they want to have it pegged down. This is what was said by the Federated Chamber of Industries when they had an interview with us the other day.

Why do you not come to the question of for the present?

We said at the time, “Very, well, we shall peg it down at R1,50 but in the event of it being necessary—we are not prophets as regards seeing the difficulties which may crop up—to exceed the amount of R1,50 in respect of a specific area we shall, if it is necessary to exceed that amount by 20 per cent, give notice 12 months in advance in order to give certainty. We want to give the people certainty so that they may know where they stand. Surely this is fair and therefore I repeat that the hon. members must accept that we did not arrive lightly at this maximum amount of R2,50, which we hope will hold good for many: long years to come; we arrived at that figure after mature consideration. We have taken all the necessary measures in order to give certainty to all concerned in this matter, and I hope the hon. members opposite will now content themselves with that.

Can you just tell me one thing more: What are you going to do with the money? [Interjections.]

I was on the point of issuing a challenge to that hon. member. At present he has a great deal to say about these surpluses in the levy funds, but I was on the point of challenging him to tell me why the United Party since city councils controlled by them are the very ones who take money from the White Revenue Account whereas they have a surplus of R5 million or R6 million in the levy funds, does not come forward with a motion in which they request freeing the surpluses of the levy funds so that they may be spent. Why do they not come forward with a motion like that? Why does the hon. member for Jeppes not come forward with a motion like that?

We cannot do so. There is an Act.

But why do you not make a suggestion, then we shall see.

What will you use the money for? That is what we want to know.

I shall tell you now. If we want to touch that, hon. members tell us that Dr. Verwoerd gave this or that assurance. But now I am challenging them, why do they not come forward with the suggestion to free that amount instead of keeping it as a nestegg? I told them yesterday that we would cast this in their teeth at a later stage, because it is because of them that that amount is simply lying there. Where the services have been established, it is a terrible problem to spend those funds in terms of the existing Act.

Now the hon. member asks me for what purposes these new funds under this administration costs legislation are going to be used. I have already replied to that. In the first place those moneys are utilized as required for the administration in respect of the Bantu employee in a White area, as well as for all those purposes for which the Urban Areas Act makes provision. The hon. member may refer to section 19 of the Urban Areas Act. That contains a very long list, up to (m) or (n), of purposes for which this money may be utilized. It will be utilized for those purposes in the first place. Now the question is what happens if there are surpluses. In that case, we say, the Minister will henceforth have the power to utilize those surpluses in consultation with the local authority for purposes on which they may decide. That is the position.

We are glad to have the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanations, but I am sorry to say they are not satisfactory. The hon. the Deputy Minister challenges us to ask that the Services Levy Fund be freed from the obligations to be confined to services levies. This is interesting, because the hon. member for Durban Point pointed to the question of concealed taxation. At present, the amount of 85 cents per month is definitely appropriated for services levies. But now the hon. the Deputy Minister is asking this House for that 85 cents in an entirely different guise. He is now going to take that 85 cents as part of the bigger amount he is going to establish. It is not going to be for a services levy. His hands are going to be entirely untied. He is pretending, with great respect, that he is consolidating the services levy here, but in fact the services levy legislation still remains in position.

The moment this new levy comes into operation, the employer does not pay that levy any longer.

Well, the legislation is still there to control the surpluses. So it is an entirely different question from the one that he puts to us.

But in regard to the existing surpluses I have said that they will be utilized in terms of the Services Levy Act.

Yes, and this is why I pointed out that he did not need an amount above R1, because he was already getting big surpluses. Services were supplied and no new services were needed. He said that himself. Consequently, it should be possible to make a reduction in the amount of R1,05 appreciably below R1,05. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister did not attempt to dispute my figures. He did not answer; he made no attempt to answer my figures. All he said was that the United Party had no understanding of future planning, and it was a question of putting administration on a sound basis. The only argument he used was when he spoke about “gebiede waar jy van die begin af teen ’n verlies moet werk”. He implied that there were certain areas which would work at a loss unless it was above R1. He did not specify them and gave no breakdown as to why this should be so. In the light of the fact that he has built up such large surpluses with the maximum charge at R1,05, this is quite inexplicable to us.

He built it up with 85 cents.

Yes, he built it up with 85 cents in regard to the services levy. With the exception of one or two urban local authorities he has no deficits on his other accounts.

May I just interrupt by saying that in the determination of the new consolidated levy in a given area those factors will naturally be taken into account by the local councils, the administrative boards and any other bodies representing the employers in that area.

It all boils down to the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not made out a case for taking a bigger amount of taxation than R1. The hon. the Deputy Minister says there has to be differentiation and that, for this reason, he is only prepared to accept a ceiling on the amount. The hon. the Minister of Finance also has differentiation in taxation, but he acts according to principles. He places these principles in accordance with which he differentiates, before the House. Why should it then be so difficult for the hon. the Deputy Minister to say what the amount will be for housewives, what it will be in the case of industrialists and what it will be for the different areas? We will then be able to see the principles involved, before we vote for any taxation. The hon. the Deputy Minister is therefore not complying with what every other Minister seeking funds from this House is prepared to do. Why should there be this difference? I suggest that it comes back to what the hon. member for Durban Point has said, namely that it is a question of “bedekte belasting” and of not letting the public of South Africa see what is being done with these moneys. It is a question of not letting them see what is being taken in order to administer the ideology of this Government.

What ideology?

It has very much to do with the ideology of the Government in regard to the urban Bantu. The amenities for which general rates are paid in a municipality are, amongst others, water, sanitation, electricity, roads, clinics, hospitals, recreation centres, crèches, community centres, libraries, and the maintenance of these. Why can these service not be covered to a large extent, at least, by the general revenues which are paid by the country as a whole and are not taken from a certain section of the community, causing inflation? Where housewives and farmers supply all these amenities to their workers it is clear that they should be treated specially and everything points to the fact that the amount that housewives pay should at the very most be limited to the amount they have had to pay up to now. This can be done, because I want to stress again that surpluses have built up under the present system. The hon. the Deputy Minister, however, is not prepared to give that assurance. He indicated that it was only for the present that these amounts would stay as they were.

Lastly, just to indicate what substantial amounts these can be, I want to give the example of one big employer, namely the Railways. The Railways have approximately 100 000 Bantu employees. If one takes the maximum amount payable in terms of this Bill this could involve the Railways in having to pay up to R30 per year for each Bantu employee. This would therefore mean an amount of R3 million. One can realize what this amount will contribute to inflation. From what the hon. the Deputy Minister said a moment ago we already know …

Can you imagine what the hon. the Minister of Transport will say about that?

Mr. Chairman, I can. The fact is that this power is being put in the hands of the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister. We already know that we will have a 50 per cent increase in the case of the industrialists and others to whom the hon. the Deputy Minister referred. Up to now their maximum has been R1,05. Included in that amount of R1,05 is an amount of 85 cents which the hon. the Deputy Minister himself says has supplied all the services needed. Now they are apparently immediately going to be assessed at R1,50. That already involves a 50 per cent increase for those people. Imagine an increase in this House on income tax of the order of 50 per cent. It would be most astonishing. This is, admittedly, not a tax of that exact nature. But it already represents a substantial increase and, therefore, substantial added cost for the producers of South Africa and, therefore, a substantial extra amount on to the prices of our products. Fifty cents per month extra amounts to R6 per year. One is perhaps not in possession of the exact figure of Bantu employed, but I will not be surprised if half a million people are covered by the categories of employer that the Deputy Minister was referring to. If it is that, this would then be a very large sum of money.

It is much more.

Yes, it is probably much more, but I am referring only to the category in regard to which the amount will be fixed at R1,50.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister explained the matter very clearly here. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Pinelands can still be in the dark after the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation of the matter. I think the hon. member for Pinelands is indulging in petty politicking here today. I should just like to ask the hon. member a question. As the boards are functioning at present, are there enough funds for them to do so efficiently? It is perfectly clear to me that the funds which are available today, are not sufficient to allow the boards to function efficiently.

There are surpluses to the amount of R26 million.

And what about the Johannesburg City Council which has to subsidize its Bantu Administration Account?

There is still a large surplus.

Nevertheless, in order to render better and more efficient services, these amounts have to be increased slightly.

Then I find it strange that the hon. members for Pinelands and Kensington should take up the cudgels for the farmers and the housewives today.

And the miners?

No, the miners do not matter to them today; today it is the farmers and the housewives. As the hon. member over here said, they are hiding behind the skirts of the housewives. I do not think we as farmers will take any notice of that. We have the assurance which the hon. the Deputy Minister has given us, and we accept it as such. There is also such a thing as integrity in life. But the problem is that that side of the House does not accept the integrity of this side of the House. Therefore I say the hon. member for Pinelands is making a petty political issue out of this great cause which is going to be of great benefit to our country.

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

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

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

While it is true that this motion states that the House requests the Government to consider the advisability of establishing a State department under its own Minister charged with certain functions, I in fact want to say that constitutionally my appeal must be directed to the hon. the Prime Minister as he, in fact, appoints his Cabinet Ministers and determines matters of this side constitutionally on his own responsibility. So, as I say, I must today direct my remarks and make my appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister. Let me say at once that, in respect of this particular matter, if there is to be controversy and dispute over it, I think I will fail. I can only succeed if I get a consensus of opinion from all sides of the House, ignoring political considerations entirely and simply bringing our own unbiased and objective opinions to bear on the necessity for a step of this kind in the interests of the health and wellbeing of South Africa and its people. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister of Planning is the Minister who is dealing with what I want to say here today …

I am handling this debate.

If so, with all due respect to the hon. the Minister, I regret that very much indeed. I am very sorry to say that, because I have the greatest respect for the hon. Minister. I have no complaint whatever, so far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, with his taking all the notes and dealing with the matter from the Government side, except that we must reach the stage where the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to deal with the matter concerning a proposed additional member on his Cabinet. There the hon. the Minister of Planning cannot help us.

I have limited time, so let me proceed. The first appeal I made in this House, I made two years ago to the hon. Prime Minister to establish such a department under a Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister at that time did not agree. A year later I made another appeal, but again the hon. the Prime Minister did not agree. I understand that we now have, in South Africa, a Cabinet sub-committee and that we have a special committee under, I believe, the chairmanship of Dr. Meiring Naude which advises the Prime Minister. That is the machinery we have at the moment for dealing with the work, duties and obligations which I would like to see transferred to one Minister. As I say, I hope I am able to put this matter across in such a way that we will find sufficient common ground in this debate to take the whole of Parliament with us. I hope there are not going to be disputes over minor matters and that we are not going to lose sight of the wood for the trees. I hope that what is now becoming one of the burning questions affecting the survival here in South Africa not of the White man, but of homo sapiens shall be dealt with in the spirit where we can get together, support my motion and put this issue before the hon. the Prime Minister.

What kind of Cabinet Minister do I want? Let us come right to the point. I want a Cabinet Minister of a very special kind with special qualifications and a special character. He must be a man who is going to be able to influence his colleagues not necessarily because he has legislative authority, but because he is a man of character stamp and standing. If the hon. the Prime Minister cannot find him within the ranks of the hon. gentlemen who are here in Parliament today, I suggest he looks outside of those ranks. The kind of man we need, is a man who is going to be a key figure in the future of South Africa. If it cannot be appreciated ab initio that a special kind of man is required to be head of affairs here, we have failed to grasp the picture. We are lacking in imagination.

Why stress his character?

The hon. Minister says: “Why stress his character?” That is the point. I do not only stress their qualifications, he can get information which he will need to judge on, but I stress his character because he must be able to influence his colleagues in the Cabinet. Legislation, and rather far-reaching legislation at that, will have to be adopted. I am going to quote as little as possible from documents because I am limited by time, but I have here a quotation from Britain dealing with the special legislation they are passing there. It is an all-embracing anti-pollution Act because the difficulty they have been faced with is the same difficulty we have here, namely a multitude of different authorities dealing with various aspects of the pollution problem. Therefore you have to have a man who will be able to handle the legislation and who will be able to handle the various bodies and individuals who are lending themselves in the anti-pollution campaign. I believe that the right man with the right character will he able to get co-operation from a very wide circle of organizations, people, institutions, companies, corporate bodies and others who will be able and willing to assist on a basis of co-operation. Throughout the world, in other fields as well as in that of anti-pollution, we have found that there is a group of people, a residual group of people, who will not co-operate and who will not play the game. These people are going to put private interests and profit right in the forefront of what they are doing. Only the law will shift them and will have the necessary authority and necessary power to compel them, to whip them into obeying the necessary laws which have been laid down by Parliament for the protection of our environment. In reply to the hon. the Minister’s question I say that these are the reasons why I emphasize character. I do not emphasize it in regard to the moral standards, nor do I emphasize it in regard to his domestic affairs. That is not the kind of character I am referring to.

Personality.

My hon. friend from Durban Point put the word “personality” into my mouth and I think that that is perhaps a better word. This man should be a man of outstanding personality, a man of such a character and of such standing that we can all look up to him and be able to support him. My motion deals with the question of a State department for the protection of the environment. This particular phrase has become current at the present time; it is used everywhere; it is used by all sorts of people and it is used for a variety of purposes. I want to put it in a different way because I think it can perhaps assist them. I want to talk about the degrading of the habitat. Here I have a book written by perhaps the topmost ecologist in the world, Mr. L. J. Leopold of America. He is certainly one of the top three in the world. He talks about the land and says: By the land he means all that is in the land, on the land, in terms of water, all that is above the land, in terms of air, and so on. By that, he says, he means the land, the earth, the world. I talk about the degrading of our habitat. Our habitat is all that which permits us to coexist with the plants, the animal life and so forth, which permits us to carry on our normal avocations and which permits us to reproduce and to carry on the race. In the ecological field we find that if the habitat gets degraded, ultimately, sooner or later, the flora, the fauna and through the fauna, even human beings are eventually affected. They can be so adversely affected that extinction of animal species takes place, and with the extinction of animal species goes the extinction of flora and eventually it leads to a cycle. As part of the animal world, we are directly associated with the extinction of animal species. Sir, as I say, I do not want to quote more than is necessary, but I do want to quote some figures. Having made the point as to the particular kind of man whom I believe the Prime Minister should get as a Minister—he should find him outside of this House, if he is not satisfied that he can get him here; there will be plenty of hon. members on the other side who will willingly relinquish and resign from their seats so as to allow him to fight a seat and to get here into Parliament; there will be no difficulty about that and the member who relinquishes his seat will be well rewarded for his sacrifice —let me now deal with one aspect of the matter here in South Africa. Sir, it was manna from Heaven for me when I listened to the news broadcast over the S.A.B.C. this morning. Because how important is this matter? What importance are we going to attach to the question of having a central authority which is going to co-ordinate the plans and the work of the various corporate bodies and individuals who are engaged in anti-pollution work? How important is it? Sir, over the S.A.B.C. this morning Iscor made the announcement that over the next 10 years, on one aspect of their anti-pollution campaign, they are going to spend R100 million, i.e. R10 million per annum. That is nearly R1 million a month, Sir. This is only one organization here in our own country, in South Africa. This is the magnitude of the problem that we are facing. Iscor feels that it is justified in spending R10 million a year for the next 10 years in dealing virtually with red iron oxide dust that is coming from their furnaces. Sir, when you are dealing with money of that magnitude, surely it requires some Government organization, which is going to have someone of a special character, a special personality, at the top. Sir, let me repeat that this is just one organization in our country at the present time. Apart from that, you have the whole of the factory effluent, pollution of the air and so forth. Mr. Speaker, before we go any further, I want to say here and now that when I talk about the degrading of the habitat, I refer also to the degradation of the atmosphere. In the last two or three years we have seen difficulties in European countries where what were called thalidomide babies were born. The medical people know all about them—children who were malformed because the mothers had taken certain drugs after conception while the child was still in the womb. The result was that these unfortunate children were born with deformed limbs, completely unfit to take any part in our lives. They were completely unfit because of malformation of a terrible, horrible character. Sir, that could be traced to one of those drugs which the analytical chemists of the time were able to isolate and pinpoint and say, “This is the source of it”. But do you know, Sir, that we do not know what is happening in our atmosphere as a result of dust particles that are coming from nuclear explosions? We do not even know where these nuclear particles of dust in the atmosphere are located; we do not know their concentrations. What we do know is that if you submit animal life to the influence of certain isotopes, you can get a change in the genes and you can produce in animal life the same kind of malformation as in those thalidomide babies, and even worse. It has not been tested on human beings yet, but I repeat that we are part of the animal kingdom. It has been tested on many forms of life and, Mr. Speaker, the results of some of those experiments are terrifying and all because the parents were artificially subjected to the influence of the rays from these radioactive isotopes. Sir, those particles are radio-active and they are in the whole of our atmosphere. Here are some of the notes that I have collected over the last few years. No scientist, including those in Germany, who are making a special point of trying to ascertain this, can find the ceiling above which we are subjected now to such a concentration of those radioactive rays that this effect will be felt, so far as our biology is concerned, in the human race. They cannot tell you how dangerous it must be before it reaches that stage. What they can tell you—as they do in report after report—is that the danger exists. There is a direct danger of this dust being consumed. In the latest German Tribune they go so far as to point out that apart from that aspect, there are no less than 1 000 substances being prepared today for use by the agricultural communities of the world, 900 of them for use on crops of all kinds, and 100 for use on animals. One thousand different preparations are manufactured, each one of which contains a modicum of a poisonous substance. In the case of some of these substances, only a low concentration is sufficient to cause death.

The wheat millers in Germany have pleaded with their Government to take steps to ban one of the substances used completely, because it is coming into their flour through use on the wheat. There is no possible way in which they can get rid of that substance once it has been used on the wheat. The only way in which to destroy the substance is to destroy the flour as well.

Sir, this is reality. This is the world we are living in today. Man has progressed tremendously with his inventions and he has harnessed and is using powers to achieve those things which he believes are to his benefit, but the far-reaching effects of all this he does not know. So, Sir, we go on: We destroy this by dusting it with some or other powder, and we destroy that by spraying it with some insecticide or other. As Mr. L. J. Leopold has said, we are like a boy playing for the first time with a watch. That little boy pulls the watch to pieces. Then, when he has pulled it to pieces, he puts it all together again and finds that he has two little wheels left over. He says: “Well, that is rather strange,” and throws the wheels away because he sees no use for them. Then he wonders why the watch does not go. Sir, we are like that. We call ourselves Homo sapiens; we are grown-up men and women, but we are pulling a watch to pieces. The science of animal life we are pulling to pieces day by day. If the pieces do not all appear to be of some particular value to us at the moment, we spray them with an insecticide to get rid of them, to wipe them out. We throw the little wheels away because we cannot see any use for them, one of these days we are going to wake up and find that there was some use for them. But then it will be too late. We will have thrown the wheels away and we will not be able to make the watch go. What is that watch? It is the mainspring of our own existence.

I want to move on, Sir, as I do not have much time left. I have dealt with one aspect of air pollution. After all, this subject is so wide and so vast that no man, even in the course of two or three hours, could hope to do more than just scratch the surface. I want to deal now with the question of oil pollution. Where is our pollution coming from today? Our air is being polluted; our water is being polluted in the rivers, and our underground water is being polluted; the sea is being polluted; the land itself, the soil, is being polluted. All the poisons, once they have reached animal life, do not necessarily return to the soil. What happens is that they travel around in the cycle: plant; animal; plant; soil; plant; animal; plant, and so forth That intractable element will continue revolving around and around in that circulation. What the lethal concentration is, no man knows. We do not know when it will suddenly blow up. Doctors and veterinary surgeons tell us of certain vegetable poisons which are cumulative, as they put it. An animal will eat that poison day after day, week after week and month after month. It does not excrete that poison. That poison is stored in the fatty tissues and other organs of the body. Eventually comes the time when the aggregate amount of that poison has reached the ceiling, the lethal point, and the animal dies. It does not die because it was poisoned by the last few grams it may have ingested; it dies because the cumulative effect has built up until it reaches the lethal stage. That can happen to human beings and we do not know the point at which it happens. This is where science has to be directed, and directed very carefully. In that regard, may I just come back for a moment to the R100 million to be spent by Iscor during the next 10 years and say in regard to a Minister, such as I have indicated, and a department: Are we satisfied that South Africa can best afford R10 million spent on fighting pollution, on anti-pollution measures, by dealing with the effluent from the Iscor premises? Is that the most desirable and the most effective way of dealing with pollution in South Africa? Is that really the top priority?

