Yesterday evening, when I said here that the average butcher handled six sheep and three-quarters of a carcase of beef, the hon. member for Colesberg told me that it could not be and that I knew it was not true. Thereupon I told the hon. member for Colesberg that I would produce the proof to him today. Now I want to refer him to the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing of June 1970, the latest report, and I want to refer to page 50. There they give the numbers of animals slaughtered. In the controlled areas 6 244 000 sheep were slaughtered and in the uncontrolled areas 2 518 841. This gives a total of 8 762 973 sheep slaughtered. The number of cattle slaughtered was 1 480 305. If you turn to page 54 of the report you will see that there were 2 931 butchers in the controlled areas 2 518 841. This gives a total of uncontrolled areas. To make it easy for the hon. member for Colesberg, if you divide the 8,7 million sheep slaughtered by the 5 922 butchers, you find that each slaughtered 1 479 sheep a year, and if you divide that by 12, you find that 123 were slaughtered each month, and if you divide that by 4, you find that 30 were slaughtered each week, and if you divide that by 5, you get 6 a day.

Clever, are you not?

If you make the same little calculation in regard to cattle you arrive at approximately one a day. Sir, I am not going to ask the hon. member for Colesberg to apologize. He was so astounded at these figures that he could not believe them, but now that he knows them, I want to ask him whether he is going to do something about this Minister of Agriculture, who has ruined the consumer and the farmer. What is he going to do about it? Because I know how near to his heart the farming community was in the days before he lost his feeling for them.

Sir, I was pointing out last night what had led to devaluation, that we find ourselves with a deficit of R1 350 million on the balance of payments, an inflation rate of 6,9 per cent and a growth rate of less than 4 per cent. I mentioned the reason. It is an obsession with that side of the House to slow down the economy of South Africa. This is supposed to be the only way in which they can combat inflation. They define inflation as a situation where there is too much money for too few goods. But, after all, if there is too much money for too few goods, there are two ways open to you.

You can increase the goods by encouraging the farmer, the producer, the industrialist to produce more. Then there will be more goods on the market and they will become cheaper, and this is the policy of the United Party. It is as simple as that. But the National Party says that if there is too much money for too few goods you must withdraw the money from the people. But then you lower the standard of living of the population and you impoverish the population and then, of course, you also lower the growth rate. In this way the people of South Africa have been bled to death by the hon. the Minister of Finance over the past seven years; because what methods has he applied to combat inflation? In the first place he has reduced bank credit. But if you reduce bank credit you inhibit the industrialists and the farmers, for they cannot produce because they cannot obtain the capital to produce. And you have an increase in population, and you are producing a relatively smaller amount of goods, and if there are fewer goods on the market they become more expensive, not cheaper. This is what has happened. And you slow down your growth rate, and that is why it is as low as it is. Now, after seven years, the hon. the Minister of Finance is also discovering this, for the first time. Now he has at least discovered that there are unsatisfactory aspects in having a ceiling on bank credit. But how the industrialists and the farmers of South Africa have had to suffer in the past five years!

A second step which the hon. the Minister then took was to increase taxation. How can you combat inflation by increasing taxation? Taxation is the largest single factor in any person’s cost of living. If you increase taxation, surely you are raising the cost of living; you are not lowering it, and you are inhibiting expansion because you are depriving the industrialist and the farmer of the incentive to produce more, and that is why our growth rate has dropped to its present level. And then the hon. the Minister came forward with the third point and he increased interest rates.

Fine.

The hon. member says “Fine”. Is it fine to increase interest rates, to ruin the farming community? That hon. Minister has increased interest rates. If you increase the interest rates, surely you are once again inhibiting production, because why should a man invest and expand if he gets these high interest rates without doing anything? And how can you lower the cost of living when every farmer has a mortgage bond on his farm and every house owner has a mortgage bond on his house? By increasing the interest rates, surely you are hitting him below the belt. Then you are increasing the cost of living; you are not lowering it. How can you lower the cost of living by enriching the rich man, the man who gets that high interest rate, and by impoverishing the poor man who has to pay it?