In my motion I have suggested that such a Cabinet Minister would have to fix priorities. He would have to define pollution, and the definition he puts down this year may well be changed and another definition arrived at next year because of the scientific developments that are taking place and the chemical reactions that are being established. These things are continually changing. We are going ahead so rapidly that the definitions might have to be changed. We have limited funds, and what is more, we have limited personnel, although some of our chemists, analytical chemists and others of that ilk, are amongst some of the finest in the world. I think we can be immensely proud of them. You have a young man like Prof. Ahrens, who came from near Greytown in Natal; he is one of the world’s leading scientists today, to whom have been entrusted some of of the moon rocks for analysis. We produce that kind of man in South Africa. A Minister such as I have designated will have the opportunity of getting the use of these men and picking their brains and having them work for South Africa in these highly critical fields of endeavour.

Let me move forward then and say that once we have established our priorities, we must have a look at some of the other matters we face, including this question of oil pollution. We had this morning in the Cape Times a most interesting article dealing with oil pollution, and the heading was: “South Africa cannot cope with oil disaster.” We had the Wafra incident last year, and we have had the World Glory and other incidents. A week or so ago we had the problem of the Tigris at the entrance to Durban Harbour. Sir, it seems only like yesterday that I was standing here pleading with the Minister of Economic Affairs, when we had the Wafra incident right here on our doorstep, to do something so as to build up an organization to cope with this kind of thing. I do not want to go into the matter of the Tigris because I have not the time, but it went aground at the entrance to Durban Harbour when the tide was on the flood. Had the oil leaked out of the Tigris it would have gone straight into Durban Harbour. There was not a thing to stop it. No action was taken. The man in charge of operations was here in Cape Town, and he said that he was going to wait until he saw what happened, because she was not leaking oil yet. So he stayed here in Cape Town. There was established by the Government some two years ago a special oil anti-pollution committee, with a member of the Executive Committee of Natal Province as its chairman, authorized ty the Government to do various things. A most complex machine was set up, and as was pointed out in the Cape Times this morning, it is triggered by the port captain and then it moves into action. Sir, we in Natal at that meeting and repeatedly before that and since then have pointed out that that committee can only deal with oil pollution when it comes ashore. We have no Minister to whom we can go and whom we can ask: Please look into this. It is no good tackling oil pollution when the oil comes ashore; it is when it is on the sea that you want to deal with it, before it comes ashore. The damage is done when you have it on your beaches and all over your rocks. It can cost us millions of rands. If the Tigris’s oil had entered Durban Harbour and by chance it had caught alight, what would have happened then? Can anyone imagine the holocaust that would have taken place? But the Committee was set up. We have representatives of all the Government departments involved—the Army, the Navy, the Port Captain, the Police; the lot. However, when the Tigris went ashore the other day, nobody was triggered. The Chairman of that committee was never notified about what had happened, and the first he knew of it, was when he read about it in the paper. The pressmen asked him: “What would you have done if this ship had started to leak oil?” He said: “I have been wondering about that myself, because I have no power to do anything until the oil comes ashore.”

What is the good of an organization like that? This is tomfoolery. There is no language which I can find that is strong enough to condemn that kind of nonsense if we are going to tell South Africa that we have made arrangements to cope with these disasters when they happen. Are we not satisfied that somebody else has had such an experience as the case of the Torrey Canyon? Do we want ourselves to have that experience before we learn the lesson? Is it not adequate that we see our neighbour being destroyed and the damage which he has suffered? Must we wait until our own house has burnt down before we take measures to see that we have firefighting appliances?

This is a thing that just makes my blood run cold and I say to myself: “What is the Government thinking about?” They talk to us and they say: But the United Party is complaining that there are already too many Ministers; why do you want to advise the Prime Minister to have another Minister? I say yes, but I want a Minister with a special personality and a special character. Yes, get rid of half the Cabinet Ministers and South Africa will be all the better for it; I have not the slightest doubt whatever. That is not the issue. The issue is that this is a threat to all of us. Is this a threat to White or Black or Coloured, or the Indian, or the Bantu? No, it is a threat to South Africa. That is what this threat is. In a matter of this kind no effort at the highest level can be too great an effort to grapple with the solution of a problem of this nature. It needs a man. It does not need men; it does not need committees. It needs a man, one man. In this world big deeds are done by men, by individuals, by persons; not by people. People do not do things. People are controlled by a person and the person tells the people what to do and they do it gladly, because they will not think for themselves what has to be done. We want a man who is going to tell South Africa, including his colleagues in the Cabinet, what has to be done. All these papers, all these reports which I have here of damage, of near catastrophe as a result of the wrecking of a big tanker on our coast, count for nothing, because what do we do afterwards? We sit and wring our hands and say to the Minister of Economic Affairs, the man who is in charge of our Fisheries Department: “But why did you not take any action?” What is the good of doing that? It is no good having a post-mortem on the body afterwards. When the corpse is there, what is the good of finding out what killed it? Who is going to find out what killed it? No, this is no good!

We have here the paper of this morning and a wonderful article in the Sunday Times of last week, dealing with the same thing; there is the Daily News, The Mercury and all of them, but this article in today’s Cape Times tells us: “More than a million tanker tonnage passes Cape Point every day.” More than a million tons every day! Here is one of the biggest threats of pollution and nothing is being done about it. I appeal again to the Prime Minister: Please get a man of the right type, the right personality, and make him the head of a department to deal with the protection of our habitat; stop the degrading of our habitat; protect our environment.

Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast that this side of the House regards this question of pollution just as seriously and in as serious a light as does that side of the House. For that reason we can assure the hon. member that we will not make politics out of this matter. This is one of the reasons why we shall not move an amendment either. I also want to tell the hon. member for South Coast that the hon. the Minister is fully aware of the fact that this decision will eventually be taken by the Prime Minister. As a result of the hon. member for Orange Grove’s motion last year, the hon. the Minister also put it to us clearly that this matter would be discussed and that a decision would also eventually be taken by the Prime Minister. Someone there asked: Where is the Prime Minister? There sits the Prime Minister’s representative, and at the end of this debate the hon. the Minister will make those announcements the Cabinet wishes to have made. I really cannot see why the hon. member for South Coast specifically wants to see someone outside the House in this important post. The hon. member has referred to the fact that he has ascertained for himself that there is a Committee of the Cabinet dealing with the problems to which he refers. We endorse the hon. member for South Coast’s fears, but we on this side of the House want to say that we are grateful, as I should like to prove in this short time at my disposal, that we here in South Africa, and people throughout the world—the hon. member himself referred to that—have become aware of this tremendous problem of pollution.

Last year the hon. member for Orange Grove came along to the House with this motion. This motion is almost exactly the same, since in his speech the hon. member also announced that the United Party requested such a department. We should have preferred not to discuss this motion again, except for one particular reason, i.e. that it is such a serious matter that we do not mind bringing it to people’s attention in and out of season. Last year we said that it is a strange phenomenon that man is revolting against his own technological skill and ingenuity. However impossible it may sound, this is a fact we must take note of.

We also take note of the fact—and the hon. member also referred to it—that piles and piles of documents, reports and publications appear in connection with pollution. They are already piling up. In other words, as a result of research we have already identified the problem. We fully realize the dangers of pollution. However, as far as I am concerned the biggest danger lies in the fact that we shall perhaps not be able to combat those dangers in time. That is why we already lodged a serious plea last year for the creation of a task force to make a thorough study of this whole matter in co-operation with the CSIR, the Human Sciences Research Council and the universities. Thank heavens that was carried out. In my humble opinion, what is now necessary is not so much a description of the situation as such, as a programme of action that will constantly be adapted to circumstances as they change from time to time. We want to accept throughout the standpoint that pollution and the protection of our natural resources are irrevocably linked. Against this background we want to view the problem. We note that England, and also other European countries, already have a department of environmental protection. We have not the least doubt that all along the line this Government will perform its duty in respect of this matter. I am thinking in particular of these six levels at which pollution takes place, levels we have all taken note of on various occasions, but also in connection with the speech the hon. member for Orange Grove made last year. I now want to mention those six levels, to which the hon. member for South Coast also referred, in this order—the soil, the rivers, our oceans, our air, noise—the new problems of this age; and lastly, radio-activity.

And now I am not being original in the statement I am going to make, but for the sake of interest I want to convey this to the House, particularly to prove to you that this problem is creating great concern on a world-wide scale. A week or two ago it was my privilege to have lunch with a very prominent American intellectual. We spoke about many things, and eventually also about the admission of Red China to the UN. I say I am not being original, because this interesting remark was made by this prominent American, i.e. that there are many factors that gave rise to President Nixon’s decision to bring about Red China’s entry to the United Nations Organization, eventually at the cost of Nationalist China. He said that one of President Nixon’s decisive considerations was his essential fear of a possible conflict between Russia and Red China. In President Nixon’s opinion it would have been easier for him to prevent such a war between Red China and Russia if he could include the latter within the framework of the United Nations Organization. According to this American, President Nixon’s fear was contained in the knowledge that such a war would be a nuclear war from the very start. This would have led to the radioactive pollution of this entire planet of ours, with the concomitant loss of life.

I mention this merely for the sake of interest because it indicates to me that our people are continually giving attention to this very important matter. I represent a primarily agricultural constituency. When we as farmers think of the protection of the environment, we naturally think first of the soil from which we have to make a living. Last year the hon. member for Orange Grove made a very interesting statement here with respect to air pollution. The hon. member may correct me, but I think he said that 31 per cent of our atmosphere consists of clouds. In passing I just want to mention that in the past few days we have read from Press reports that there are certain metropolitan areas where air pollution has increased to such an extent that even if a person did not smoke he would still inhale the equivalent of the smoke of 23 cigarettes merely as a result of air pollution. The hon. member pointed out that there are schools in certain provinces where physical exercise is no longer allowed in order to prevent too much of this polluted air from being inhaled. Clever people tell us that if the cloud mass of 31 per cent is increased to 36 per cent, the temperature of this planet could decrease by 4 degrees Centigrade. Whether they were being pessimistic I do not know, but they say this could be the precursor of a new ice age.

The hon. member for South Coast also referred to the pollution of our oceans, with special reference to oil pollution. The fact of the matter, according to information now at our disposal, is that thousands of square miles of our oceans are already covered with a thin layer of oil, thinner at some places, thicker at others. Mr. Speaker, this oil pollution process that is now taking place affects the normal evaporation from the ocean as we knew it. On the one hand we have the air pollution which, according to these people, can affect the temperature of our planet, causing it to decrease. On the other hand, the pollution of the oceans is affecting the process of natural evaporation. If we bring these two aspects together, so they say, there must be an eventual effect on our rainfall. We already have an inkling that there is something wrong. We who live in close proximity to the soil are already finding that there is a disturbance in the rainfall we have known in our lifetime. If this process should continue, with problems developing in respect of our rainfall, we could not keep the condition of our forests and grasslands as we would like to keep them, no matter how good a conservation farming programme may be established.

For those reasons I want to try to indicate that this pollution process is so serious that we must give attention to it. I want to try to prove that henceforh attention will be given to it. We also want to record that we very gratefully note that progress is nevertheless being made, not only here, but also throughout the world. Newspaper reports indicated to us the other day that life is returning to certain parts of the mighty Thames River in London, parts that had been completely dead for years. For that reason we are therefore grateful that progress is, after all, being made. We are also grateful that this Government is doing its share in respect of this very serious problem. We would also like to believe that we shall make tremendous progress. I can give the hon. member for South Coast the assurance that under his guidance and with the machinery at his disposal the hon. the Minister of Planning will still be giving us a great deal of help in respect of this matter.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House appreciate the fact that the previous speaker, the hon. member for Smithfield, did not oppose us in connection with this motion, and that he joined the Government and that side of the House in realizing the importance and the implications of this big problem.

We know that pollution is no new problem. For thousands of years man has lived on the scrap-heaps of his self-polluted environment. Archaeologists are today digging in those scrap-heaps, shell-heaps and bones where prehistoric man lived.

Mr. Speaker, before lunch I began by saying that the pollution of the environment is not a new problem. Today archaeologists are digging in the scrap-heaps and the remains where prehistoric man lived amongst the castaway bones and skins and under the soot-stained walls of the caves of his environment. Historians tell us that the fall of the Roman Empire is attributable to the loss of the land’s fertility through the Roman sewers. As far back as the 14th century there was legislation in Britain limiting fires and smoke while the British Parliament sat.

It is visible pollution which generally goes against the grain and creates antipathy in the human heart. There are the pieces of paper and plastic bags that the southeaster blows against hedges, and the tins and bottles that lie around. The old swimming holes we enjoyed so much in childhood years are today polluted by glass splinters and tins, to such an extent that one cannot venture into them barefoot. We cannot lie on the beaches because of the cigarette butts pressed into the sand, the oil stains, etc. This pollution reduces the quality and standard of our living. I do not think there is any person in South Africa, with any measure of sensitivity for the beauty of his environment, who does not object to that.

The less evident pollution is undoubtedly much more dangerous. There is, for example, the unprocessed sewerage water that still pours into our streams and harbours daily at various places. In our own generation, only a few years ago, we could still catch beautiful fish in Cape Town harbour, but trying to get any fish there today is out of the question. Just recently the pre-cooling installation in Cape Town harbour gave in completely, with tremendous repercussions because this happened in the middle of the fruit season. The reason for this was the pollution of seawater by various ships which simply throw everything overboard. This polluted seawater is circulated through the cooling pipes to cool that pre-cooling system. The bacteria and sewage in that seawater stick to the cooling pipes, mussels begin to develop and then one finds that at those spots electrolytic voltages develop. Eventually those cooling pipes rust to such an extent that everything collapses. The cost of repairing that pre-cooling unit amounted to something like R80 000. What the cost was in the loss of fruit exports has still to be determined.

Air pollution is another problem we encounter, particularly in the urban areas. The burning of South African coal, which contains a large percentage of sulphur, and motor exhaust gases are the cause of sulphurdioxide in our air. This causes corrosion in the metalwork of buildings, it erodes the paint and is also tremendously detrimental to our health. We know that by the end of the century our coal-using power sources will be consuming five times the amount of coal they do today. This also means that the smoke pollution will increase fivefold. I think this would create an absolutely impossible situation if we do not really begin doing something about it today.

In agriculture destruction is brought about on a large scale and over a wide area. We see how an imbalance in nature is created by injudicious and continuous over-grazing. We see how the farmers livestock, which almost exclusively eat grass, have destroyed some of South Africa’s best grasslands, where in the past game roamed and trekked with the seasons to places where the veld was good and rain had fallen. In the catchment area of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam alone 32 000 ha of excellent grassland have already been totally destroyed. We also see how in that area, according to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, 1½ million ha of good grazing has deteriorated to such an extent that in actual fact it ought to be withdrawn as grazing.

South Africa can definitely not afford this type of destruction. Perhaps it has become time for us to revalue and change the basic establishment of the agricultural economy so that the farmers will not be forced to violate nature in order to make a living from the veld and try to obtain quick profits. The disturbance of the balance of nature by the farming community cannot as yet be properly appreciated or determined. The number of cattle have doubled over the past 70 years. We see how the entire Highveld, which was once under grass, has to a large extent been ploughed up and now there are hectares on hectares of ploughed land. What the effect of that on the ecology is going to be, has not yet been properly determined. We also see how large areas have been given over to plantations. In 1918 only 250 000 ha of South Africa’s surface area had been planted with trees. Today 2 million ha have been afforested. In 1910 there were not even 250 000 ha under irrigation. Today there are 750 000 ha under irrigation. We do not yet know exactly what the effect on the ecology will be. We know that 110 000 ha of veld and mountains in the south-western Cape have already been infested with hakea. That hakea was planted here in the 19th century to combat drift sand.

We also see how in recent years thousands of rands have been spent in trying to combat that hakea by means of the application of biological and mechanical measures and weedkillers. Thus far, however, they have not been able to solve that problem. 35 000 ha of grazing in Natal have been contaminated by lantana camara and are unsuitable for grazing. We see how the Rubus species, the American blackberry, has already made 1 300 000 ha unsuitable for grazing in South Africa. Jointed cactus pollution has contaminated about 2 million ha of land in South Africa and has spread over 94 magisterial districts. Bush encroachment is becoming a tremendous problem over large portions of South Africa.

It is calculated, by people like Mr. Charlie Donaldson of Vryburg, that in the Northern Cape and in the Malopo area about 1 million ha of land have been overrun by hookthorn, i.e. Acacia melliferu. In the Eastern Province 350 000 ha have become overgrown with Karoo thorn. 12 million ha of land have been destroyed by bush encroachment. These are the problems we are faced with as a result of the farmer’s malpractices, chiefly due to ignorance.

If we turn to the water pollution of rivers by chemicals from the drains of factories, pollution by artificial fertilizers and chemical weedkillers, we find ourselves really faced by very serious problems. This has resulted in the large-scale extermination of fish at places like Douglas. The American bald eagle could simply not breed as a result of all this indirect pollution of the water. These artificial fertilizers — DDT, etc.—are multiplied and stored by the food chains and eventually go from the bacteria to the insect, from the insect to the fish, from the fish to the sea eagle and accumulate in the fat of the animals, totally upsetting their breeding habits.

Even South Africa’s biggest schemes, such as our dams, are suspect today, and it is realized that even those lovely schemes which are regarded by us as assets to the whole of South Africa, can disrupt the delicate balance of nature. It is realized that the weight of those big dams, which collect a tremendous amount of water, eventually indent the earth’s crust to such an extent that earthquakes develop. At large dams in the U.S.A. and Kariba, earthquakes that can be measured on seismographs regularly occur. As a result of pleas by nature conservationists in the United States we also see that they have succeeded in constructing fish ladders at some of the dams so that the salmon that annually swim upstream to lay their eggs can reach the breeding grounds. At the sources of some of these rivers they have established fishing stations where they breed these fish. In the past they collected annual harvests of fish at these stations. Now they find that as a result of the tremendously large dams, although the fish are still able to swim up the river and even up these fish ladders, there is a problem involved. The problem is that after a short while they are so exhausted that they turn over and die. On closer investigation it appears that these fish do not die of exhaustion, but as a result of the fact that the water that runs over the dam wall is so oxygenated and hydrogenated by the oxygen in the air that the fish actually die of the bends, the same condition that divers have when they rise too fast from the sea depths.

We see what a tremendous revolution the Nasser Dam at Aswan in Egypt caused in the ecology, the eco-system. They constructed this tremendously huge dam with the purpose of serving the irrigation areas there and found that it was perhaps a greater disadvantage than asset to Egypt, because as a result of the tremendous dam above the bank, the silt load sank down and the silt, which was spread over the land by the floodwaters in the past, is now being dammed up. Today they must spend thousands upon thousands of rands to buy fertilizers to prepare those irrigation lands artificially. Something worse has also taken place. They have found that the percentage of bilharzia contamination has increased tremendously as a result of the fact that these canals now stand full of water year in and year out, instead of only being full in the season when the river comes down. They have found that as a result of the removal of the silt load in the water, the Nile; River is eating ever deeper into its bed and the banks are getting ever higher. It is therefore becoming more difficult to get the water on to the lands, lands that were regularly flooded by water every year. They have even found that the Mediterranean’s fishing catches are being detrimentally affected by this, because all the nutrients that came from the highlands in Africa, have now also disappeared. These fishing catches were amongst Egypt’s most important sources of protein. I know that the Department of Water Affairs and their engineers are only to keen to construct dams at suitable spots. However, we wonder whether they always bear the ecological repercussions of those big dams in mind and whether they really weigh up the advantages and disadvantages.

There are numerous organizations that concern themselves with these matters and are really interested in them. There are various nature conservation bodies in South Africa, like the National Veld Trust. We know that the CSIR does research in this connection, and has produced excellent work in the past. Then there is the South African Nature Union and associations such as the Environmental Control Association and numerous others. We on this side of the House feel that the time has come for all these bodies’ valuable work to be co-ordinated. We also feel that the time has come for a body to be created with the purpose of doing this work. We feel that there would be nothing better than an additional ministry that can handle these matters. A tremendous amount of information, of facts and knowledge must be gathered, and there is a large amount of information available as a result of research already done in other countries. I should like to second the motion of the speaker on this side of the House, the hon. member for South Coast, who preceded me, that such a ministry be established.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Smithfield told us this morning that this is not a political debate. I should like to come back to this aspect after I have made a few remarks about what the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, said. I should like to bring one thing to the hon. member’s attention, i.e. that not all progress entails mere pollution. We must maintain a balance in this matter. The first part of the hon. member’s speech simply condemned all developments as being pollutionary. It is very irresponsible to make such statements in a country like South Africa, which is in the process of development. Had the hon. member made those statements of his with greater qualification, we would probably have got a little further with this matter. Take, for example, the hon. member’s reference to hook-thorn in the Northern Cape and in the Vryburg-Mafeking district. There was a period in that part of our country’s history when certain kinds of bush were also regarded as a form of pollution. Today, specifically as a result of development, particularly technical development, we would like to have that type of bush there again, but it was exterminated. To merely speak of the hook-thorn today as “pollution”, shows me that the hon. member does not really have any idea of the function of hook-thorn in any forested area. I must dissociate myself from the hon. member for Smithfield when he says that this is not a political debate. I think the hon. member for Smithfield would also understand this. Let us analyse what the respected member for South Coast, who has been here for years, said this morning. He lodged a plea for a new ministry, a new department, etc. That is at least what he is asking for in his motion. But what does the hon. member do? He says he is seeking a man with the necessary personality to handle this matter, knowing full-well that the hon. the Minister of Planning and his Department, the Secretary of which is also sitting in the House today—he even acknowledged as much in his speech—must take action against pollution. Sir, if this is not blatant politics, then my judgment is far removed from the truth. The hon. member stands up and says that we must get a minister who has the right personality; he goes further and says that we must look for that minister outside this House. I take it the hon. member would like to have said that we should get that minister from the other side of the House.

Hear, hear!

Hon. members on that side say “Hear, hear!” I therefore take it that if we must look for that minister on the other side of the House, it would probably be, on the recommendation of that side of the House, the hon. member for South Coast. We now have to listen to this irresponsible utterance from the hon. member for South Coast to the effect that the hon. the Minister of Planning does not have the personality to handle this Ministry. We cannot let that remark of the hon. member for South Coast pass unnoticed, neither can we allow his remark about the Department do so, because the hon. member acknowledged that he was aware of the existence of such circumstances.

The hon. member for South Coast moved a motion in which he requests a ministry to handle environmental pollution. We must first ask ourselves where we find pollution, who causes it and what machinery the State has at its disposal today for combating pollution. On the question of where we find pollution, the answer was very clearly given last year in the debate about the private motion which the hon. member for Orange Grove moved here, i.e. that it is to be found in the six recognized spheres to which the hon. member for Smithfield also referred. Sir, those recognized six spheres in which we find pollution today, are connected with human activities, and the question as to who causes pollution must be given the positive answer, i.e. that man and his activities themselves are the cause of pollution. The hon. member for Smithfield referred to the question of the cloud content of our atmosphere. If this increases from 31 per cent to 36 per cent we would have a decrease of four degrees Centigrade in our temperature. Sir, it is man who causes this pollution of the air. There is another aspect of this pollution and of water-pollution that I find very important, i.e. that by calculation at present each South African throws away about 15 pounds of waste per day. This waste is involved in personal hygiene, and because this is so I think the time has come for us in South Africa to include pollution control as a full-fledged subject in the new subject we have introduced into our education system, i.e. the question of youth viability. We can then make our children aware of this problem at an early age. Sir, what is very important is that this aspect of pollution control should also be conveyed to our Coloured and Bantu populations in South Africa. Those people are also involved in the question of pollution, and that is one of the reasons why we cannot simply say that we must establish a Ministry of Pollution. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for South Coast made a tremendous fuss here last year and asked whether we had reached the “point of no return” as far as self-rule for Bantu homelands is concerned, it is also necessary for us to know that within the Bantu homelands this question of pollution will be handled by the Bantu homelands’ own authorities, because if we handle it on our part we would not obtain the useful results we would obtain if the problem were handled by the authorities in the Bantu homelands themselves.

We use their water in our areas.

That hon. member may make his own speech. Sir, I have already mentioned that environmental pollution should be introduced as a school subject. Looking at the question of pollution, we must also know that a consensus of opinion amongst individuals themselves is the most essential element in the prevention of any pollution. I want to mention an idea that came to me. A year or two ago we had great success in the celebration of the Water Year. With the celebration of the Water Year we made our people water conscious. Today I want to propose that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to a similar item being introduced in our future programme—perhaps the year after next—for the celebration of an environmental protection year in South Africa in which we can then latch onto the brood consensus of opinion of the public and spur them on towards prevention of this pollution we are experiencing today. I think this would be of practical use; it would prevent each isolated group of people trying to create the impression that they oppose pollution, while in reality we do not capture the consensus of opinion of our people. I am also of the opinion that we shall not capture the consensus of opinion merely by the creation of a department to control pollution. It must be something that grips their imagination and really allows the idea to penetrate to each individual’s personal attention that the question of pollution is of importance to us.

Sir, the hon. member for South Coast also said that today there are various bodies trying to combat pollution. I want to acknowledge that he is right, but I also want to allege that the question of pollution cannot that easily be a co-ordinated action because the combating of pollution requires specialized knowledge in each specific field. In that connection I merely want to refer to two Acts we passed here in the House recently. I refer in the first place to section 3 of the Water Amendment Act of last year where certain steps were taken with specific reference to water-pollution. Steps were taken not only to prevent water-pollution, but penal provisions were also introduced into that Act for those contravening the law. But do you know, Sir, that last year neither the hon. member for South Coast nor the Opposition said our punishments were too light, nor did they say last year that the Act was not a fitting one. No, the hon. members were quite satisfied with that relevant Act. In the same breath I refer also to Act 67 of 1971, the Oil Pollution Act, to give it this title for the sake of brevity. The Act was dealt with here by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Scientific provisions were laid down about the action to be taken specifically with respect to oil pollution at sea, etc. I now want to know from the hon. member for South Coast who is better able to judge, as far as water is concerned, whether water pollution or the wrong allocation of water is taking place or not, than specifically the Department of Water Affairs, those people who have specialized knowledge of the public waters of our country. And who is more conversant with the question of the economic implications of, for example, the pollution of the surface of our seas, than specifically the Department of Economic Affairs, which also handles, inter alia, fisheries and such matters? Under the hon. the Minister of Health provisions have already been introduced in our health legislation in terms of which industrial hygiene is controlled and administered by the Minister of Health and his Department. Where could we obtain a better body to handle this than the Minister of Health and his Department? We know that the hon. the Minister of Planning and his Department, from the nature of the Department’s composition, is an overlapping Department, one established essentially to co-ordinate. If then the Minister of Planning and his Department handle these matters in an overlapping capacity, surely we have exactly what the hon. member for South Coast requests, except that we then do not have, according to the hon. member for South Coast, a minister with the necessary personality. The machinery we do have. The hon. member for South Coast simply does not want to see the relevant minister there. Let me assure the hon. the Minister that he need not have sleepless nights about the remarks of the hon. member for South Coast. That is how it goes if one has been sitting here for years and no longer knows what to say.

I want to conclude by saying that we must accept the fact that combating the essential aspects of pollution in South Africa, does not lie in merely creating another department with a minister or whatever the case may be. The hon. member said the Department is of no importance to him; the Minister is of importance because he must have the personality. We do not find this of such great importance, but what we do find of really great importance is to capture the consensus of opinion of our people in South Africa and show them the dangers of pollution. If we begin there I believe we will be preventing pollution in South Africa, because we would then be guiding the people and their ideas towards regarding pollution as a danger equal to any other disease attacking the human body. This is much more important than the creation of any department.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are really indebted to the hon. member for South Coast and to the hon. member for Smithfield for their approach to this problem today, on the occasion of this our second important debate on this matter. I am sorry that I cannot say the same for the hon. member for Christiana, who has just spoken. I do not think any hon. member on the other side can accuse me of not availing myself of any opportunity to make a political speech whenever such an opportunity presents itself. But I want to assure you, Sir, that I am not going to be tempted into doing so.

Who started it

Whilst I only want to reply to one of the observations made by the hon. member for Christiana, this should not be regarded in a political light. He mentioned that it was important that we should also get the Bantu, and especially the Bantu in the homelands, to look after the conservation of our natural scenery. In that respect I agree with him. But he alluded to the policy of independent Bantustans. I do not wish to go into that. I just want to point out to him that one of the problems the Government will have to attend to, is that if those territories are granted more independence and more control over their own areas, it may be dangerous to our country, especially in view of the fact that they control such extensive catchment areas of our own rivers. Other than that I have nothing to say about the hon. member for Christiana in this debate. I have no wish to reply to points in which he accused us of blatant politics and irresponsibility. I do not wish to address him in such terms. I shall leave him at that.

I think hon. members on both sides will perhaps be interested in the steps we have taken here in the United. Party in regard to this major problem, steps to which they have quite possibly begun to give thought, or have perhaps considered already. I regard it as a fairly important step that, with the approval of our Leader, we decided in the United Party caucus—I do not want to say what happened in the caucus—to form a special group to deal exclusively with the ecology and the pollution of the environment. I think that under the capable chairmanship of the hon. member for South Coast, and with the hon. member for Benoni as a capable secretary, that group can do good work and offer cooperation to the hon. members opposite in regard to the major problem with which we are dealing here. I think we may tell hon. Ministers that that, in particular, group is going to study every piece of legislation from the point of view of pollution, and will then try to make a contribution.

As the hon. member for Smithfield said, I introduced a motion in this regard last year, and I hope that our criticism at the time was constructive. In the main that criticism was based on our feeling that the Government was not doing enough in this regard, but at the time we were prepared to ask the hon. the Minister what the Government’s plans were. Subsequent to that he indicated to us last year, firstly, that he was engaged in drafting a report to the Cabinet on this major problem, and we were satisfied with that. He rejected the suggestion of a separate Ministry of Planning, although he said that he was doing so in his personal capacity and that that was actually a matter for the hon. the Prime Minister himself, which, of course, was correct at that stage. Perhaps he can give us more information in this regard this afternoon. We read that a Cabinet committee had been appointed. I do not know whether it is under his chairmanship or under that of the hon. the Prime Minister, but a Cabinet committee was appointed. In that regard he also announced that that Cabinet committee would also deal with the question of pollution and take further decisions in that regard. I hope he will be able to tell us what progress that Cabinet committee is making, and I hope that he will not tell us that it has been decided to dissolve that committee and to transfer the work to the Auxiliary Committee of the Planning Advisory Council on Pollution, as I understand it is called. This is a committee which has been established and on which representatives of a large number of departments are serving, but to my mind it does not have enough powers to ensure that this major problem is tackled as required by modern times.

†The picture, as we look at it, even as it has developed during the past year, is becoming more and more frightening. Our soil and the products of our soil are being poisoned by pesticides. There is a committee, I believe, going into the problem of pesticides in South Africa and I trust they will bring out a favourable report as the time is becoming short, particularly in view of the danger presented by organo-chlorine compounds entering our foodstuffs in the cycle which was expounded so well by the hon. member for South Coast. They prove fatal to bird life and have been proved to be injurious to human beings, and this danger is steadily growing. Under South African law today, all our fruit exports have to be monitored for their pesticide content, but the anomalous position is that our fruit which are sold in South Africa itself, and which we buy in the shops, is not being controlled to the extent that one would like to see. The Press report of last year that I read, reports that there was actually no control unless specific complaints were made to the Department of Health. I think that is an anomaly that deserves the attention of the hon. the Minister of Planning, or whoever is looking after these matters.

The position is becoming frightening, I said, in other countries too. The German Federal Commissioner for Nature Conservation stated a few weeks ago that in recent years one million people who had been certified as having died of heart disease, actually died of air pollution. We know the tragic instance when 4 000 people died in London when that terrible smog overtook it several years ago. It has been established in Western Germany that there are cancer-producing carbohydrates in car exhaust fumes, house fires and in industrial fire installations. The position in the great urban complexes of Japan is so serious at present that they have oxygen boxes in certain centres. Any member of the public walking in the street or driving in a motor car and who feels overcome by fumes, can go to these oxygen boxes, take out an oxygen mask and breathe some pure air to restore him. So bad the position has become in other countries. In our own country one of our biggest problems is the Vaal River basin.

*More than 30 per cent of our population and 40 per cent of our gross national product come from the Vaal Triangle. In a symposium recently held by the S.A.I.I.A. in Johannesburg, Prof. Van Buren, a professor of ecology at Pretoria—a capable person—calculated how the water of the Vaal River, as one moved away from its source, was becoming more and more polluted. In the upper reaches of the Vaal River, at Villiers, it contains only 150 milligram of solid matter per litre. As one goes down the river, this becomes more and more until it eventually reaches 500 milligram per litre, i.e. three times as much. At Vereeniging it is 2 000 milligram per litre. The World Health Organization has laid down that anything from 1 500 milligram upwards amounts to “excessive pollution of your water”. The Vaal River at Vereeniging has already exceeded this limit.

Why did we introduce this motion? We feel that the matter is such a vast one that a few Ministers, however capable they may be, cannot in their own spheres give all the attention to this matter through consultation and through an advisory committee alone. There has to be a ministry or a person who can give guidance in these matters and say what has to be done. There are quite a number of departments that are dealing with this question of pollution. The Department of Water Affairs for instance, has to deal with water pollution. But nobody will deny that there are not enough inspectors in the department to investigate the matter.

Unfortunately.

Yes, unfortunately. I agree. In view of the present manpower shortage—for which I do not wish to blame anybody—this is simply the position. We do not have enough inspectors and the water is being polluted. Doubts have already been expressed as to whether this is in fact the proper department for carrying out this inspection work, or whether this should not rather be done by inspectors from a central department, say, the Ministry of Environment. The Department of Agriculture has a great deal to do with this, especially as regards fertilizers and sprays, the dangers they present and the control over them. The Department of Forestry is involved in this matter as regards the waste areas and the protection of certain natural areas. Then there are, of course, the forestry plantations. This is a department which is greatly concerned in this matter. I am speaking under correction, but I do not think the Department of Forestry is at the moment represented on his auxiliary committee. I want to suggest to him—perhaps there are many good reasons why this has not been done—that I think it is perhaps important that the Department of Forestry should also be represented on that committee.

I have already spoken about Bantu administration. The Department of Bantu Administration has a major task in seeing to it that the waters of our large rivers in the Bantu areas are protected more effectively. The difficulty is that the hon. the Minister of Planning cannot tell the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration or the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to do this or that. Similarly, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture cannot tell the hon. the Minister of Planning to do this or that. That is why we feel that there should be a special body at the top. A key ministry is Health. It is concerned with the pollution of our food, of the air and of our water. The hon. the Minister—and I think he can speak from bitter experience—has his difficulties when it comes to other departments. For instance, last year he had such an experience with the hon. the Minister of Transport in regard to the pollution of the air by the South African Railways. But I do not want to talk politics, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister of National Education performed a very good task when recently, on the occasion of opening a symposium in Stellenbosch or Pretoria, he pointed out the importance of education in this regard. His department can make a great contribution to this matter. I feel that the hon. the Minister realizes what can be done. Once again, he cannot say what the other departments should do—they are equal colleagues of his. Then there is the Department of Economic Affairs and of Commerce and Industries which deals with oil, a matter which was expounded so well by the hon. member for South Coast.

†Then there is the Division of Sea Fisheries which falls under that department. There is also the Division of State Guano Islands. All these departments are doing work to a greater or lesser extent. They are aware of the problem but then again there is not that co-ordination which is needed.

Mines have the problem of dust pollution. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister of Mines that he may be able to use his authority in conjunction with the hon. the Minister of Planning, to do what they are now doing in Germany, i.e. putting atomic waste from the atomic power plant in old disused mines. It is a possibility; I do not know whether it is practicable. It is one field where there can be co-ordination between two departments.

I see my friend the hon. the Minister of Community Development is here. Again I speak under correction, but I do not believe that his department serves on this special advisory committee. He does important work in regard to town planning, work which does affect the environment as such. He has other important work which has to be done, e.g. advising on the type of buildings to be erected and, for instance, the type of coal stoves to be used. Hon. members will remember the progress that has been made in regard to smokeless fuel stoves. The hon. the Minister knows about it. Being a Minister closely associated with the development of the environment, he also should have a representative on that particular advisory committee. So I could go on.

It might sound strange for me to say that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs should also be represented on that committee. You have developments such as the Cabora Bassa Dam and the Kunene River project which are international. There were also developments associated with Botswana about which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had discussions with Sir Seretse Khama. It all shows how important it is that Foreign Affairs should also be represented.

This problem is today receiving attention in other countries. Great Britain already has a Department of Environment. America has a Secretary for Environment under the President. America has one day every year—they call it “Earth Day”—in which environment and pollution is the one great problem which everybody on that day tries to face and tries to do something about. Germany has a Cabinet Committee at the moment for the environment and they are planning a federal bureau for the environment.

I wish to conclude. In South Africa we are also asking for a ministry for the environment, a ministry which will have power, not limitless, dictatorial power, but power, in regard to issues involving the environment, to put its foot down. I have seen some good suggestions. I have seen an excellent one from the Veld Trust, which I am not giving as official United Party policy; it is a suggestion by Mr. T. C, Robertson that there should, for instance, be a bureau of ecological standards, by which ecological standards should be laid down. Such a bureau could then act and also be representative at people outside the Government, and could advise the hon. the Minister in regard to the laying down of these ecological standards, which could then be applied by his ministry.

The problem is a serious one. It is growing more and more serious, and I am glad to note from speeches from both sides of the House that we are agreed on the gravity and the vital aspect of this problem. I trust that drastic and important steps will be taken to prevent the decay of the earth, and on that part of it where we live—our country, South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I want to deal at the outset with the point that has been raised that the Prime Minister is not handling this motion himself. The position is that I am here on his behalf. I have discussed this motion with him and I think I can say with a reasonable amount of certainty I am also speaking on his behalf. Needless to say, after this debate I will report back to him.

If you ask me what I must report back, I will have to start off by saying: “Sir, they want a very special man as the new Minister of the Environment. They want a man with special qualifications.” Sir, the Prime Minister will ask me: “What qualifications?” Then I will have to say: “Well, Sir, unfortunately they did not say what his qualifications must be”.

No, no. Read my Hansard.

I shall have to say. “They did not say he must be a scientist or an economist or a naturalist. They said nothing except that he must be a man of very special qualifications. The only thing I am certain about, is that he is not to be found in the ranks of the National Party. The request is that he must be looked for outside Parliament.”

Or on this side.