Sir, this is how the people of South Africa have had to suffer. But have they really combated inflation? The rate of inflation was 2 per cent from 1960 to 1964. From 1964 to 1969 it was 3,6 per cent and last year it rose to 4,3 per cent, and now it is as high as 6,9 per cent. But still not satisfied, obsessed with this idea of withdrawing money and impoverishing the people, what did he do on 18th June, 1969? He said that if we wanted to intensify the fight against inflation we had to drain the money out of South Africa, and he encouraged the investors to send their money overseas. The money must leave the country. Instead of using the money for our infrastructure, for increased growth, he wanted to get rid of the country’s money, and in the meantime, just in passing, he ruined the share market as well. [Laughter.]

Yes, they may laugh—to them it is a big joke—but I want to say that the man who saved in this country is ruined. When, do you think, will those people ever get that money back? But the hon. members on the other side laugh. It is as the hon. the Minister said at the time. What did he say? He said: “What does it matter, because the people who have lost their money are the typists and the clerks.” They had no business to invest in the industries of the country. The typist and the clerks had no business to do so? This is the feeling the hon. the Minister has for the man in the street. No, the typist and the clerk do not have the right to invest; this is reserved for the 400 people who became millionaires overnight. [Interjections.] But then, in August, he reintroduced exchange control. Now if he was right in June, could he have been right in August? [Interjections.]

Order!

To summarize the whole attitude of the hon. the Minister I want to quote from a speech he made in the Senate on 15th June, 1967—

In other words, he made it his object to smother the economy to death. [Interjections.] And he has succeeded remarkably well, because what entrepreneur will invest when he can get 11 per cent or 12 per cent on his capital without doing anything? But has he combated inflation? The rate of inflation is higher than ever before in the history of South Africa. What he has done is to ruin the farming community of South Africa. The farmers now owe R1 340 million, R400 million more than in 1969. Mr. Van Wyk, the chairman of the National Woolgrowers’ Association, says that the farmers are paying out more money in interest than they are making.

They hate the farmers!

The railwayman cannot live; already there are demands for higher wages. Last year we had a deficit of R788 million on the balance of payments and this has now increased to R1 350 million. Last year our growth rate was 5,3 per cent, and this after we had had an average growth rate of 7 per cent during the sixties. At the moment the growth rate is under 4 per cent. Our imports have increased by 28 per cent, but our exports have dropped by 5 per cent. We have nothing to export! [Interjections.] We have no manufactured goods to export. [Interjections.]

Order!

And what does our infrastructure look like? If we could export those raw materials of which we have large quantities, we could earn R870 million from iron ore and chrome alone, but where is the infrastructure? The General Manager of the Railways says—

Why are you not laughing now?

Last year it was impossibile to obtain any steel in this country. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh, but Escom is building a power line across my farm, but because they cannot get steel the work on that line has been at a standstill for three months now. You cannot get bricks for building a house. Young people cannot get houses. But the hon. the Minister of Community Development says: No, but people’s houses are too luxurious; they must live in R6 000 houses. He, however, can spend R16 800 in public money on making his luxurious house still more luxurious. [Interjections.] Those hon. members may laugh, but what does the Johannesburg Sakekamer say?

We do not want to laugh, but you compel us to laugh.

What did it say last year (translation)—

Even the slavish National Party newspapers, their greatest supporters, could not bear it any longer. Their patriotism had to come out. Rapport said on 14th March (translation)—

Then it went on to say—

Then Die Burger said (translation)—

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I have only one minute left; I am very sorry, but I cannot. What is the attitude of that side? What did we have to hear last year? We had to hear: “Rather a poor but a White country.” But does the hon. the Minister not realize that if we want to keep a White country we must make South Africa economically strong? Then the hon. member for Sunnyside asked the other day: Whose standard of living do you want to raise? Now I want to ask him: Is he satisfied with the standard of living of the pensioner or of the farmer in South Africa? Is he satisfied with the standard of living of the railwaymen, 12 000 of whom earned less than R100 a month before this last increase?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Order!