I will have to say to the Prime Minister, “Sir, he must be a hell of a bloke.” If the United Party comes to power, they say he is not in their ranks either.

Quite right.

Quite right! I will have to say to the Prime Minister: “Sir, they say they will also look for him outside Parliament. If they cannot find him in South Africa, they will import him.” All I can say, after I have listened to the hon. member for South Coast, who spoke here this morning, is that I can attack him, but I will not. All I can say about the proposed minister, is that he must be a cross between Churchill, Einstein and Jack Demp sey.

The hon. member for South Coast said that he must put his colleagues in their places. He must be a man who will shunt them around. He should take no nonsense, he must tell them what to do, and then they must do it. Did the hon. member not say so?

You are proving it for me.

He must also go further than that and tell the provinces what they must do. He must tell Natal that he will take no nonsense from them and that he will take them by the scruffs of their necks and force them to do as he says.

No, I said … [Interjections.]

The hon. member must listen to what I have to say now.

Read my Hansard.

When I approached the Executive Committee of Natal to ask them if I could proclaim Natal in terms of sections 4 and 6 of the Physical Planning Act, which deals with the changed usage of land, they said: “No, you keep your hands off Natal.” At a banquet in Durban last year, which was also attended by five members from Natal, I told the people present that I was prepared to do the planning job in South Africa, but that I wanted to do it in co-operation with everybody concerned. They applauded me then, but now the hon. member for South Coast says that if I cannot get co-operation, I must be strong and tell them what to do. He said that that is what we need in South Africa.

That is absolutely untrue.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has just said …

You must apologize to me for that.

No, I will not. The hon. member for Orange Grove said just now“He must put his foot down”.

In regard to environmental problems.

Exactly. What is action taken in regard to the changed usage of land other than steps to protect the environment? If a farmer starts a quarry on his farm near to a township, I maintain that he is changing the usage of that ground and that he has to come to me for permission to do so. If this is not done, the whole countryside may be spoiled. Is this not protecting the environment? But when I want to do this in Natal they tell me to keep my hands off Natal. The hon. member for South Coast says that I must tell them what to do and must take the powers to do so. He says that we need a special kind of man for the job and that I do not have the character or the personality to do it. He suggests that I must find somebody to do the job for me.

Now I want to say what I would have said if the hon. member had not made parts of the speech he made this morning. I want to say that I welcome the motion of the hon. member for South Coast in so far as it provides us with an opportunity to turn our attention to the most indespensable and important component of our lives, namely our environment, once again. I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House, including the hon. member for South Coast, for their contributions to this discussion and I would like to felicitate them on the preparation and the contents of their speeches. Surely this is a very wide subject which covers our entire lives: the air we breathe, the water we drink and use for various purposes, the earth we have to live and work on. There is not one Government department or an authority, provincial or local, that is not concerned with this very vital matter. The whole private sector has an interest in this matter. Hon. members have very ably discussed all aspects of the environment. It was once again a pleasure listening to everybody. On the positive side they have shown how necessary it is to plan and to preserve. We must conserve our natural resources and the land on which we produce our food. We must proclaim our botanical gardens, our natural reserves and our national parks. We must be conscious of the beauty and importance of our mountains and the vegetation which covers them. We must guard jealously over our rivers and our inland water resources to keep them pure, unsoiled and unsilted, if possible. We must store their contents and use and re-use our available water supplies very judiciously. For the seas that lap our shores we must indeed be thankful, never take them for granted, but keep them as clean as possible as hon. members have said time and again during this debate. At the same time we must preserve and cultivate the marine life with which we are blessed. Let us always remember, Mr. Speaker, gentlemen of this House, how much poorer we in South Africa would have been in all respects if we had been a land-locked country. In the development of our towns, cities and regions we must prepare, and work on responsible guidelines, siting correctly our residential, industrial and other areas, our transport networks and other systems.

Hon. members have also fully dealt with the negative aspects of the subiect of the environment, namely pollution. I need not recapitulate what has been said. We are all agreed that we must take due notice and act both on the positive and negative aspects while there is still time. Mr. Speaker, the motion covers just that; its wording prescribes what we should do. The motion reads:

Let us first take a look at what is being done in other countries. In Great Britain they have a Ministry and a Department of the Environment, which is very much akin to our Department of Planning. I grant that it has a number of additional functions. Since 1970 they also have a Royal Commission which advises the Government on pollution matters, both in the national and international fields. This Royal Commission could be likened to the hon. the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council. Since last year Canada has had a Minister of the Environment who, true to Canadian constitutional law, as we all know, has all the functions and powers not already entrusted to other authorities, central or state. In Australia the various states each have a Department of the Environment. They are at present drafting the necessary legislation. In the U.S.A., as has been said here, all the states have enactments of some kind or the other aimed at combating various forms of pollution of the environment. On the federal level they have a Council for the Environment in terms of their law of 1970. This council is more or less the policy-making authority for the U.S.A.

For the record and because I think it is of interest, I want to briefly give the governmental set-up in some other countries. Denmark has a Minister of Traffic and Environment. In Austria the Minister for Health is also responsible for the prevention of pollution of the environment.

The hon. member for South Coast is not even listening, and it is after all his motion that is being discussed.

He is angry with me. [Interjections.]

Germany has been quoted in this debate quite a number of times because such excellent work is being done there. In Germany they do not have a Ministry of the Environment. They are planning to establish a separate department in the near future. That is correct. However, all the excellent work that they have been doing, has been done under the Ministry of Science and under the Minister of Economics. In Greece the Department of the Interior is responsible for the prevention of pollution. The Argentine has legislation on pollution which falls under the Minister of Health. France recently established a department of the environment. In Norway they are at present considering the establishment of a separate ministry. Israel has a Minister of Health who caters for the problems of the environment. I can carry on in this way. The Netherlands has a Ministry of Public Health and Environment, while the Minister of Economic Affairs is also responsible.

*To mention Japan as well, they have twelve laws and various bodies dealing with the combating of pollution. For instance, they have a metropolitan council for the prevention of pollution and a bureau for environmental conservation. I mention these facts to show that there is no uniform pattern in the world, although it is a world problem, as all hon. members quite rightly said. The hon. member for Benoni has pointed out that this is a problem which has already been in existence for 2 000 years, but the fact nevertheless remains that in recent years, in view of this highly industrialized decade we have entered, and the population explosion, it has become an acute world problem. There is no uniform pattern in the world. According to its circumstances and problems, every country has created the machinery which suits it best and which in its opinion is capable of producing the best results for its country.

Let us take a look now at the machinery which we have already established in South Africa and which we still intend establishing or which is still in the process of being established. Having done so, we may in fact ask ourselves whether it is or will be adequate, or whether we should establish other machinery. The hon. member for Orange Grove asked me to discuss this matter further. At the end of 1970 a standing Cabinet committee on pollution was established. At the moment only four Ministers are serving on this committee, i.e. the Ministers of Health, Economic Affairs, Water Affairs and Planning.

Are you the chairman of that committee?

No. At the moment the primary task of this committee is in fact only to control and check whether adequate provision is made for the conservation of the environment and for combating pollution in all its forms. At the moment the senior Minister, namely the Minister of Health, is the chairman of that Cabinet committee. With a view to these objectives this Cabinet committee enlisted the assistance of the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council and the C.S.I.R. as its scientific arm. These two bodies—or rather the committee constituted out of them by the Planning Advisory Council —have already submitted a report, i.e. after receiving the request from the special Cabinet committee. I can only tell the House today that this is a very detailed and comprehensive report, which is a thorough piece of work. It is truly a work of high quality on the environment and pollution in South Africa.

I wish you would table it.

I have asked the Secretary for Planning to have the contents of the report condensed into an abridged version in order that we may find it easier to work with it in our deliberations in the Cabinet committee. Subsequent to that I shall submit the matter to the Cabinet committee again, and that body will, in turn, probably take the matter to the Cabinet. I think it is possible—in fact, I think it is probable, although I cannot anticipate the matter—that after that the Cabinet committee will, with extensions, remain in existence as a standing supervisory committee on pollution. Furthermore, it is possible—and personally that is what I expect—that my Department of Planning will be designated as the Government department charged with this great and important task, and as the umbrella and coordinating State body in regard to all environmental matters. Hon. members must bear in mind that in this matter the Minister of Planning has two very strong and important arms. His main arm is the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council, which falls under the Minister of Planning. It will then be possible for this advisory council, through a standing committee—let us call it an auxiliary committee, for they work with the system of auxiliary committees—to serve as the co-ordinating, advisory and investigatory arm or body bringing together all bodies for both general purposes and specific tasks and problems. The hon. member for South Coast referred to a capable person today, and he mentioned the name of Prof. Ahrens. I do not know this person, but I remembered his name. If there is a sphere in which

Col. 882:

For lines 34–35, read “the Group Areas Act”

investigation has to be carried out, the Planning Advisory Council enlists the services of people from the private sector, people from universities, people like Prof. Ahrens and all the experts it can find in order to investigate that specific problem. If it investigates pollution in the Cape Town harbour, it enlists the services of all the people involved in the matter and takes them under the wing of the auxiliary committee concerned. Then they investigate that specific problem. The hon. members mentioned various problems today. Mention was made of Iscor’s expenditure on research, of oil pollution, of coal pollution in the air and of soil conservation. If a specific task has to be carried out in regard to soil conservation, the Department of Agriculture and other experts are drawn into the matter by this machinery.

The hon. member for South Coast referred to the class of person who has to accomplish this, and not to the research.

I am coming to that. I am dealing with the machinery now. There is no single problem of the environment and no problem of pollution which this machinery cannot handle. In cases where scientific information is required, the Planning Advisory Council liaises with the C.S.I.R., for surely we cannot draw up control measures without their having furnished us with facts based on scientific findings. Having doen that, they approach me as the responsible Minister and then I take the whole matter to the supervisory Cabinet committee. Then it is up to us to go to the body in question. For instance, this may be the provincial authority. Then we can tell the provincial authority that there is a deficiency in respect of certain subjects with which we have to deal, and it is their task to put the matter right since we do not wish to encroach upon their powers. We could tell the Department of Water Affairs that as a department it is responsible for the water resources in South Africa, for its storage, for its distribution and for the conditions on which people may use that water. We do not want to take that responsibility away from them and entrust to other bodies, for if the hon. member for Mooi River, for instance, were an irrigating farmer, he would have to get his water from the Department of Water Affairs and then go to another person who would tell him how to use that water. We have built up a good system, and the Department of Water Affairs can arrange everything. If there is a shortcoming, this central authority can tell the Department of Water Affairs that things are not the way they should be. The same applies to any form of pollution. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that the Department of Water Affairs did not have enough inspectors to do its work. Where is this new department to find the inspectors to do this mighty task which the hon. member wants to entrust to it?

I should like to tell the House today that I believe there is no task in respect of the environment which we cannot deal with in this way and which we cannot solve for South Africa. There is not a single problem, negative or positive, that we shall not be able to cope with. That is why I say today that the Government cannot accept the motion for the establishment of a new department—I emphasize “new”—under its own Minister. The Prime Minister may in fact—this is my personal opinion—call the Department of Planning the Department of the Environment in due course. It is his good …

Could it not perhaps be two separate departments under one Minister, or is that not practicable?

No. One must not have eyes only for the work in respect of group areas which is done in terms of section 3 of the Physical Planning Act, and which some people call the more negative work. The Department of Planning is doing wonderful, positive and constructive work on the soil of South Africa. It is giving direction to the extension and the development of this country on the physical level.

Then we come to the waters, the sea and the air, all of which are very important, but once we have created that machinery and if we use the Planning Advisory Council, which can involve the entire private and public sectors, we shall be in a position to do these things. This Planning Advisory Council is not a permanent group of people sitting there. The council itself has a fixed composition, but it operates through committees which are appointed for each individual problem that arises. In those committees it involves the best brain power in the private sector and in the public sector. If we work in this way and we enlist the C.S.I.R. to throw scientific light on the subject, then I cannot see how we can fail in the objective we are setting ourselves in this House today.

Am I to understand from what the hon. the Minister is saying that in regard to industrial pollution of a river or the sea, the right procedure for the people who are complaining is to send their complaints to the Minister of Planning? Is that the proper authority with whom to lodge a complaint with regard to pollution of a river or pollution of the sea? I am not talking about a big oil spillage; I am talking about industrial pollution.

If the machinery is finalized according to what we visualize, then that will be the correct procedure. I would say that in the first instance you would naturally go to the specialist department.

Which is that?

The Department of Water Affairs, the specialist department is the department that deals with the use of water and the discharge of water. According to my information, it does it very well, but if you cannot get satisfaction then, if this machinery is established, I consider that the proper channel would be to come to the Department of Planning which can then see to it that the necessary machinery in connection with a problem is set to work.

When do you expect that machinery to be established?

As I say, I have already received the report and I have just asked them to condense the report to make the reading of it easier for everybody concerned. The matter will then go back to this Cabinet committee, which will finally report back to the Cabinet, and it will then be for the Cabinet or for the Prime Minister to decide what should be done. I am not saying today what he will do. But if this machinery is set up, this will be the way in which we will try to tackle the problem of environmental pollution in our country.

*We shall, of course, adjust and overhaul the machinery from time to time. Surely, one cannot establish something and then keep it static. Furthermore, I think we shall have to take legislative powers, but I also know that hon. members particularly on the opposite side are not in favour of too strong powerful legislative powers being placed in the hands of the Central Government. But I am telling the House and the country today, without the slightest doubt, that the Department of Planning, assisted by the Planning Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, is already acting as the Department of the Environment. We are more aware of the task and the calling resting on us in this respect, and it is without the slightest doubt that I can repeat what I said a moment ago i.e. that we are making splendid progress in conjunction with other State Departments, the provinces and the local authorities.

May I conclude by just giving the following assurances to the House: Firstly, all aspects of this big, wide, comprehensive subject of the environment are fully appreciated by the Government; we in the Department of Planning are living with them; are studying them and are continuously giving attention to the umbrella aspects of the subject, as well as its numerous details. Secondly, problems of the different forms of pollution are receiving the very best attention and are well cared for, but at the moment we are taking another look specifically at the provision made for the different aspects of pollution. Then, thirdly —and this is very important to me—whoever does this work, we need the co-operation and the understanding of the entire population and not only of one department, and not only as regards tins, bottles and papers. For that too, but really not only for that. We need the co-operation of the entire population for a positive attitude and steps in respect of the land, the air, the water and the sea, in respect of our environment in the fullest sense, and I may just say that if our adults do not have this, may it start with our children. But such an attitude on the part of all our people will make itself felt everywhere. It will make-itself felt in the public sector and the private sector. Yes, even among all of us; it will influence and activate us to assist and to strive to reach our grand object. What is the object of all of us To create a sound environment which will be able to provide in the material and spiritual needs of the population of South Africa for all times.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are indebted to the hon. the Minister for the serious part of his speech. I think in the first part of his speech there seems to have been a little pique, because the hon. the Minister himself had not been singled out as being the superman that we obviously need in South Africa. But I want to return to the points the hon. the Minister has made. We have established so far that there is a Cabinet Committee of the Ministers of four departments who are charged by the Prime Minister with the oversight and control of pollution in South Africa. I think it has been well said that a camel is a horse which has been designed by a committee, and we on our side feel that the powers which today appear to reside in the hands of this Cabinet Committee would be far better in the hands of one man, a Minister. Whether he is the Minister of something else is not material, but he should be a Minister with the power of his department and access to Government departments and Governments funds which will give him the ability to control the activities which are taking place and which are deleterious to the environment of South Africa. I want to say that this is not a matter of headlines. What we are facing in our country, as every other country of the world has to face, is not a matter of headline. These are not the great occasions, the sudden tremendous oil spills or the tremendous natural disasters. We are facing something which is going to be a constant, deadly, dull grind of surveillance of the whole of the economic life of South Africa and of its domestic life. If we are going to control the activities which in some cases are basic to the economic prosperity of South Africa then, as the hon. the Minister says, I do not believe that the hon. the Minister and his committee have in their hands at this stage the power to enforce decisions upon very, very powerful vested interests. The hon. the Minister mentioned the Department of Water Affairs, the department which is charged with the administration and the control of water in South Africa. One of the greatest shortcomings of the Water Act of 1956 is the fact that there is no effective enforcement agency. There is no agency to which one can go, and it happens time and again that there is pollution of our rivers which leads to massive killing of fish while there is nobody to whom one can turn and who will take it upon himself or upon his department to establish the causes of the pollution, to find out who was responsible for the pollution and to take action under the Water Act, which lays down very specific standards for water, and to bring the offender to book. I should be interested to hear from the hon. the Minister whether the Cabinet Committee have power to take action of that sort, because without power of that sort all the deliberations and all the reports and all the good intentions of the Cabinet Committee will come to nought, because you are dealing with very, very powerful economic interests. You are dealing with people to whom the purification of part of their effluent can mean millions of rand per year. I want to know what action is going to be taken by the Government to control that sort of thing. We have merely to look at the pulp and paper industry, one of the biggest polluters of water throughout the world. The American Government have issued instructions to the pulp industry that they have got to clean up their industry within a matter of years or else they are simply going to be closed down. This is characteristic of the American people. When they are faced with a problem of that nature they will go out and spend millions and millions of dollars which are requisite to enable them to meet the challenge. The same thing happened with the automotive industry. This industry has been told to stop polluting the atmosphere. They are now spending millions of dollars to find a solution.

I want to know who in this country is going to tell any of the industries who are polluting the atmosphere that they have got to spend millions of rands on finding solutions to the problems which pertain in our country. This is the crux of the question. Mr. Speaker, we can deliberate as long as we like. Every single member in this House has his own little pet beef about pollution. But the absolute essence of the motion of the hon. member for South Coast was that there should be a minister with all the power of the State, with access to the funds of the State and that he should have the ability within the Cabinet to require any of his own Cabinet colleagues to take action in that department to ensure that the environment is not polluted. I can appreciate that the hon. the Minister has given us what has been done until now. He said that if necessary other steps will be taken. It is the earnest request of this side of the House that he will view the problem as we see it. This is not a problem for a committee which can discuss certain things. This is a problem for a department under a minister who sees it as his life’s work if necessary, and that we are not visited here with the problems that are crucifying countries overseas. This is not a matter for the headlines, the big deal or the sudden act and a person who is looking for personal publicity. If there is one thing that will kill the cause of pollution control quicker than anything else, it is the headlines, the constant blowing up of the smaller incidences and the drawing of the attention of the public to this or that. The public is notoriously fickle and their interest may be drawn for the moment and they may be prepared to meet a crisis. However, the constant expenditure of funds from tax revenue which is going to be needed if this pollution is going to be controlled, is something which the public have got to realize. And as I have said the headline will kill the reaction of the public quicker than anything else. We have got to bring it home to the public that this is the long haul and that this is going to take us many years before we can get control even with the limited amount of pollution which takes place in our country. The Lord be thanked, we are spared a great deal of that which takes place overseas. This is the long haul. It is not enough for us to try to meet sudden crises or the sudden accidents which blow up. We have to take a long look at this and have a plan. The hon. member for South Coast and we on this side of the House believe that the way to do it is to have a minister, one man with the ability to control.

It is significant that in Great Britain where they formed the Department of Environment, they took three ministries and amalgamated them into one. They took the Ministry of Transport which has all the diesel buses and the jet aeroplanes that pollute the atmosphere. Mr. Speaker, I am not advocating that the hon. the Minister should try and take over the portfolio of the Minister of Transport. I am sure he wouldn’t get very far with that one. They took toe Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Local Government and the Ministry of Housing. Those three departments were amalgamated to form one ministry.

They are not the only departments involved.

But these are those most intimately involved. They were given power by executive order to decide upon priorities and on matters of research. You cannot solve all the problems over night.

You want a watchdog.

I think the hon. member for South Coast used the term “a watchdog”.