I am sorry; I cannot reply to a question; my time has expired.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member said in his wild fantasizing that the hon. the Minister had smothered the economy to death. I think the hon. member has talked it to death. If ever you want to know of a man who has talked it to death in this House in the shortest possible time, he is that man; he has talked it stone-dead. I do not know where he stands either. Last year he told us his father had taught him to lay down his Afrikanerhood.

Nationhood.

Even better! — To lay down his Afrikaner nationhood. His father taught him that he should ask the English to lay down their nationhood. As far as I know, the Afrikaners have not decided as yet to lay down their nationhood, nor have the English. Where does he stand now? Where is the hon. member floating about now? He tried to speak about growth, but he is a real bush economist. I want to say without any further ado what I have to say to the hon. member. Yesterday afternoon he devoted only a few minutes to a few butcheries and then proceeded to deal with the economy. He elaborated on growth. I listened with an open mind to the hon. member and I want to say in all honesty that he did not have the foggiest idea of what he was talking about. I want to teach him a few lessons. The policy makers do not look at the real growth achievement, because a growth achievement has no influence on the gross domestic product. This is an economic law and an economic truth.

Now there we have a bush economist.

The growth achievement has to be measured in terms of the growth potential. Hon. members opposite do not realize this. One cannot speak of a direct growth achievement and then proceed to measure the gross domestic product in terms of that direct growth achievement. This is the mistake which hon. members opposite make, inter alia, the hon. member for Parktown, whose financial thinking I respect very much. My proof that they make this mistake is to be found in the fact that they link their growth rate cry directly to capital and labour. Surely capital and labour are production factors which determine the future growth potential. The growth achievement of the Republic of South Africa can be measured only in terms of its growth potential. The growth potential of any country is not a factor in respect of which one can speculate wildly. It is a process which is subject to many factors. Specifically in South Africa it is subject to certain definite socio-political factors, a framework within which the growth rate has to be determined. The policy maker may not allow himself to be misled by wild cries of greater growth and of “Bring in the labour”. He has to be guided by the socio-political framework in which he moulds his policy. This is the principal mistake hon. members opposite make. That hon. member does not have any notion of what I am speaking about now. From this fact, from the vital difference between us and hon. members on the opposite side of this House, one cannot get away. Theirs is a capital mentality. They suffer pre-eminently from a capital mentality. I have never, in all the years from way back, seen a Party and an Opposition so possessed by a mentality centralized on an idea of capital as that party is. As yet it has not built any principles into its whole vision of the economy. If one listens closely, one discovers that everything they say here is instinctive. It is not the result of a policy based on principles. It is simply rough and ready and speculative, to say the very best one can of it. I want to reply to that by mentioning two examples to hon. members on the opposite side. These two examples I take from the most recent history. From 1959 to 1963 we had a period of slow growth. From 1964 to 1968 we had a period of what may be called rapid economic growth. What happened in those two periods? Let us compare the period of slow growth to the period of rapid growth. In the period of slow growth from 1959 to 1963, consumption expenditure of the people as a whole, including Government expenditure, came to an amount of R2 000 million. As against that consumption expenditure increased to R4 400 million in the period from 1964 to 1968, the period of rapid growth. What was the result of that? In the period of slow growth we had nearly R800 million left for the redemption of foreign debts, whereas, in the period of rapid growth from 1964 to 1968, with increased consumption expenditure, we did not have one cent left for the redemption of foreign debts. What was the result? The result was that we became more and more dependent on foreign capital. It is not a blessing to any economy to lean chiefly on the inflow of foreign capital. This is what those hon. members fail to see, because capital, from whichever quarter it may come and whatever its corrupting or economic influence may be, has no meaning for them. To them there is no sense in capital movement. They attach no value to capital; to them it is solely a profit factor. The profit motive is the only light in which they see capital. I repeat: Rather give me the slow, controlled and managed growth period, such as that of 1959 to 1963, when we could save something from the net surplus for redeeming our foreign debts and for making us less dependent on foreign capital, than the period of rapid growth such as that we had in 1964 to 1968. I would much rather walk into a bank manager’s office to ask him for money without my hat in my hand than with my hat in my hand. But hon. members opposite want us to walk hat in hand for all time.