That is what both you and I want.

The hon. the Minister now comes so far as to agree with us that what is needed is a watchdog. We did not say so.

But the other people must do the work.

No, the other people will not do the work, because of the vested interest which resides in every single department to protect and look after the interests of that particular department, and not seeing beyond the bounds of that department. This is specifically a matter of co-ordination. This Ministry must gather the powers together and have an oversight of everything which is going on in order to be able to specifically reach the boundaries of various departments and be able to take the necessary action over two, three or four departments. We already know the problems we have in our country of the overlapping of various departments. What we want is something more than a watchdog. We want a watchdog that has got a bite.

One who barks.

No, not barks, but bites. I should like to quote very briefly from a book which is called “Our Precarious Habitat”, an American publication. May I say it is one of the hundreds of thousands of books which are being written today on pollution. This is the “in” thing today. Everybody is on the bandwagon. But I think this is a very wise quotation: “The cry for instant anti-pollution is as unreasonable as it is ill-conceived”. I think we have to realize that in our industrial society pollution is an ever-present factor of life and it will continue to be so. It is not going to disappear overnight, and no Department of Environment is going to stop it. But what has to be done, is to establish what pollution is and what ceiling and threshold level are permitted and tolerable in our modern society. It is precisely one of the things the hon. member for South Coast asked for, namely that the Minister should be given power to define pollution. Until you have a definition of pollution, you cannot enforce pollution control. This is one of the things we are lacking in South Africa. The hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned this Bureau of Ecological Standards. This is what we need. Unless you have a standard against which to measure effluent and relative problems, you cannot enforce control of any sort at all. This is one of the problems which I do not believe the Cabinet Committee about which the hon. Minister spoke can answer. I do not think they have the answer to this one. The book goes on to say:

In other words, there has to be spending on research, a massive spending of millions of rands, dollars, pounds or whatever is applicable. Obviously, we in our country can afford a very limited amount. But it has to be done under the closest possible control. I understand from the hon. the Minister that there is a Scientific Advisory Council which deals with this kind of matter. But I do not know, and the Minister might at some other time tell us whether they are directing the attention of that committee to the specific problems of pollution so that research will be done into those problems. I believe these problems are looming bigger and bigger all the time. The book goes on further to say:

In other words, the industrial society in which we live, is making demands.

You have said enough now.

I realize that for the hon. member for Port Elizabeth this is a tremendous joke.

I am not from Port Elizabeth.

Well, wherever he comes from. I think he worked in Port Elizabeth once upon a time until they blew him out. I appreciate the fact that it is a joke as far as he is concerned. But certainly the industrial society in which we live is posing problems of effluent control and related problems which are going to cost us a tremendous amount of money.

Again, I come back to the problem, who is going to finance it? It has been established in the United States that year after year there are issues raised with the voters at referendums, for school buildings, etc., which are vitally necessary in that community, which are voted down year after year by those people, simply because they are not prepared to face the necessity of meeting additional taxation. Where you have a Ministry which has access to the Department of Finance, you also have access to the money. I do not know how the Cabinet Committee is going to function. The hon. the Minister can tell us whether each of those departments is going to hand over a part of its budget to finance the work that the committee is doing, or who is going to finance the work of the committee?

There are co-ordinating committees.

I know all about co-ordinating committees co-ordinating all sorts of things. I want to know who is going to finance it and where the money is to come from. Because without the money the whole effort is absolutely useless.

I tell you, I am not going to do it …

That is right, the hon. the Minister and his department will not do it. But if this committee finds that something is happening in one of the other departments, for instance Water Affairs which requires to be put right, what power does the hon. the Minister have to require the Minister of Water Affairs to do it?

We will look into that matter.

Well, “we will look into it”. That is the essence of the motion which the hon. member for South Coast has raised, namely that we want a Minister, somebody who will look into, who will have the power to look into the matter and require other Ministers to do what is essential to be done in South Africa to protect the environment in which we all live.

Mr. Speaker, on various occasions in this House and in the Other Place as well we have had motions on the subject of the conservation of our environment, and I do not think there is any need for me, at this advanced stage in the debate, to emphasize the necessity and the need for such conservation of our soil and environment. I think it is generally accepted on both sides of this House and by responsible people outside that this is a matter of vital importance, for not only does it affect the survival of mankind, but also the question of whether he is able to live under happier circumstances. There is a growing awareness among people that all growth does not necessarily mean progress and that wealth does not consist only of capital and the gross domestic product produced every year, but also of the circumstances in which they live. The environment also forms a major part of his assets.

The contents of the motion dealt with the creation of the actual machinery which was to bring about these more attractive and more pleasant circumstances for us, and it was suggested by the introducer of this motion that we should think in terms of a ministry. He was not the only one to express this idea. It has also been expressed by other people outside this House who have addressed symposiums. We heard a moment ago, with reference to the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Planning, that there are such ministries, which undertake this important work, under various names in various parts of the world. However, what seems to me to be important in this respect, according to the hon. member for Mooi River—and I am inclined to agree with him to a certain extent—is what authority the responsible Minister has to take action in these cases.

†What are his powers? I would like to point out to the hon. member for Mooi River quite a number of Acts passed by this Parliament which affects the situation.

We have the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act of 1967, which coordinates physical planning and regulates the utilization of South Africa’s resources. We have the Mountain Catchment Act, Act No. 63 of 1970, which provides for the conservation, use, management and control of land situated in mountain catchment areas. We already have the Soil Conservation Act, Act No. 76 of 1969, providing for the combating and prevention of soil erosion, the conservation and improvement in the use of soil and vegetation, and the protection of water resources. So I can carry on. In the fourth place we have the Forest Act of 1968, and the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act of 1965. We have also the Water Act of 1956. The prevention and combating of pollution of the sea is taken care of by the Oil Act, Act No. 67 of 1971. Then we also have the National Parks Act, Act No. 42 of 1962, to arrange matters about the protection of wild life. But in addition to the various powers in terms of these Acts, which the Government has, we also have the various provinces with their ordinances protecting the wild life in their various areas of jurisdiction.

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

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

1. (1) (a) expresses its approval of the large financial contributions which the Government is making with regard to the maintenance and development of universities for Whites as well as non-Whites; and
   1. (b) affirms its faith in the positive interpretation of the concepts of academic freedom and the autonomy of universities; and
2. (2) urges the Government to continue to exercise the necessary control in order to keep our universities free from influences which are responsible for the subversion of authority and the corruption of morals.

I want to start at once with the first part of the motion, namely that this House expresses its appreciation to the Government for the large sums of money spent on university education for all races. Whereas the university in the middle ages and for many years after that was regarded as a sort of elevated ivory tower, a preserve for the privileged, which was not within reach of the ordinary man, it has become a true refuge of the people today to which those eager for knowledge and status are flocking in ever increasing numbers. Whereas universities could finance themselves to a large extent in the past, it has become impossible today for a university to be financially independent.

Indeed, it is a generally known fact that the State is already contributing more than 80 per cent towards the current expenditure of universities in South Africa. Apart from the fact that in recent times there have been large increases in the number of students at our universities, which have inevitably resulted in larger expansion in respect of buildings and equipment, university education has become tremendously expensive. This is due not so much to increased building costs as to the tremendously expensive scientific apparatus and other equipment they need. In order to illustrate the extraordinary increase in the State’s contribution to university education over the past 20 years, I should like to submit certain statistics to this House. In the Estimates of Expenditure for the year 1951, an amount of £1 318 000 was voted for universities.

It is important to note that all races were included in this. Ten years later, in 1961, R11 million was voted in the Estimates of Expenditure for university education for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, as well as a further R1 600 000 in respect of Bantu universities, which, therefore, amounted to a total of R12 600 000 for that year. So, during the ten years from 1951 to 1961, there was an increase of approximately 400 per cent in the State’s contribution. In the ensuing ten years the State’s contribution was even more impressive, because in 1971 the following amounts were voted for university education: For White universities, R73 630 000; for the Coloured university, R1090 000; for the Indian university, R2 610 000, and for the Bantu universities, R5 830 000, a total amount of more than R83 000 000. Therefore the percentage increase from 1961 to 1971 was 560 per cent.

I cannot but praise the Government for the spectacular increase in its financial assistance in respect of our universities over the past two decades. It is all very well to say that other countries spend larger percentages of their national incomes on education. It is perhaps easier for more established countries, where the infrastructure has been built up over many years, to spend larger amounts of money on education. We, however, are living in a young, developing country in which extremely heavy demands are made on development capital. Ours is also a vast country. We still have to build roads and bridges; we still have to build dams and harbours; and in addition we have to spend extremely large amounts on national security. That our Government, in spite of all these demands, could succeed in granting R83 million to universities alone—which is approximately 3 per cent of the total Budget— is a tremendous and laudible achievement. This, of course, does not include other concessions such as the privileges of tax rebates, which amount to several million of rands more.

How does this compare with other countries?

But I have said that it compares very favourably. Before dropping the subject of university financing, I should like to address a word of special thanks to the Minister and the Government on behalf of the two young White universities, which received a special establishment formula in order to assist them over their first, difficult years. This means a very great deal to these two young universities and as a member of the University Council of one of these universities, I should like to express my thanks to the Government and the Minister.

Furthermore, I have no option but to point out the very serious financial problems which these same two universities will experience over the next few years. As is generally known, both these universities have been housed in temporary buildings since their establishment. At present extensive building programmes are being carried out. In the course of the next three or four years each of these universities will have to borrow at least R40 million in order to finance their building programmes. The present position is that the State provides 85 per cent of the interest and amortization burden on capital loans to the universities and that the universities have to provide 15 per cent from their own funds. By 1975, even with these very favourable concessions, these two universities will still have to find the huge amount of approximately R600 000 from their own funds in order to discharge their interest and amortization burdens. This will definitely be absolutely impossible for these two universities, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give very favourable consideration to this matter and to put it very strongly to the Treasury as well.

I now come to the second leg of my motion, namely that this House affirms its faith in the positive interpretation of the concepts of academic freedom and the autonomy of universities. These are concepts about which a great deal has been said and written, but which have not yet, to my knowledge, been precisely defined by any legislature or court of law. Even in England, where these concepts originated and from where they came to us, their precise interpretation is still the subject of argument. Very recently a British academic, Sir Eric Ashby, wrote the following—

It is, of course, generally known that throughout the world, and in South Africa as well, universities are highly indignant when they think their autonomy or academic freedom is being interfered with. University lecturers and students all over the world, especially those who have become disciples of the gospel of “The New Left”, have elevated these concepts to sacred cows which may not be touched and behind which they like to shelter, often in order to practise their undermining activities. In this, of course, they are vociferously assisted by the hon. member for Houghton and others. However, there are a few people throughout the world who are concerned about these concepts being interpreted too widely. A British Member of Parliament from Norwich South, Dr. Tom Stuttaford, recently wrote the following—

This being so, I should very much like to hear what hon. members opposite have to say about these concepts. I should very much like to see this House affirming its faith in a positive interpretation of these concepts, with the accent on the word “positive”. The hon. member for Wynberg may possibly have very interesting ideas about these matters, especially after her recent unpleasant experience at the North Western University in Chicago. Perhaps the hon. member will be prepared to tell this House about the academic freedom existing in American universities. [Interjections.] I was talking to the hon. member for Wynberg. In my view a positive interpretation of the concept “academic freedom” accords with the following definition recently given by the principal of one of our South African universities (translation)—

Stated in these terms, academic freedom has the characteristic that the freedom requested is in fact academic because it is linked with the integrity of the bona fide researcher. Except in so far as he is free in his honest search after knowledge and information, the academic therefore has no claim to greater liberties or rights than any citizen of the state. If he demands these liberties and rights especially in order to misuse them for the purpose of mobilizing feelings against his fatherland, he has to account for it just as you and I have to do so.

As far as the autonomy of universities is concerned, I have indicated that more than 80 per cent of university finance is derived from the State. No individual or body which is not financially independent can lay claim to full autonomous status. Indeed, there is in fact only one autonomous body in South Africa, and that is this Parliament. If there were a university in South Africa which was not prepared to accept money from the State, but which was prepared to finance itself, its full autonomy would probably have been respected within limits. But as long as the State provides the finance, it is surely reasonable that it should exercise a certain measure of control as well. It is the position that our Government and our Minister realize that a university is an extremely complex organism which has the best first-hand knowledge of its own problems. For that reason South African universities enjoy a very wide and large measure of autonomous status. However, any extraordinary claim which gives a magical content to the autonomy of universities and which does not thoroughly take into account the basis on which university autonomy rests and which is not prepared to accept the attendant responsibilities, is unrealistic and endangers the autonomy of universities.

I now come to the second part of my motion, which reads as follows—

It is a recognized fact that throughout the world there is a youth revolution in progress today, one which is meeting with a response in our country as well and which is manifesting itself at our universities. People who have made a study of this movement throughout the world, maintain that the indications are that this youth revolution actually has very little or almost nothing to do with communism, although the disorder and chaos created by it will in fact be beneficial to communism. However, many experts describe the aims and working methods of this youth revolution as much more dangerous than communism. This youth revolution may in fact have its origin in that part of the philosophy of Karl Marx which maintains that the ideal state is one without a government and in which all people receive the necessities of life without working and in which everyone works without receiving any payment for it.

This Utopia would be the perfect state because nobody would have any private possessions, because there would be no money and because, as a result, there would be no crime, no war and no misery. Revolutionary youth want to attain this Utopia not by the revolt of the working classes, as propagated by Karl Marx, but by the revolt of the student youth, by overthrowing the establishment, which, as they maintain, restricts and suppresses them and allows so much misery and injustice to exist in the world. They want to break down and overthrow every form of authority so that they may be absolutely free. They distinguish themselves from the communists by saying: “The communists want to take over the state; we want to smash the state.” Initially this revolution manifested itself in a very aggressive form in the universities of the United States and Europe. Strikes were organized, revolts broke out, buildings were taken over, violence was used and led to bloodshed, such as at the Columbia University of New York, where three students were shot dead in a clash with the police and where the university’s activities had to be completely suspended for almost three months.

The climax of these uprisings came during the revolt of the Paris students at the Sorbonne in France, when the régime of General de Gaulle was almost overthrown. People who were present there maintain that were it not for the fact that at the last moments the communists also became afraid of this youth revolt and its violence, and if the communists had not at the last moment intervened in order to put down this revolt, General de Gaulle’s Government would in fact have collapsed at the time, with possibly incalculable consequences for the Western world. Yet the author F. Lohenbill, writing about those events, said that the French students had in fact not revolted against General de Gaulle or the French Government, but against every form of power and authority.

On their part it was a cry for freedom on every level, an irresistible urge to cast off the Bonds and petty tyranny of rigid institutions. Their aim was “the tearing down of all structures and the creation of self-administering communities”. According to a report which appeared in the Manchester Guardian on 11th January, 1971, there are already more than 3 000 of these “self-administering communities” in the U.S.A. today which consist of groups of young people who simply live together, do not work, disregard all national and moral laws and simply allow themselves to be led by instinct alone. Since the unsuccessful student revolts of 1968 and 1969, the leaders of this youth revolution have changed their tactics. In future they would no longer concentrate on violence; on the contrary, they would launch a peaceful campaign among the student youth in order to gain converts for a radical new way of life, a new cultural revolution of “the building of Woodstock nations”. In future their slogan would be: “A New Way of Life”, because if sufficient people accepted this new way of life, the structures of authority could collapse by themselves and the political power of the establishment would disappear by itself. Thus, for example, a certain Prof. Reich wrote as a propagandist for this new way of life:

The leaders of the youth revolution have now accepted as their slogan: “A New Way of Life”. But it is a way of life which differs completely and utterly from the generally accepted way of life of Western civilization. The new way of life or new culture which is to be used as an instrument for breaking down the existing political system in the best way, would have the following characteristics: Sincere honesty and a desire for freedom, love and justice are used as inducements to attract the idealistic young person to this movement. Long and usually untidy hair is their uniform to show everyone what their political attitude is. The use of undisciplined, obscene language teeming with four-letter words is encouraged in order to shock the establishment. Rock music and pop festivals are organized. The use of L.S.D., dagga and other drugs is encouraged, because, Allen Ginsberg says:

Furthermore, a refusal to control sexual urges, whether normal or abnormal, is very general and an urgent desire and ideal to break down all structures of authority are used as a motive for this movement. Further characteristics of this movement are that they prefer to live together in communes, as I have said. According to the magazine Time of 16th April, 1970, they have specific eating habits as well:

From what I have said it is very clear that the youth of the Western world are being used as an instrument to bring about a new ideological trend in Western thought. The main object seems to be the undermining of the existing order and cultural values. In order to bring this about, every cultural and religious institution is presented as being antiquated, ridiculous and objectionable. It is very well-known that the propagandists of this revolution concentrate especially on the religion of their victims. In one document, for example, the doctrine of the Creation is dealt with and compared with Nazism. The Creator himself is represented as a much more abominable dictator than Hitler himself. Then the question is put to the young person: “Do you want to serve such an abominable dictator?” As soon as the young person has cut himself loose from his anchors of religion and his church, as soon as he has rejected as ridiculous the moral code of the society in which he grew up, and when he has thrown overboard every form of cultural possession and pride in his people and his fatherland as being antiquated, he is the easiest victim for the new way of life which is supported by any new or strange ideology.

We in South Africa may think that these phenomena are far removed from us and do not affect us, but there are enough indications that propagandists for this movement are to be found in our country as well. I quote from an article written by André Brink which appeared in Fair Lady on 11th November last year:

This man was in Paris at the time of the youth revolution and is a lecturer at one of our universities. He probably knows what he is talking about. A pamphlet which was distributed on various campuses in South Africa not long ago, made the following appeal to the students:

I could continue mentioning examples to show that the youth revolution has already made its appearance here in South Africa as well, but so as not to run the risk of impinging on the sphere of the Select Committee which the hon. the Prime Minister has announced, I shall suffice with this. From what I have already said, however, it should be clear to us that it would be fatal for us merely to take note of this without doing something more about it. In my motion I request that the Government should continue to exercise the necessary control over our universities. I want to emphasize that here I do not mean only the students, but also the lecturers who often hide behind the ramparts of academic freedom and lead our student youth on the wrong track in their honest search for knowledge. Some of these people are doing very evil work. There are not many of them, but it is a fact that there are some of them at our universities, that they are doing evil work amongst our students and that they should be very carefully watched.

In view of our extremely delicate position in South Africa and with a view to ensuring the continued existence of White civilization, we request the Government to keep a watchful eye on our universities, where our future leaders must be trained. We are grateful to know that we have a Minister who has done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future, but the task is of such magnitude that more than Government action and more than Government control are essential. If we want to save the youth from the undermining, the intoxication and the demoralization of this new youth revolution, we will have to do more. We will have to exploit the positive aspects of the youth revolution, namely its belief in peace, love and justice, in order to present gripping, dynamic schemes and projects to them which they may work out themselves and in which they may realize themselves to the benefit of our fatherland. We in South Africa are privileged in that we, in contrast to many other countries in Europe, are able to leave great, imaginative projects to our youth, projects which can be developed for the welfare of our father-land and all peoples on our continent. For this we shall need planned action on the part of the State, the church, the university, cultural leaders, parents, the press and the radio. A well co-ordinated youth action is needed to activate our youth so that they may canalize their energy and creative powers into projects which will be in the interests of the country and the people. An improvement in parent-child relationships, purposeful attempts to discover youth leaders at school already and to guide them towards positive thinking, perhaps the establishment of a department of youth affairs which can act as a co-ordinating factor—all these are matters which should receive top priority if we want to avoid suddenly reaching the point one day where our youth refuses to perpetuate our Western cultural values.

Mr. Speaker, it is very significant that the hon. member for Algoa’s whole discussion on the second half of his motion dealt almost exclusively with violence on campuses overseas. In fact, not once, during the course of his speech, did he suggest that similar violence had taken place here. He dealt also, almost exclusively, with student movements overseas and he said that there were signs that South African students and youth were linked with what he described as the youth revolution overseas. I am glad that he was cautious enough during the course of his speech to refer to the Select Committee, because he could have prejudiced the activities of that Committee if he had said very much more than that.

[Inaudible.]

All right, I am not that stupid. First of all I would like to make mention of the hon. member for Algoa’s inability even to think clearly enough to word his motion logically. If he looks at it, he will see that it contains an inherent contradiction because section (1) (b) affirms the Government’s faith, or this House’s faith, “in the positive interpretation of the concepts of academic freedom and the autonomy of universities” and in section (2), in the same breath he goes on to say that because of all sorts of subversive things that are happening, the Government must breach that academic freedom and that autonomy. So, in fact the resolution contains an inherent contradiction anyway and I think it is very badly drafted.

You are trying to be clever now and you are being stupid.

It is not a question of being clever; it is a question of intelligent English and drafting. Sir, neither autonomy nor academic freedom—the academic freedom in which the hon. member professes to have such faith—can possibly be reconciled—under any circumstances— with Government interference, as he says in the motion, “in order to keep our universities free from influences which are responsible for the subversion of authority and the corruption of morals”. Sir, with what kind of morality is the hon. member concerned in this motion? He was very vague about it all. Is he concerned with personal morality, with political morality, with academic morality? He did not say in all this fine talk about morals. What the last half of the hon. member’s motion amounts to is an overwhelming vote of no-confidence in the general body of South African students at all our universities. It does not talk about special universities; it talks about “our universities”, and it is surely significant that he refers to Government control, not over certain universities, but over “our universities”. That, of course, means, by implication, all our universities, Afrikaans-and English-speaking.

What is your interpretation of “morality?”

In effect he was attempting to refer indirectly to certain universities; he would have been wiser possibly to have said so. But, Mr. Speaker, his motion, of course, is also a vote of no-confidence in the ability of the councils of our universities to control the activities, the influences and the behaviour of the students on their own campuses, and I think that this is a shocking reflection upon the integrity of academics, of the university principals themselves and of a large number of eminent South African citizens who serve on these councils, many of whom are Government-appointed nominees, as he knows. Sir, in view of the strictures that he saw fit to make, I wish on behalf of this side of the House to move the following amendment to the hon. member’s motion—

1. (1) reaffirms its confidence (a) in the patriotism, moral standards and integrity of the vast majority of South African students, White and non-White, and (b) in the Councils of all our Universities and their ability to maintain order and support authority in administering their Universities; and
2. (2) is of the opinion that it is not desirable to comment on the affairs of universities which is the subject of investigation by a commission of inquiry, which has not yet submitted its report.”.

Mr. Speaker, what makes the hon. member for Algoa think or imply, as he quite clearly did in his speech, that the principals of some of our universities are neither concerned nor competent to maintain law and order and proper discipline on their campuses? If that is not what he means, then the motion has no meaning as it stands.

We have had examples.

What evidence has he for suggesting that there has been a subversion of authority, to use his words, on any campuses? And if there has been, can he give any proof whatever that the principals concerned failed to take appropriate action? I challenge him to produce that evidence. Let me quote to him, for instance, what the principal of the University of Cape Town had to say to his students at the graduation ceremony here in Cape Town in June of last year. I quote from Sir Richard Luyt’s speech, in which he said—

Sir, what could be clearer than that from the Principal of the University of Cape Town, I would like to know? Sir Richard Luyt was specifically warning individual students on that occasion—individual students, I repeat—of the consequences of breaking the law of the land. But, Sir, there was no internal trouble on that campus at the time, and there has been none since. The Principal of the University of Natal, Dr. Stock, in an address to first-year students on February 26th, 1971, as reported in the Rand Daily Mail on the 27th, made the following comment—

The report goes on to say—

And of course, there has been no physical interference.

Do you know what his students said about that? They said he was a second Horwood.

Sir, the motion of the hon. member for Algoa states specifically in section (2) that the Government must intervene …

No, not intervene.

It says that the Government must “exercise the necessary control”. How do you exercise the necessary control if you do not intervene? The motion continues: … “to keep our universities free from influences which are responsible for the subversion of authority”. Sir, if that statement means anything, it means he is saying that the principals of the universities are doing nothing about the subversion of authority.

No.

Of course. The hon. member cannot get out of it. He suggested that the students themselves—he has just said so—in fact objected to Dr. Stock’s speech, and a lot of them did; there he is quite correct, but he does not mention various other things. He does not mention that a motion of censure was introduced by students of the Rhodes S.R.C. against the President of Nusas in February last year because of the things they had advocated …

Don’t talk about those things. I can tell you a lot about them.

I am merely mentioning this in passing. The hon. member was talking as though the students themselves were out to subvert everybody and authority and were not patriotic enough. The hon. member made that quite clear. When I say to the hon. member and other members of this House that we here have complete confidence in the patriotism and the loyalty and the good sense of the vast majority of South African students, our confidence is very well-founded indeed.

So have we.

That is interesting, Sir, in view of the terms of this motion.

Why the motion then?

I would like to make it quite clear that the Government has all the powers it wants to indict individuals—the hon. member knows it very well —who break the law, whether they are on a university campus or anywhere else without exercising all this control that he talks about in his motion. The request of the hon. member for Algoa in this motion for direct Government interference on the campuses—because he talks about “Government control”—gives the lie in effect to his affirmation of belief in the autonomy of universities and academic freedom, because Government control over these things would create a very dangerous precedent indeed, and this side of the House would very much regret to see anything like that happening. Sir, let us get it quite clear: No one has burned down any buildings here; no one has been physically assaulted; there has been no violence, so the things over which the hon. member and his Government want to have control are not things like that, but they want to have control over the exchange of ideas, in spite of all his pious protestations, ideas which in certain fields are anathema to him and to hon. members on that side of the House. Sir, some of those ideas may be unacceptable to me as well, and may I say that a great many of those ideas are unacceptable to many of the students themselves.

They do not back your party.

But the real truth is that Government Members of Parliament do not want real autonomy and academic freedom for the universities. This subsection (1) (b) of the hon. member’s motion is a lot of humbug and he knows it, and that is why his Government passed the Extension of University Education Act in 1959. They gave it a fancy name, “Extension of University Education Bill”, and they took away rights and freedoms and some of the basic autonomy of the universities. I would like to remind the hon. member of the amendment moved by this side of the House in the debate on the Second Reading of that Bill in 1959. Dr. Louis Steenkamp, the then hon. member for Hillbrow, moved—

1. (a) the limitation of the admission of non-White students to existing universities is making unjustified, serious and undesirable inroads into the autonomy and traditional right right of self-determination of such universities;
2. (b) the proposed institutions for higher education for non-White persons will not have the standing of universities, nor will they enjoy the academic freedom traditionally associated with a university; and
3. (c) the Government has not consulted the Statutory Committee of University Principals on the principles of the Bill.

And in the course of his speech the hon. member for Hillbrow went on to say this, and it was quite prophetic—

And of course he was referring there to the English-language universities—

That is exactly where we stand today, as the hon. member expressed it in 1959, 22 years ago. We take exactly that standpoint today. For Government members to suggest that they take the same view in terms of this pious resolution of the hon. member for Algoa, is so much rubbish, as this debate in 1959 proved. Sir, hon. members know very well that in matters of this kind in their hearts they are really paternalistic, if one is being charitable, and authoritarian if one is not being charitable.

Order! It is very difficult to hear the hon. member. She must address me.

My apologies, Sir. The hon. member’s views are really very narrow, if only he would have the courage to admit it. Now, on the subject of academic freedom, the hon. member for Algoa is extremely ambivalent.

What do you understand by it?

What hon. members on that side of the House really want is that all South African students should think as they do. There is nothing in this field to choose between radicals on the left and radicals on the right. Both of them are a confounded nuisance and both of them are equally dangerous And I know all about it, as the hon. member for Algoa rightly said, because of my experiences in America. The radicals on the left are anxious to refuse you a hearing for one set of reasons. But I suggest that the radicals on the right in this country are moving this type of motion for exactly the same purpose here in South Africa and that is why we disapprove of the motion as it stands. These same people, the radicals to the right or to the left, everywhere demand the right to think exactly as they choose. The second demand, of course, is that they have the right to condemn anybody who disagrees with them. You have to think as they do—or else. There is always the big “or else” attached to it. And of course the threat implied here became quite apparent to us in this House yesterday afternoon when the hon. the Prime Minister moved his motion for an investigation into certain organizations in this country, amongst them the National Union of South African Students. The hon. the Prime Minister made out no prima facie case. I am not going to discuss it because the matter has been referred to a Select Committee, but this is the hidden threat in regard to these matters. The hon. member for Orange Grove in the debate in 1959 had some very relevant things to say about academic freedom. In the 1959 debate the hon. member for Orange Grove was talking about university autonomy when he said (Hansard, Vol. 100, col. 3227):

That was what was said by the hon. member for Orange Grove in 1959. He also said that university autonomy further means that there must be freedom in the appointment of members of the academic staff and the university must not be subject to restrictions imposed from outside which are based on sex or race or belief or religion or anything else. He then went on to talk about academic freedom and he said (col 3229)—

When we discussed the Education Vote here last year, the hon. member for Boksburg, who I am sorry is not here today, asked the hon. the Minister whether the time had not come to review the autonomy of the universities where leftist activities occur, so that the Government could have a greater say in the appointment of lecturers and the type of students admitted. Well, what price autonomy, Sir, under those circumstances? How meaningful is this section in this motion here today? Does the hon. member for Boksburg find himself in agreement today with the motion of the hon. member for Algoa and his pious reaffirmation in section (1) (b) of this motion? And may I ask the hon. member for Algoa exactly what he means by the use of the words “positive interpretation of the concepts of academic freedom and the autonomy of the universities”? The very terms of the motion make it clear that what he really approves of is only a partial interpretation of academic freedom. In effect, that is what he is saying; an interpretation in terms of his own subjective judgment. [Interjections.] I have just mentioned that this matter has been referred to a commission. I mentioned it; the hon. member did not, and it is his Government’s commission. And let me inform the House that the hon. the Prime Minister himself, who is Chancellor of the University of Stellenbosch, has on more than one occasion been invited to address the students at an English-language university. I know that as a fact. Now why did he not do it? Why has he persistently refused? Why does he snarl, and his colleagues with him, at students for inviting the former United States Attorney-General, Mr. Ramsay Clark, to address them? And then he himself refuses to counter any influence which Mr. Clark’s thinking may have had upon the students by addressing them himself. Just think what a missionary he could have been. Sir. Did he not have the courage to go? Is that what it was? I do not think that is the real reason. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt, in any event, since he is not here today. [Interjections.] I think the real answer is that the hon. the Prime Minister, just like the hon. member for Algoa and other hon. members too, and many of his henchmen on the Government benches, make statements about these universities in a political context and nothing else, and when the hon. members opposite find themselves politically bankrupt as they are today, this motion of course is exactly what they want. In other words: “Do not deal with the basic problems of the country; have a bash at the students instead.” I am very glad to say that the hon. the Minister of Education has a far more balanced approach to these matters, if only they were left to him.

Do not make me blush.

The fact is that this motion today is highly presumptuous, since every single item listed in it is covered by the terms of reference of the Van Wyk de Vries commission of inquiry into the affairs of the universities, which was appointed by the hon. the Minister in September, 1968, and, as he told me this morning in reply to a question, is still sitting. When hon. members opposite asked last year for their Minister to penalize certain universities at which the students had organized protests against Government policy, the Minister very calmly and with great effectiveness put them and the hon. Senator Horwood, who spoke on the same lines in the Other Place, smartly in their places. The hon. the Minister in his speech referred them to the commission which was sitting and said that whatever comments they had could not possibly be dealt with, neither was he prepared to take any action. The hon. the Minister went on to say that students at the age of 18 had the vote and were perfectly entitled to political activity, provided of course it did not go beyond the ordinary bounds of constitutional action. The Minister’s reply could not have been calmer or more effective. Then the hon. member for Algoa expresses his approval of the large financial contributions made by the Government to the universities, and he gave us a lot of figures today. May I say to the hon. member that financing of the universities is another aspect of the commission’s terms of reference and for that reason I do not intend to go into it at any length today except to say that we disagree fundamentally with his vote of thanks to the hon. the Minister. The enrolment position at our major universities today is most unsatisfactory and the universities have not sufficient funds to expand as they would like. The truth is that we are spending less than the figures supplied by the hon. member on education today, including the universities, in terms of the country’s gross national product, than we were spending ten years ago. The Government’s lack of foresight in this regard is deplorable. Before I leave the subject of the commission I consider it necessary to state here and now that Prof. Owen Horwood’s position as an impartial member of that commission must be severely criticized. The facts are that Prof. Horwood and Prof. Bozzoli sit on that commission as representatives and principals of two of the English language universities, namely Witwatersrand and Natal. Prof. Horwood resigned from his post as principal of the Natal University soon after his appointment. He is now serving as a senator on the Government benches where he has been for some time. In that position he committed himself publicly and passionately last year to a particular line of thinking, an indictment, in fact, of student activities on the English university campuses, a matter which is still under the attention of the commission of inquiry. This in fact is specifically covered by item 7 of the terms of reference which says that they must consider student relations in general and in particular the role students and student bodies could play in co-operation with academic authorities, maintaining a healthy spirit and a code of conduct on the campuses of modern universities. The hon. Senator at the time even suggested financial penalties. As I have said, the hon. the Minister blew him out over that.

But I would like to remind this House that all these matters are still sub judice, even the matters raised by the hon. member for Algoa.

No.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he expects the South African public to have full confidence in the objectivity and fair-mindedness of this commission of inquiry as long as he permits a partisan politician, who has expressed violent views concerning one of the specific terms of reference of the commission, to retain his position as though he were still principal of Natal University which, of course, he is not. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister very seriously that this matter is causing a great deal of public anxiety and with reason, as a result of Senator Horwood’s activity. Surely, in the interests of the country and in the interests of all the universities, the important thing is to engender confidence in the objectivity of the commission’s approach. I ask the hon. the Minister whether this is the way to do it.

Are you now reflecting on the integrity of the judge?

Indeed not; I am talking about the political statements made by one of the hon. members of that commission …

By one member of that commission?

I am leaving the hon. the Minister to reply to my charges.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the kind of unrest we have experienced on certain of our campuses in recent years, which has not taken the form of violence, was unheard of before the passing of the 1959 Extension of University Education Act. If our universities had been free to develop as they were doing prior to that date under a United Party administration, with the choice of enrolment and the choice of the appointment of staff left entirely in the hands of the universities, I suggest that the measure of understanding between students of all colours in a free association on the university campuses would have been profitable to the country as a whole. Friendships would have developed on a normal basis. Arguments and differences of opinion would have been aired in an atmosphere of academic tolerance. Political emotions need never have become so overheated as they have become today. It is the Government’s own policies, once again, that are leading to confrontation situations at all levels, not least amongst the student bodies themselves, where Black and Coloured will only talk to Whites today on a basis of suspicion and distrust. And what a terrible pity that is. The Government itself has caused the tragic breakdown in communications in this field. Their own policies of gross discrimination against people of colour in so many of the practical aspects of living, have been the direct cause of student involvement and concern with injustices of this sort. Because there are no longer any, or at least very few, legitimate channels of communication open between us, particularly at university level and between people of colour, students of all kinds are incensed at the nature of the restrictions imposed upon them. Many of them have expressed their anger and their frustration. I suggest that the Government itself has provided a breeding ground for agitators in this field.

We warned the Government in 1959— and I quoted from the debates—that this would be the case. And, indeed, if you examine the records of student unrest in this country, via Nusas or any other body, you will find that its main target was, and continues to be, the principle behind the 1959 Act, which we on this side of the House fought so bitterly at that time. On these grounds and for the other reasons which I have stated, I table the amendment in my name. The less Government interference we have in the universities the better. The very nature of the discussion here today proves us to have been entirely correct in the view that we held in 1959 and that which we hold at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite remarkable that the amendment of the hon. member contains nothing at all about section 1 (a) of the motion of the hon. member for Algoa. In the course of her speech the hon. member for Wynberg claimed that this motion is a reflection upon the competence and integrity of rectors of universities and university councils, on which state appointed persons also serve. This is an altogether incorrect interpretation of the hon. member for Algoa’s motion. I do not think the hon. member understands the motion very well. In the course of my speech I shall in any case come back to this, particularly to aspects in connection with the autonomy of the universities, which the hon. member elaborated upon quite extensively. The hon. member for Algoa referred in particular to spending on the White universities. I should like to elaborate a little on State spending on non-White universities.

In the past, the Government has very regularly received harsh criticism in this House from hon. members of the Opposition, the hon. member for Houghton, and the Press, which supports these hon. members, for supposedly not making sufficient money available for non-White education. When one speaks about this matter it is, by the way, very interesting to note that the rural supporters of this Opposition, particularly in the Transvaal, regularly criticize the Government very sharply for what is being done for the non-Whites and in particular for the Bantu, particularly in respect of education.

Who says so?

That is the case. I know. Here sits the hon. member for Waterberg, who contested a by-election not so very long ago. He can confirm every word I say here. As is known, the Extension of University Education Act was passed here in 1959. The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to that. It is also known, and the hon. member repeated it here, that on that occasion the Opposition did everything in their power and used every means to oppose that Bill, to prevent it from being passed. It is also known that the Opposition has never really accepted these separate university colleges that later became universities, that they are still searching for shortcomings with a political magnifying glass and each year furnishing negative criticism. It is not my intention to go into that in further detail.

I should just like to state the case positively, and I briefly want to refer to the contributions being made by the Government for, as the motion puts it, “the maintenance and development of universities for … non-Whites”. I then also want to point to the growth of those relevant universities. Unfortunately I now have to trouble the House with a few statistics in this connection. Because the Bantu universities have the most students and require the major portion of the State expenditure, I refer to them first. There are the three Bantu universities: the University of Fort Hare, the University of Zululand and the University of the North. n 1966 the number of students totalled 1 161. In 1971 the total was 2 379, an increase of 105 per cent in five years. During that time, in the same number of years, from the financial year 1966-’67 to the financial year 1971-’72 the current expenditure and the capital spending increased from R2 845 000 to R5 780 000—again more than a doubling of the 1966 amount. This is proof that the increase in student numbers and the spending were exactly commensurate. The Coloured university of the Western Cape came into being as a university college in 1960. On 1st January, 1970, it obtained university status. In 1960 the number of students totalled 164, in 1966, 590 and in 1971, 975. Similarly, the number of students at those universities virtually doubled over the past five years. The spending on the university of the Western Cape, i.e. on land, buildings and equipment, amounted to a total of R2 395 000. I am not mentioning the spending as it occurred annually, but where that is concerned, it also more or less doubled over the past five years. Fom the inception of the University of the Western Cape, 789 students have obtained diplomas and degrees at the University. I now come to the third non-White university, the Indian University, In 1961 there were 114 students, in 1966, 1 129 and in 1971, 1 707. The expenditure of this University is also great, but the number of students also increased in proportion to the expenditure. At present construction is still progressing on the University of Durban Westville. R9 million has already been spent on this project, and an additional few million rands will still be spent. This university, like all the others, is a marked success. The students at this Indian University have opportunities they never had before. They see the value of separate development and separate universities. Indian students and leaders agree with this.