I want to mention a second fact in connection with these two growth periods. Hon. members opposite speak ceaselessly, constantly and ad nauseam of growth and want labour to be brought in. Growth requires capital. I want to ask them bluntly where all the capital is to come from to make South Africa grow as they suggest here? Last year, I think, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke here of a growth rate of 11 per cent.

Don’t exaggerate.

He did say that.

In the past decade we maintained a steady growth rate of approximately 5,5 per cent. This compares extremely favourably with standards abroad. We struggle to acquire capital. As yet I have not heard one of them say that we should have a limited growth achievement. It is a wild speculation about growth and the stronger their vision of capital growth, the stronger and the louder the cry: Bring growth and bring labour. From where? From the ranks of the Bantu! What kind of labour?—Unskilled! To train an unskilled labourer costs money.

Whose fault is it that they are unskilled?

I promise the hon. member that I shall come to that in a moment. As I have said, it costs money. If one wants to train a labourer, he has to be taken, as they want him to be taken, to a metropolitan area. They have never calculated the cost. It costs virtually R800 today to bring one man into a metropolitan area where he will share in the whole infrastructure. They do not realize this. These are not factors which they take into account when they speak of labour. They are guilty of wild speculation. I want to say, however much those hon. members may shout, that the economy of South Africa will continue to rest on the shoulders of the White man for years to come, because the labourers they want to bring in cannot be obtained at the moment within the ranks of the Bantu under our circumstances. This is the fact of the matter.

You do not want to train him.

The real shortage of manpower does not exist on the lower unskilled or semi-skilled levels, but on the higher technological levels. These people necessarily have to be drawn from the ranks of the Whites. The policymaker has to make sure of these facts, as the hon. the Minister of Finance does in fact do. He cannot allow himself to be led by wild speculations or by a mentality which does not fit into the socio-political framework of the country. He should allow himself to be led by a prospect, a long-term view, which must be projected on the growth potential of the country, and in his calculations he must include the amount of capital required to guide the growth potential of the country in such a way that a steady growth rate can be maintained. We have the best of evidence, i.e. that we have had a steady growth rate in South Africa over the past 20 years. The growth rate has not been subject to the fluctuations there were in the 1930’s and in the years preceding 1930. In consideration of the fact that our growth rate was a steady one and was based on a projection of our growth potential, there was the guarantee which proved to be a fact, i.e. that we could maintain this steady growth rate. The hon. member should kindly distinguish between the growth rate and the growth potential.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand here, I speak from a strong fortress, from a position of strength. This position of strength consists in the fact that I am surrounded here by a number of characters who, in total, constitute the character of the people. When I look at the number of characters sitting on the opposite side, I cannot picture to myself an organized, purposeful and single-minded people. From this position of strength I am able to speak on a high moral level and a high political and intellectual level. Into this side there is built, and here I find, the same characteristics which were to be found in the old Roman Empire in the days when it used to be strong.

Nero’s time?

Yes, in the days when the Roman Empire was strong. That hon. member does not know what I am speaking about. He does not have any idea. That was the time when each individual in the Roman Empire still clung to the stoic principles of austerity and chastity. When they used to speak of the fortress of the eagle. Those hon. members sit in the fortress of the vultures. I speak here from a position of strength because here sits a party that holds its head high in the midst of a world which demands that it must crawl and that it must bend to what they want to do. I speak here from a position of strength, because this party has always been true to its principles since the time of its founding. I should like to read to hon. members from the constitution of the National Party of the Transvaal of 1915. It is the principles, the constitution, the statute of the National Party. I just want to read a few things to the hon. members and they can test those things against the National Party of today. I quote (translation)—

The position from which I speak is a position of strength, and I am pleased that I am able to do so. I am also pleased because the trumpet against the dangers threatening our country, has been sounded from these ranks. The trumpet has been sounded. I want to read to hon. members from Ezekiel 33, from verse 1 to verse 6—

But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.