This expenditure in respect of universities for non-Whites proves that the National Government ensures that non-Whites are trained at the highest level and obtain the necessary facilities there. The National Party also established Bantu universities specifically orientated to the Bantu’s needs. This also applies to the universities for Coloureds and Indians. I want to emphasize again that the State makes an abundant and judicious contribution. It does not contribute more than can be absorbed by these institutions. The State contributes only in proportion to the growth of these universities and institutions, i.e. according to their needs. Notwithstanding the predictions of United Party doom prophets in 1959 and also subsequently, to the effect that the non-White colleges and universities would not succeed, these quoted statistics repudiate their expectations and negative view of things.

But what has that to do with the motion?

Because it concerns expenditure by this Government in connection with those universities. The National Party believes in offering each national group—hence the expenditure— full development opportunities, but in its national context and always linked to its national heritage. That is why the State is prepared to make these large contributions.

I should now like to come to the second part of the motion, i.e. that the House affirms its faith in the positive interpretation of academic freedom and the autonomy of universities. The National Party and I personally disagree with the United Party’s view of autonomy and academic freedom. I should like to point out that the motion speaks of a “positive interpretation”. The Opposition normally furnishes the plea that there should be no interference in the activities of the universities, that the State should have nothing to do with branches of the universities’ activities, that the universities themselves should determine the conditions of admission and rejection of students and that in all respects universities should maintain their independence.

Of course!

In addition the Opposition thinks that the so-called fundamental powers of university councils should not be affected and that the universities should be independent in all respects, otherwise there is no freedom of thought and autonomy collapses. However, these are the same universities that sharply criticize the State if it does not regularly increase its subsidy contributions, and the United Party takes up the cudgels for them. The National Party also believes in university autonomy and in the fact that unnecessary and injudicious restrictions should not be placed on that. But the National Party is realistic in its view and maintains a positive interpretation. I now want the hon. members of the Opposition to listen carefully. University autonomy in the modern State is not the primary right of the university; autonomy is derived from the State. If there were no State, no university would have existed. The right of autonomy, of freedom, is allocated statutorily to the universities by the State.

Of course.

The universities receive their autonomy or freedom within State limits. State control has always existed at South African universities. I now want to ask that hon. member and hon. members opposite whether the United Party has ever thought that the provision of the conscience clause is, in fact, interference by the State in the so-called autonomy of the universities? I believe that the United Party members all support the provisions of the conscience clause. The United Party apparently thinks that university autonomy should be unassailable. This can be dangerous. Are hon. members aware that the student revolt at the Sorbonne University and other European universities a few years ago was initially aimed solely at an outmoded university system, obsolete syllabuses, outmoded tuition and examinations methods. These defects have long been present, but the university authorities there did nothing about that. The State did not intervene because the principle of university autonomy had almost reached the status of unassailability. And what happened? We know ourselves.

It has not happened here.

But I am now pointing to what did happen and now this could also happen here if the State has no right to intervene. Academic freedom can only reach the highest rung in the security offered to it by the State. Where security, order, discipline and peace do not prevail, where chaos and tension prevail, there can be no academic freedom. The State grants certain rights and privileges to the universities and protects and promotes intellectual progress. The university is actually a public trust that must be protected by the State. A scholar, Robert M. McIver, puts it in these terms, on page 248 of his book, Academic Freedom in our Time—

Where does the United Party now come by the right to say that the State must keep its hands off the universities altogether? When so-called academic freedom becomes random and arbitrary, when it is morally destructive or undermines the State, it is the duty of the State to intervene and if necessary interfere in that so-called freedom. I should like to quote further from what another great scholar, Russell Kirk, has to say on page 27 of his book, Academic Freedom. He states—and now hon. members must listen carefully—

Who are the “other persons”? It could also be the State in this case.

No, the university councils.

It could also be the State. The university obtains its freedom from the State and receives it within State limits. McIver, whom I have already quoted states it as follows on page 270 of the above-mentioned book—

This applies to the university—

It is freedom sustained through and through by authority.

Because my time is almost up, I want to conclude by saying that security, order and good administration are constitutionally the functions primarily belonging to the State, and the State can also demand this from its universities. Where a university becomes a centre for protest, unrest, demonstrations, violence and subversion of State authority as such, I believe that the State has the right … no, more than this, I believe that it is the moral duty of the State to intervene.

Mr. Speaker, I very much regret having to follow the hon. member because he forces me to say something here today which I do not like to say. It concerns a word I do not like to use, but which comes straight from the mouth of the hon. the Prime Minister, namely the word “gossip-mongering”. I would have preferred not to use this word in the House. At the beginning of the hon. member’s speech he related the stories which, according to him, the United Party people were circulating in the Transvaal. I challenge the hon. member to examine the debates on Bantu education in this House and to read what was said by the United Party members on this side of the House. If he were to do that, he would find that we criticized them on Bantu Education, for example in regard to free books which have to be provided, etc. Then the hon. member comes along here and talks as if this were the official attitude of the United Party! It does not become him as an old member of this House to be guilty of blatant gossip-mongering.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Blatant?

Yes, “blatant gossip-mongering”.

I withdraw it. The hon. member also spoke of academic freedom. I want to remind him that, according to this motion, we are to discuss the positive aspects of academic freedom and of the autonomy of universities. Up to now I have really heard only hidden threats against academic freedom from the other side of the House. That is the only way in which one can interpret the previous speech.

†Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be a completely fruitless exercise for us to debate the merits or demerits of this motion unless we at least tried to put matters in their true perspective. I state without hesitation that, in introducing the motion in its present form, the hon. member for Algoa committed a grave injustice against moderate student opinion in South Africa and against the responsible councils of the universities in South Africa. I say this because, no matter how one reads this motion, one cannot help but gain the impression that it is presented with a typical authoritarian attitude. As such, I must say that, in dealing with the problem of student control, which is a delicate problem, I believe that this is an irresponsible attitude to adopt. I also believe that this, in fact, embarrasses moderate student opinion in South Africa …

What do you mean by “moderate student opinion”?

… and it embarrasses the responsible councils of the universities. If one adopts an authoritarian attitude in dealing with this problem, one plays into the hands of the very people one is trying to destroy, i.e. the extremists. I especially want to say this to the hon. member for Rissik, because I know he is a person who will think about these problems seriously. I want to say to him that the moment one adopts an authoritarian attitude, one starts losing control; it is, in fact, an admission of defeat.

Let us look at the first leg of this motion. Quite frankly, it is also covered by the terms of reference of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission, i.e. “the educational, academic, financing and development aspects of universities”. Nevertheless, let us discuss it. I want to say that it is perhaps not the fault of the hon. member for Algoa that he had to draft this resolution in this particular form. Perhaps he merely acted on instructions, because this 1972 Session is obviously going to be the “dankie-sê ” session. That is why we have had all this on the “large” financial contributions. Firstly, I want to pose the question: “How large are these contributions in fact?”

Do you not want to hear the truth?

How large are the contributions? We have heard of R56 million in grants for the White universities. I must say that this sounds impressive to the uninformed, but the person who knows South Africa and is aware of its vast potential, who is aware, for instance, that the Government raised an amount in the region of R2 600 million on the Revenue Account last year and that this Government spent over R3 000 million in the current financial year, can see matters in their true perspective. Then, for example, R56 million is no longer an impressive amount.

Do you know how much the United Party Government gave the universities?

R56 million is a mere fraction of R3 000 million. I am the first to admit that there has been an improvement, but I want to state that it is still totally inadequate for the needs of a country such as South Africa. One of the hon. members there asked: “What about 1948?” I will also indulge in this “back to 1948” urge. I want to compare costs from the point of view of students and I want to pose this question to hon. members on the opposite side: Do they honestly believe it is less expensive today to send a student to one of the universities? I did some research on this question. I discovered that in 1948, for instance, it was possible to enrol at the University of Cape Town and pay only £58, i.e. R116, in tuition fees in order to take a B.Sc. degree. What is the situation today? For a B.Sc. degree, tuition fees alone amount to R456. This means that in 1948 one could enjoy this educational privilege at a quarter of the price of today. If one wants to prove that £58 equals R456, one in fact admits that the rand of today is worth only 25 cents, a quarter of its value in 1948. In terms of the idiom of 1948, it is in fact worth only half-a-crown. Therefore I believe that, to put matters in their true perspective, hon. members on the other side must not quote so many millions in this House, but must quote 86 million half-crowns. We will then be able to understand the situation. But what is the effect of this? According to the American News Digest of 5th January, 1972, the enrolment of students at United States universities has multiplied six times in a generation. What is a generation? It is 20 to 25 years. Let us look at the situation in South Africa. In 1948 we had 17 509 full-time students at South African universities. What was the situation in 1970? In 1970, 22 years later, a generation later, according to the report of the Department of National Education, the full-time students who attended residential universities numbered 51 019. This represents an increase of 200 per cent. But in America it is possible to have an increase of 600 per cent. What I am saying is that, no matter how we come with all these large contributions, we must accept the fact that the position can be better and that there are countries in the world where, in fact, the position is better.

I want to move off that point and say how glad I am that I can support and second the responsible motion of the hon. member for Wynberg.

You do not have a motion.

Not a motion, but an amendment. The hon. member’s amendment reflects a most responsible approach to this particular problem, the problem of possible student revolt in South Africa and the control of students. I believe that the motion of the hon. member for Algoa is in fact dangerous. It is dangerous because it is completely negative. I want to say why it is negative. It is negative because it relies in the final analysis on maintaining control purely by taking punitive measures. I also believe that it is dangerous because it is laughable in many respects. There is nothing wrong with the words of the motion if you read through them. If we read through, for example, the second leg of this motion, we see ‘ that this House affirms its faith in the positive interpretation of the concept of academic freedom and the autonomy of universities”. There is nothing wrong with those words, but what is wrong and what is in fact laughable is that it should come from an hon. member on the opposite side of the House. This is where the moderate student is embarrassed. The moderate student and also the responsible councils of the universities are embarrassed because they all know the history of academic freedom and of the autonomy of the universities in South Africa. You will also find that the extremists know their history. They know who the people are who have made inroads into academic freedom in South Africa and who have placed limitations on the autonomy of the universities. Now, all of a sudden, the hon. member for Algoa puts the moderate students in the invidious position of having to try to justify this particular motion of his. I want to say that against extremists they will have no chance, and therefore the extremists are in fact making headway in this country. Do not blame the extremists; sometimes I think the time has come that the Government should look upon itself and on the hon. members opposite and say that they are guilty of adopting wrong attitudes towards this problem. I do not wish to go any further into this matter of the autonomy of the universities, except to state the factual position in South Africa. Then I want to say that at the University of Fort Hare, for instance, the council is so autonomous that in this particular year, 1972, they as a Xhosa institution cannot even allow a Zulu to enter and enrol at that university without obtaining the approval of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

When we come to the third leg of this motion, I must say that I am rather disturbed by the attitude of the hon. members opposite. It has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Wynberg that this is really covered by the Van Wyk de Vries Commission. There must have been lack of consultation between hon. members opposite because I cannot see how they can come with this motion. If you read the third leg, you see that the hon. member for Algoa is creating the impression that we are in fact in control of matters in South Africa. Those of us who were present during the last week and who listened to what the Prime Minister had to say, must admit that it looks as if he is convinced or believes that we are in danger of losing that control. I am concerned about the whole problem of student relationships, but I also want to say that this situation is not a new phenomenon. As was said quite rightly earlier on, this is not just limited to South Africa. I am afraid that the way things are developing here, there is a chance, and a real chance, that we might lose control of the situation. Let us then consider the so-called effective steps which the hon. member for Algoa has in mind and which will allow the Government to continue to exercise this control. What are these effective steps? There are four of them. The first one is purely to revert to punitive measures when you are in trouble. We had it last year during the education debate, when for instance they came with the threat of cutting the subsidies of these universities. You have had headlines in newspapers such as: “Owen Horwood hints at withdrawal of subsidies”. I believe this is one way to lose the support of the moderate students, because this is a completely discriminatory action. This discriminates against the guilty and the innocent. I want to say that you had people going to universities and wasting their time in the 1940s and the 1950s, and not only in the 1970s. They themselves pay the price ultimately, because unless they qualify for something and leave that university as a qualified person with a degree or the like, they pay the price. I believe that the contrary of that is also true. This, I believe, is not only confined to the so-called politically active students at universities; the contrary seems to be true where some of these students who take an active part in politics are also excellent—I repeat, excellent— scholars.

We have yet another method which I believe is being used by the Government at the moment in order to maintain control. I want to warn them beforehand that this is of limited value only. This is the type of infiltration of organizations which is commonly known as the “blonde spy approach”. This type of thing has only a limited value and will in fact not be sufficient when we are faced with a showdown with the students. Thirdly, we also have in South Africa a very active Publications Board, which apparently must protect the morals of the students. This Publications Board has been very active from 1963 to 1970, for during that time it has banned some 5 785 publications. I know that a lot of those publications have been pornographic or the like, but I do say that the chances are that some good works are being banned from this country, works which the dedicated and the serious students require for study.

Lastly, I also believe that the Government itself is radical in its approach. As long as you have a radical Government, you can expect any reaction to this to be radical as well. This is where the moderate student once again is caught in between, because there are many things in South Africa which he just cannot morally justify. He is in the front line of defence and as long as certain of these aspects of Government policy do not change, I think we must accept that we are in fact losing control over the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with certain remarks made by the hon. member who has just sat down. He suggested that this Government has neglected education, and in support of his argument he quoted certain figures, but I am afraid that I find his figures totally unreliable. For instance, he mentioned a certain figure to indicate the number of students who had enrolled at the universities.

Full-time students at residential universities—51 000.

He omitted to say that the University of South Africa has enrolled 21 000 students …

I quoted 17 500.

He suggested that there had been neglect on the part of the Government. The University of South Africa also receives a subsidy from this Government and I therefore accuse that hon. member of deliberately omitting a very important piece of information in support of his argument, and therefore 1 cannot accept his other figures in support of that particular aspect of his approach.

It is a lie by omission.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

Furthermore, the hon. member, in support of the hon. member for Wynberg, suggested that we on this side of the House did not confer as far as this motion is concerned. He suggested that we on this side were not taking cognisance of the commission which is at present investigating certain aspects of education. Sir, when we look at the terms of reference we find that item 7, which was actually also referred to by the hon. member for Wynberg, reads as follows. They are authorized to investigate “studente-verhoudinge in die algemeen en in besonder die rol wat studente en studenteliggame kan speel in medewerking met die akademiese owerhede”. But what does the motion say? The motion, freely translated, urges the Government to maintain control. There is a vast difference. The university authorities are not asked to step in and to exercise their autonomy properly. What is more. Sir, the hon. member for Algoa suggested that the necessary steps should be taken to ward off certain elements and certain undermining influences. The motion does not suggest that those influences do exist at our universities.

Of course he is suggesting it.

He does not suggest that. He is merely asking the Government to take steps to ward off these influences. But the hon. member for Wynberg has been arguing the entire afternoon as though my hon. friend is suggesting in the motion that those influences are in fact in existence at the universities.

What does he mean then by “subversion” in the last line?

Secondly, my hon. friend’s entire argument was along the lines that the experience in Europe and America has been such that we should take timeous action to prevent similar influences entering our universities, and in support of that he quoted certain incidents in Europe and America. But the hon. member for Wynberg goes much further. My hon. friend the member for Algoa did not suggest that either a minority or a majority of students are subjected to these influences. He did not suggest that, but what does the hon. member for Wynberg do? She suggests in her amendment—she can tell me whether I am wrong—that the minority of students have no patriotism, no moral standards and no integrity.

I did not say so.

The hon. member’s amendment says that.

No.

If the hon. member reads it properly, she will find that it does say so. For those reasons, Sir, we cannot accept the first part of the amendment …

Why not?

Because it casts suspicion on an untold number of students.

That is what your policy is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very amusing that the hon. member for Wynberg is so reticent about her visit to a certain university in America.

But we are talking about South African universities.

Exactly. Sir, in discussing student affairs with the Sunday Times she made a scathing attack on the extent to which American academics had surrendered to black pressure. I think this House should pass a motion of censure against that hon. member for disturbing the good relations that we have with the American academic world.

Rubbish. Come and have lunch with me next week.

I now return to the motion by my hon. friend, which I support wholeheartedly and gladly. The first part of his motion is very positive. The first part of his motion refers to certain financial support which the Government gives in favour and on behalf of our universities. Not only do our universities enjoy the benefit of that support which my hon. friend mentioned in his arguments, but if we take a look at the Universities Act, we also find that provision is made for other forms of financial support which may be obtained. Local authorities are specifically authorized to donate money or other movable property. Moreover, in passing the Act concerned, this side of the House, in co-operation with that side of the House, also granted powers of expropriation which may be exercised in consultation and in co-operation with the Minister of Agriculture. But, Sir, we went further. In terms of the National Study Loans Act we provided a source which stands at almost R700 000 at this stage and which enabled that Fund to contribute R129 000 towards bursaries in 1970.

In this connection I just want to make the observation that one daily comes across cases where bodies which award bursaries to students on the basis of achievement or merit, withdraw those bursaries when a bursary loan is granted. I think we may profitably appeal to bodies which grant that free bursary which is awarded on the basis of achievement. Then there is the important concession we made in the Income Tax Act of 1970 in terms of which companies may donate up to 5 per cent of their taxable income and individuals may donate up to R500 or 2 per cent of their taxable income to universities, and in terms of which these donations are then exempted from tax. Sir, we must also take cognizance of the fact that the Government, through various State departments, was able to provide 750 bursaries last year for students who started their studies in 1972. These bursaries are so popular that, according to the Secretary to the Public Service Commission, 2 800 applications were received for them up to the beginning of this year.

As far as the second part of the motion is concerned, i.e. that we urge the Government to continue to exercise the necessary control, it means that we are asking the Government to see to it that those influences do not reach our universities and thus become able to deprive us of our most important asset for the future, i.e. our leaders for the next 5 or 10 years and more. We are asking the Government not necessarily to act in terms of university autonomy or academic freedom, but generally to protect this greatest asset that we possess.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West has now attempted to take the hon. member for Durban Central to task for having allegedly omitted certain figures, but the hon. member for Durban Central was very specific when he quoted the figures from an official publication, the annual report of the Department of Education, on page 37. He quoted the figures in English and I am going to do so again—

[Interjection.] That is 72 000 altogether, in round figures. Here is the annual report of the Department of Education for 1948, and there it states that the number of fulltime students enrolled at the time was 17 500, and the number of part-time students, if you want to include them in the calculation, was 2 440, in other words the number of students is now three times greater. Thus, the argument of the hon. member for Durban Central stands. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Algoa must not become too hasty now. I am coming to him.

I found the motion introduced by the hon. member for Algoa very interesting. I shall in the course of my speech come to quite a number of the points he made, and to which I should like to reply. But why I do in fact find the motion introduced by the hon. member very interesting is because it comes from that side of the House, because he speaks here with approval of the concepts of “academic freedom” and the “autonomy of the universities”. These are concepts one would expect the Government, judging from its previous actions, to reject with contempt. [Interjections.] I shall tell the hon. member for Koedoespoort what academic freedom is and what it seeks to achieve. I do not think there is any complete and final definition of this concept, as there is also no definition for many aspects of the humanities. The hon. member for Algoa correctly remarked in his speech that there has never been a precise definition. But academic freedom is not separate freedom; it is not a special, distinctive, sui generis freedom, but is part of the normal freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

But it is not absolute freedom.

No, no freedom is absolute. Absolute freedom is licence. But where we differ with hon. members on that side is where the line should be drawn between the legitimate sphere in which the State may exercise control and the legitimate sphere in which the individual may follow his own dictates. Nor do I want to attempt to give a definition of any kind, but I do want to indicate what any person would normally, from the nature of the case, understand the term academic freedom to mean. To mean anything, it must certainly be the freedom to examine without restrictions all sources relating to any subject or subject category, to analyse all ideas, to communicate freely on the academic level with other students and to state fearlessly and openly any conclusions arrived at as a result of this study.