From this fortress from which I speak, the watchman, our Prime Minister, has repeatedly sounded the trumpet. It is an honour to me to speak from such a fortress, but they who should have heard the trumpet, have made a mockery of it. They twist his words, they make political capital from his words and, like the vulture with its bare neck and its small head, they peck deep into the carrion. To me it is a pleasure to speak from a fortress such as this.

Yesterday the hon. member for Houghton told me she had spent many pleasant hours, in fact, more pleasant hours, with Kaunda than with Cas Greyling. I want to refer the hon. member to the old German proverb which says rather with the wolf or wild boar in the forest than with a quarrelsome woman in one house. [Interjections.] I imagine to myself what pleasant feelings washed over her lithe body and her evil political spirit when she was in the company of Kaunda. I can well imagine this because she was satisfying her desire—her biggest political amorous desire—to see realized before her eyes “Black is beautiful”. Mr. Speaker, pleasant hours! If he is a “Black beauty”, then, upon my word, I am a “White beauty”! They say love is blind, Sir. I accept that, because I have experienced this, and everyone ought to experience it. [Interjections.]

May I ask a question?

Sir, when one is engaged in love, one does not reply to any questions. [Interjections.] They say love is blind, and I accept that, but it seems to me as though the admiration for “Black is beautiful” has yet another component, and that is that it enables one to endure the odours of death. Sir, I can well imagine with what admiration she sat there before Mr. Kaunda, the international political sob-singer, when his eyes were flooded by tears about the suppression of the poor Blacks in South Africa.

Your imagination is running away with you now.

My imagination is good, because you have been feeding it all these years, and I must admit, not in the field of love, but in the field of hard politics. What dreams did he not dream when he saw her, on her African safari, as an ally in the far southland? Perhaps he thought … I do not know whether this is so; she must say: Was he correct when he thought you might be a concealed member of one of the antiapartheid committees in London? Was he correct?

Now you are talking nonsense.

No, but you have been talking nonsense here all the time. A real political henchman of the Organization for African Unity—a greater propagandist they do not have, and over the years you have proved it here; a self-appointed guardian over Bantu interests, something you were not elected to do. I have been sitting with you in this House for 20 years, and when you first came here, you were still more good-looking than I. In the course of these 20 years, have you once addressed one single word of thanks to the Government for what it has been doing for the non-White?

Yes, occasionally I give a little bit of credit.

You have never done so.

Well, you were not here then.

And poor Mr. Oldfield next to her—I feel sorry for him. There are many people who would think he was her young son. Fine person that she is, how strongly would Kaunda and Nyerere not desire to be sitting next to her here? After all, he did say so, and judging from her conduct in this House she would not care two hoots if they were sitting next to her here, and I am saying this in all seriousness.

Have you finished with me? Can I go now?

We shall never be finished with you, but for the time being you may go.

Thank you. I …

In any event, I have never had the privilege of spending pleasant hours with you.

Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that I was speaking here from a fortress of strength. This fortress from which I speak is fertile soil from which a strong people may be born. This party of ours is not the only fertile soil in this country from which a great people is to be born. There is another factor in this country which can exercise much influence. I want to tell you today in all sincerity that we cannot build a great people just out of the party alone. We need the support of our Press. In saying this I do not want to reproach anyone. I do not want to offend anyone; I do not want to offend the Press, but I just want to say that our Press has a duty in this respect —a bounden duty. When readiness to serve stands in the sign of commercial gain, then it is the labour which, as the Preacher says, one will still come to hate. As the Roman used to be before the fall of the Roman Empire, when he leaned on and derived his strength from virtue, from moral austerity and moral integrity, and in that way offered himself, the individual, to his people and to the authorities, at that time the Roman Empire had strong foundations. But when they started an exchange transaction through which they allowed greed to take the place of austerity, when they started exchanging those characteristics, the typical stoic principles, at that time the Roman Empire started to collapse. They may laugh, but I know I am right. I know that the eternal values are the ones on which a people may become and remain strong. Sir, let us have no illusions; severe financial tests await the people in the future. No, it is nothing; it is all vanity, as the Preacher said; all is vanity if you take something as your due. Here the greatest test is awaiting the people, and it is the test which is related to and which will have to be supported by the people’s moral strength and its integrity. The test will be whether the people exchange those principles for commercial gain. This lust which is openly advertised in our Press is eating into our people. I speak on behalf of thousands when I say this. I am serious when I say I speak on behalf of thousands of my people. A resistance is building up in our people. They will take this up with the National Party in the future; I know they will come with requests in this regard to the National Party, because in the eyes of the people the National Party is the fortress of moral strength and of moral conviction. They will come to the party.

I ask the Press to adhere to those principles which are of value to a people and which make a people strong. I ask the Press this morning not to have commercial obligingness as their prime consideration, but to adhere, along with the National Party; to facts instead of speculation, to adhere to austerity instead of to the stimulation of lust, to adhere to what is of eternal value and cannot be scattered about like the wind.

Sir, I want to conclude by saying this: The eagle is a noble bird. Its body is covered by feathers. Its habitat is the high mountains. It soars in the blue sky. Throughout the ages it has been the symbol and the emblem of fighting forces and of countries. This is the fortress of the eagle. The neck of the vulture is bare, its head is small and its feet are long. It has no habitat; that, that side of this House, is the fortress of the vulture. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, early last year I received, from an anonymous source, Dr. J. P. A. Lochner’s analysis of the pilchard resources of South-West Africa, dated November, 1970. The findings were that the resources of South-West Africa were still collapsing, just as in the case of California and the West Coast, and that the pilchard catch of 1970 was once again within 1 per cent of the theoretical collapse curve which Dr. Lochner had forecast; thirdly, that it could be expected that in 1971 approximately 365 000 tons of pilchards would be caught off South-West Africa.

†In this report it is said that the critical catch for 1971 was 257 000 tons, and Dr. Lochner warned that it would be dangerous to exceed a tonnage of 200 000.

*Sir, this was in 1970. What was the pilchard quota allocated for 1971? It was 298 000 tons, 40 000 tons more than Dr. Lochner’s critical figure and 100 000 tons more than the recommended figure. What was the pilchard catch last year? It was 295 613 tons, according to the reply to Question No. 82 this year, 3 000 tons less than the quota, and the total catch of the Willem Barendsz was almost 90 000 tons. The above figures were given to me officially as a member of the House of Assembly. Sir, also anonymously, I recently received Dr. Lochner’s report of October, 1971 as well, and according to his report the 1971 pilchard catch was 311171 tons, as reported by the Division of Fisheries, and not 295 613 tons as given to me officially.

Disgraceful!

Then Dr. Lochner mentions in his report of last year the Willem Barendsz’s pilchard catch of 56 304 tons, according to figures given to him by the fishing industry in his capacity as a member of the Fish Commission, in other words, a total catch, according to his report, of 367 475 tons; i.e. within 1 per cent of his estimate of 365 000 tons. But according to paragraph 3 of Question No. 82 this year, I received the following reply: That Dr. Lochner’s prediction was 365 000 tons—that is correct—while the actual catch was 295 613 tons. In other words, the impression is deliberately created that Dr. Lochner made a tremendous mistake of almost 70 000 tons, and, by implication, that his theory is absolutely unreliable.

†Sir, I want to say that the Willem Barendsz figures were not given in the official answer to me. Very well, perhaps that was a mistake, but that would substantially have reduced the error in calculation alleged to have been made by Dr. Lochner. But worse still, and what is more important, the catch figures given to me were different from the catch figures given officially to Dr. Lochner. He claimed that they were given to him by the Director of Sea Fisheries. I could hardly believe. Sir, that a man of Dr. Lochner’s reputation would falsify figures in his report and use spurious figures, so I wrote to him and asked him what was the source of his official figures.