I find no fault with that.

I am pleased the hon. member agrees with that. I hope that he will also agree with what I have to say now. Only from diversification and candid discussion and examination and fearless conclusion can the truth be distilled and crystallised in an ever purer from, and that is after all the true goal of academic freedom.

Yes, if it comes as a result of bona fide research, and not just any kind of nonsense.

We are now talking about bona fide students and bona fide universities doing serious research work. I am not talking about anything else. [Interjection.] Now the hon. member wants to praise the Government for what it has done in conserving this great freedom, this important liberty. To tell the truth he asks the Government to carry on in the same way it has been doing. Now, what has the Government done in the past for which we should praise it in respect of academic freedom? For what can we possibly praise the Government? I have examined the record of the Government in this regard and I must say it is an extremely pitiful one. Should we now praise the Government and the hon. members opposite for a censorship which makes very serious works of a high standard, and source works inaccessible to students so that they cannot be studied at all; should we praise the Government which bars academic communication, one of the elements which the hon. member agreed on, by means of closed universities, and makes it impossible in some cases because a student cannot attend the university at which he wants to study? [Interjections.] The hon. member agreed with me a moment ago, but now he is arguing with me. The matter in regard to which we were in agreement is one of the elementary elements of academic freedom, but I say it was banned by this Government, and now he does not agree with me any more. [Interjections.] This is becoming more and more interesting. In actual fact they have restricted freedom to such an extent that only a minimum amount of that freedom still exists today. I would almost say that in the mouth of this hon. member academic freedom is libellous. I have just said that free inquiry and study forms an absolute part of academic freedom. But now I ask hon. members, how must fine art be studied and promoted with censorship so strict that South Africa is almost culturally isolated?

Naked women.

Is that all you can think of?

Yes, all the hon. member can think of is naked women. I want to ask the hon. member whether that is the only thing this Censorship Board has ever banned, only naked women? The other day the Johannesburg Film Club had to abolish a film award for the best film of the year, because the best films do not reach this country any more, but this is after all part of the study of fine arts and the influence of Western culture. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what we get on the silver screen in South Africa today is precisely the same as what we get from this Government, “Carry on Fooling”, “Doctor in Distress”, “The Dirty Dozen”. There is one of these films we see over and over again and which I really want to recommend to the Government, and that is “Gone with the Wind”.

†In fact, Mr. Speaker, I want to go so far as to say that this Government has in fact inhibited academic study in South Africa. I shall take one small field—I am sure that hon. member will agree with me— and that is the field of political science. That field of study has been strained to an immense extent.

Now he does not know what he is talking about. [Interjections.]

Some of the greatest political movements, the biggest political movements—let us put it that way —cannot be effectively studied in South Africa today because all the source books have been banned; in other words, no real effective knowledge can be gained in South Africa.

Now you are talking nonsense. [Interjections.]

It cannot be seriously studied in South Africa. Take, for instance, the study of Communism. It is absolutely essential that we must know what is going on …

There are many source books on that.

We must have a clear and intelligent idea of what it stands for, what has happened in that movement since its inception. [Interjections.] But what do we find? There are no source books, we cannot study the source books. Has that hon. member read Das Kapital? No, he has not. So therefore he can make no clear statement, on his own interpretation of that work, of what it means and what it stands for.

Have you read it?

No, I have not read it, because it is simply not available in South Africa.

How do you know what is in that book?

But I did not say what is in that book. The hon. member is talking such a lot of nonsense. I wish he would rather listen to some intelligence. [Interjections.] No, it is absolutely essential that real and honest study, even of subjects of which we disapprove, should be made. If we are engaged in a war, one of our greatest efforts will be to find out what the enemy is thinking, what they are doing. But in the cold war the Government bars us from knowing what the enemy is thinking and what the enemy is doing. I am not talking about propaganda pieces which are purely propaganda—I have nothing to do with that, but with honest studies …

And basic source books.

Yes, honest studies and basic source books must surely be available to every serious student.

We are not dealing with the Publications Board now.

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

I appreciate the hon. member’s search for knowledge, but unfortunately I do not have the time now.

This process is not helped along in the least if books such as the following are banned Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, and Against Revisionism by V. I. Lenin. These are source books. How must we know what went on in the minds of these people; how must we understand the problem if we cannot understand what has been written?

You can find those books anywhere. You are talking absolute nonsense.

How can we study the movement of Communism, of what has happened to Communism? [Interjections.] Here is a book on the amendment of the rules of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union.

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

No, I am not prepared to answer a question, Mr. Speaker.

†I have not read one of these books, yet they are source books; they are obviously source books and they should be available to the student. They are not propaganda works as such, although some of the propaganda can be used as study material. I refer to a book on Nazi propaganda by Goebbels.

What about Mein Kampf?

Yes, that is not banned; is that not interesting? Does the hon. member approve of Mein Kampf? Does the Government approve of Mein Kampf? Because apparently if they do not approve of a political philosophy, they ban the work and by implication those which are not banned, they must surely approve of. So apparently they approve of Mein Kampf. They also approve of Machiavelli’s Il Principe and others. By implication surely they must.

You are just being childish now.

Do not be so pompous!

It is not only books on Communism that are banned; all other sorts of political studies have also suffered. African Nationalism in the 20th Century is another book that has been banned. How can African Nationalism which is now, in terms of the policy of that side of this House …

Any student can obtain that book.

Why should such a book be banned?

Any student can obtain that book if he wants to read it.

You must go back to university and see what is happening there.

There is another one which I find absolutely fantastic—they banned the address by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah to the 15th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. How can the United Nations as a body be studied if some of the speeches are banned? [Interjections.] Surely this is quite ununderstandable; it is not possible to explain why such action has been taken. It has furthermore inhibited academic study in South Africa.

Go back to primary school!

In this regard it is very clear to me that the Government compares very unfavourably; there is absolutely nothing to congratulate them on or praise them for or in regard to which we can tell them to carry on as they have done in the past. What I find very interesting is that the hon. member knows these things as well as I, but the key to the hon. member’s thinking lies in the expression “positive interpretation”. He is hiding behind that one word “positive”. I want to recommend another book to him. What is a positive interpretation of academic freedom? As you know, Sir, Isaiah Berlin in his book Two Concepts of Liberty gave a very interesting explanation of the difference between the positive and the negative interpretation of liberty. I also want to go on a short excursion into the realms of philosophy, as the hon. member for Prinshof did yesterday afternoon, but I think I shall be able to do so with a little more authority than he was able to do. In the first instance there is the negative interpretation given by people like Locke, Mill and Smith …

Beethoven?

The hon. member hears music only in his head.

These men give the so-called negative interpretation of freedom, where freedom is defined as “freedom of”. The question in the minds of these people is: “Why should the citizen be prohibited from doing a certain thing?” The positive interpretation of freedom is given by men like Jean Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Oswald Spengler and others and forms the basis of the authoritarian system throughout the world. The positive interpretation of freedom …

And that is what it says here.

Yes, that is what is said here. The positive interpretation of freedom is freedom to do what the law states. Rousseau said that a person is free to do everything which is good, but he is not free to do what is bad. What is good, is determined by the will of the people. The will of the people finds expression in the law and that is why I am free only to act in accordance with the law; in other words he is free to do what the law says. That is the positive interpretation of freedom.

You are quite wrong.

That is why we find the ridiculous situation that if we had had communists here and we were to state that we believe in the freedom of the individual, they would all agree with us, because that is their interpretation of freedom as well. They have the same positive interpretation of freedom of that hon. member.

Come and put a stop to him, Uncle Bronkie. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member is quite capable of making his own speech.

The hon. member then referred to the autonomy of the universities. I think that this topic has been discussed quite adequately by the hon. members who spoke before me. But I think the Government gets much the worst of it there. We see the greatest antithesis to the autonomy of universities in the legislation dealing with the University of Fort Hare, and similar measure introduced by the Government. It is simply not autonomy of the universities in any sense of the word. That is why I reject this pretentious motion by the hon. member for Algoa completely, and I recommend to every hon. member that he examine his conscience and consequently support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg.

I listened with great interest to the discussion of the motion. I am grateful that we were able to discuss this matter today. Right at the outset, before I perhaps forget to do so, I should like to express my gratitude to all for their participation in the discussion. There was, particularly during the speeches made by the last two speakers on the Opposition side, more of an attempt to derive amusement from certain matters than to make a positive contribution to this debate, but I do not want to allow myself to be led astray by that.

I want to return to certain matters to which the hon. member for Durban Central referred and with which his young colleague from Florida tried to help him without really succeeding, i.e. that juggling with figures, amounts of money and enrolments. I do not blame the hon. member for Florida for apparently not knowing that the State pays grants and subsidies in respect of non-residential universities as well. He does not know that, but we shall just have to forgive him.

But I did not discuss that.

Yes, he did most certainly discuss it. He tried to help his friend by correcting his statements. What he said, is precisely what I now want to deal with in my comments.

The State pays subsidies in respect of non-residential universities as well. If one therefore omits the enrolment at non-residential universities, one also omits a large portion of the State subsidy. That is the actual point I want to make, but I do not know whether the hon. member will quite understand it.

The hon. member also discussed the inaccessibility of books for study purposes, books which have been banned by the Publications Board. But surely the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. If he had taken the trouble to find out—I do not know how often he visits a library; perhaps he does not know what the inside of a library looks like—he would have known that if a book is required for study purposes, that book, even if it is not freely available to the general public, is in fact available for study purposes. I do not want to waste my time with matters of this kind.

I want to say right at the outset of my speech that I have very great sympathy with the youth of today, and more specifically the youth of South Africa. It is a fact that our young people have to learn to find their feet and to make a place for themselves in society under difficult circumstances. I have great admiration for the vast majority of our young people, because the circumstances in which we are living are not easy for them. As I go about and see the many things the young people in this country are achieving, the responsibility they carry and the responsibility with which they complete most of these tasks entrusted to them, I have admiration for the vast majority of our young people in this country. I want to say that I have confidence in them. I am not concerned about the future when I see what the tendencies, the trends among the vast majority of our young people today are, and the sense of responsibility they display.

So the Minister does not agree with the hon. member for Algoa.

I am still coming to that. The hon. member is too hasty. After having said all this, I want to add that we would be making a great mistake if we closed our eyes to the small minority which is doing much and great harm in our society of young people, not only at universities, but in more general circles as well.

In the House of Assembly as well.

We see this in the House of Assembly as well. [Laughter.] It is a characteristic of young people that they have a dream in their hearts, and I am glad about that. That is as it should be. It would be a tragic day for us if our young people no longer had a dream in their hearts, if they no longer thought that they could improve society, that they could solve the problems of the day in a different and better way than their elders are able to do. I have said that I understand all this, and welcome it. Everyone, every young person, in the same way as every adult, has the right to criticize whatever he likes and feels compelled to criticize. He also has the right to protest. When the hon. member for Wynberg states that it is the aim of this Government to guide all our young people into thinking like the National Party I say it is undoubtedly an unworthy statement for the hon. member to make. The great aim of all educationists is in fact to get our people to think, to try to make them independent, to get them to do some real studying.

What did Connie Mulder say?

I am talking about what I say now, and I say that this is the standpoint of this Government. I will not allow myself to be led astray by what my colleagues said, according to the interjections the hon. member makes. The aims of the educationists in this country is to stimulate people to think for themselves, and it does not worry me that our young people, even our schoolchildren, are thinking for themselves and voicing criticism.

They also have the right to protest, for— let us be very certain about this—that is what our future depends on. Out of the loyal opposition of today comes the leaders of tomorrow, and we must make no mistake about that. Whether we like some of them or not, is not relevant at the moment, but we must take this important fact into account.

But now I want to say that today all students, with a few exceptions, are entitled to vote. It is their right and privilege, as citizens of the Republic of South Africa, to cast their votes, and they can hold political meetings. They all fall within an electoral division, and they may criticize the Government as vehemently as they wish. That is their privilege in a democracy, the value of which we all appreciate in this country. But the students already find themselves in a very privileged position. Hon. members must at least know that it costs the taxpayer approximately R1 000 per annum to keep one student at university, apart from what his parents still have to spend on him. If the students in their privileged position, then think that by virtue of the fact that they are students they can lay claim to a different kind of right and privilege than that of all the other young people outside the universities, they are entertaining a false premise.

The hon. member for Wynberg, who attacked my colleague from Algoa here on what he said, had a great deal to say about the contents of his motion. But I am still waiting to hear her say something which would strengthen that silent majority as well, to hear her say something against this small minority engaged in demolition work on the order and discipline on the campus and also in a broader context. Let us mention examples. We heard about the difficulties at the University of Rhodes last year. There was a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of a Judge. We know how the students reacted to that, that they assailed the Judge in his office and status, and that they rejected those findings. I am still waiting for a member on the opposite side to express his dissatisfaction at what happened there and to say that the students who acted thus, acted in error and that the majority of the students at that university should learn a lesson from the conduct of this small minority of inciters who behaved themselves in that disgraceful way. I am still waiting for someone on the Opposition side to say that the rector and the council of that university took the right action, and to say something which would strengthen their hand against this evil which we will have to oppose if we want to build up a healthy public opinion in this country. The hon. member for Wynberg returned from a visit to America a while back. She complained about the reception accorded her at certain of the universities there. She complained about the behaviour and the conduct of certain of the students, and stated that not all the students were involved and that it was not a formal resolution of the students to act thus. However, these elements in the student communities took action against her. She said at the time: “Their behaviour is a form of intellectual prostitution.” That is what the hon. member said, according to newspaper reports, and I accept that it is correct.

I said the faculty members’ failure to control the situation was a form of intellectual prostitution.

The hon. member says that she condemns the faculty members’ failure to control this situation. However, when my hon. friend, the member for Algoa, said that the universities should exercise control over their students, the hon. member said that it was a blot on the name of our rectors and university councils, and she then introduced her own motion. I am going to take this even further. I want to suggest that the hon. member and other hon. members on that side go and speak to our rectors. Seven of our rectors were overseas a short while back and were in general contact with university people abroad. Ask them what they experienced. In certain cases it was precisely the same experience the hon. member for Wynberg had had in America. But does one hear anyone on that side of the House saying: “Look, we must put an end to this kind of behaviour?”

Leave it to the universities.

I want to read something to the hon. member. She says we should leave it to the universities, and that is also the standpoint of this side of the House, i.e. that the universities should set their own house in order. That is why I gave that reply I gave at party congresses. They were replies for which the hon. member had appreciation. The difference between my side of the House and her side of the House is that this side of the House is prepared to come out in favour of the conservative element at all our South African universities. We are prepared to say to those rectors, councillors, students and parents of those students that we support them in their point of view. We do not tell them that they should simply carry on regardless and that we are in the meantime adopting a standpoint against a small minority. With reference to the hon. member’s remark, I want to quote to her the words of Mr. Roger Freeman, a special adviser to President Nixon. As the hon. member will concede, he is a very emminent person. In a lecture he gave in 1970, he referred to this very matter, i.e. that a small nucleus of students at certain universities were undermining authority and discipline and gaining influence in all the bodies of the universities, and that as a result of that influence one subsequently found all those disturbances on the campuses. He said—

I have not quoted this paragraph in order to lay any blame on any university rector or any council here in South Africa. I am quoting this with reference to what the hon. member for Wynberg said, and I want to emphasize that if we are in earnest about ensuring that a healthy spirit prevails at our universities it is time we spoke with one accord on these matters and strenghtened the hands of those rectors and of those university councils, as well as that of the parents of those children, who want to adopt a conservative attitude towards these subversive elements one finds at universities. I hope the hon. member will support me in this.

In the few minutes remaining to me, I should like to come to the motion. I think, and with this I want to conclude, that particulars which we can mention in regard to amounts of money, student numbers, relationships, are such that the whole of South Africa ought to be grateful for what we are doing for university training. I do not want to say any more about this. We can argue about the matter; apparently the hon. member did not concede this, and that is why she moved that the motion be deleted. I want to add that in my opinion the amount which any Government spends on education and on the universities is never adequate. There is never an end to the difficulties. With the explosion of knowledge and the renascence which has taken place one can give as much money as one likes, and it will never be adequate. However, I want to say with gratitude that education, and more specifically university education, is accorded top priority by the Government. When the Budget is submitted to hon. members this year, they will see that what I have now said is the truth. Education enjoys top priority and this Government will continue to maintain that priority and even try to raise that priority if it is in any way possible to do so.

We also discussed autonomy and academic freedom. It was said that no one has ever found a water-tight definition for it. We heard that said in this House as well. However, I want to say that I am able, after having listened to this debate and having taken note of who the people outside the Chamber are who write and talk a great deal about these two concepts, to say that the whole complaint of the United Party, i.e. that the academic freedom in South Africa and the autonomy of universities is being encroached upon, hinges on one thing only. In their definition of autonomy and academic freedom the opposition to separate universities plays a decisive role. The hon. member is shaking her head.

I thought you were intelligent.

Oh man, talk about something else, a topic you know something about. The hon. member for Wynberg herself referred to the 1959 legislation when separate universities were established. Each one of the other speakers on that side of the House also referred to that. But of course not one of them called it by its name. The peg on which they hang their criticism is that academic freedom and the autonomy of a university means that a student should have the right to choose the university which he wishes to attend. But what they mean by that, is that Coloured and Indian and Bantu students should be able to choose to attend the universities of the Whites. That is what it is all about. [Interjections.] It is no use hon. members opposite differing with me on this matter. If we take into account what the taxpayer makes available for universities, then I say that he has every right to be concerned. Hon. members took note of the fact that at four of the five National Party congresses this matter was included in the agenda. The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to that. I can show hon. members letters not only from Afrikaans-speaking parents, but also from English-speaking parents in which great concern is expressed at the spirit which is prevailing among certain elements at certain universities. Now I want to say that that same spirit which we are concerned about and that same demand for control has not only arisen here in South Africa where, in the opinion of hon. members on the opposite side, autonomy of the universities does not exist and where academic freedom is being violated, but also at universities where, in their view, it does in fact exist. Where will one find universities in regard to which, in the opinion of those hon. members, this applies more than the American universities for example? What did President Nixon say on 19th March, 1969? In his Message on Higher Education he said:

Even in a rich country like America an account must be given of what is being spent on the universities. I want to tell hon. members that we have every reason to be concerned. We read the other day a statement by a Cape Town university professor pointing out that 40 per cent of our first-year students fail. I said a moment ago that it costs the taxpayer almost R1 000 to keep one student at university for a year. Do you not think the taxpayer has every right to be concerned, and that my friend the hon. member for Algoa was quite justified in introducing this motion and requesting the Government to keep a weather eye open on what is happening there?

I have now stated the Government’s standpoint. The Government’s standpoint is that the universities are to keep their own house in order.

All right; fine.

The hon. member endorses that, but we go further; we try to do everything in our power to strengthen conservative elements at the university and to encourage those people. That hon. members on the opposite side do not do.

Oh, come off it.

They are always protecting the smaller group which causes all this trouble.

Oh, no!

That is the truth. Through such actions from the hon. members on the Opposition side they strengthen the influence and the power of that little group at our universities, an influence which all of us should eradicate root and branch.

That is not fair.

The hon. member says that is not fair. I tell the hon. member that I am fully entitled to draw that conclusion for, as I have said, I am still waiting for any responsible United Party member to say that the action taken by Rhodes University was correct.

What did the hon. member for Albany say?

The hon. member has a lot to say now.

The hon. member for Albany.

The hon. member for Durban Central can tell me what he did when Prof. Stock made those statements quoted by the hon. member for Wynberg? Did he not keep quiet and listen to the students who tried to run Prof. Stock down and say that they had been unfortunate in having such a rector there, that he did not belong there and that he was not the kind of man they wanted, a man who respects the standpoint of the Government in respect of academic freedom?

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