*Sir, I received this letter, dated 14th February, from Dr. Lochner. Dr. Lochner wrote (translation)—

†He then gives me a photostat letter, dated 19th October, from the Director of Sea Fisheries, Dr. De Jager, to Dr. Lochner, and there the total figure given for the pilchards catch in South-West Africa was 311 171 tons, but the official figure given to me in this House was 295 613 tons. He then annexes a further document, which contains the official factory ship figures given to the members of the Fish Commission, figures which show that the Willem Barendsz catch was 56 304 tons, as depicted in Dr. Lochner’s report of 1971. The two figures total 367 475 tons, not 295 613 tons.

*Sir, it is a very important thing I am saying here this morning, and I am saying it without fear of contradiction: The reply I received in this House as a Member of the House of Assembly, was deliberately given to me erroneously.

Disgraceful!

Order! Is the hon. member making an allegation against the hon. the Minister?

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

†Those figures omitted the factory ship figures, and I say that a deliberate attempt is being made by some person or persons in authority, either with or without ministerial knowledge, publicly to discredit Dr. Lochner’s theory and to throw doubt on the accuracy of his figures. And this, Sir, is a very serious charge indeed.

*What is going on? Here we have a well-known researcher who has developed a theory about the extent of marine resources, something of world importance, a systematic analysis according to which control can in fact be exercised over marine resources, a theory which has not yet been accepted or tested by the Government. Let us take a look at the history of this theory. It was first handed to Minister Haak early in 1969, but late in 1968 Dr. Lochner had given it to the Fish Commission, the one appointed by Minister Jan Haak. The terms of reference of the Fish Commission were, inter alia, to inquire into and report upon the extent of the living marine resources of South Africa and South-West Africa. This Fish Commission received Dr. Lochner’s theory more than three years ago. The Fish Commission appointed a subcommittee consisting of Prof. C. A. du Toit and Mr. R. Stander in order to evaluate the theory. The Minister himself told me last year that two professors at Stellenbosch had been appointed to evaluate the work on behalf of this subcommittee. As far as I know, no report has ever been made on their findings and the subcommittee concerned has not reported either. But in the meanwhile Dr. Lochner made predictions for 1969, 1970 and 1971 which were proved to be correct to within 1 per cent every year. Incidentally, together with the hon. members for Langlaagte and Vasco, Prof. C. A. du Toit has been a director of Suiderland since 1966 (with 2 000 shares). Who were the other directors of Suiderland when that company was established? Mr. P. G. S. Neethling, Mr. A. P. du Preez, Mr. Bailey Bekker, Mr. J. A. Delport of Port Elizabeth, Adv. D. P. de Villiers, Prof. C. A. du Toit, Mr. S. Frank, the then member for Omaruru, Mr. P. J. Malherbe of Windhoek, Mr. P. A. Meyer (the hon. member for Vasco), the late Mr. P. R. Rörich, and the hon. member for Langlaagte. Sir, I understand that Suiderland is a company which has a large investment in the fishing industry, including a direct and an indirect interest in Buitesee. I also understand that all the members of the board of directors in Suiderland received preference shares in Buitesee. Buitesee is the A. P. du Preez-Ovenstone factory ship company and in 1968 their factory ship, the Suiderkruis, together with the Willem Barendsz, took 640 000 tons of pilchards from the South-West African territorial waters and fishing zone, which is more than is available to the entire fishing industry at present. The Suiderkruis made a profit of millions of rands. In 1969, the following year, the Suiderkruis and the Willem Barendsz received a joint quota of half a million tons. In actual fact they caught 530 000 tons.

The other subcommittee member is Mr. R. Stander. He is a consulting engineer serving on the board of Fishcor and has various interests in the fishing industry. If this subcommittee had accepted Dr. Lochner’s theory and recommendations, the factory ships would have had to leave, which would have meant tremendous losses for the companies concerned. Could it therefore have been expected of Prof. C. A. du Toit to make such a recommendation? I now come to a pertinent question, Sir. I should like to ask whether the Chairman of the Fish Commission knew that Prof. C. A. du Toit had interests in the factory ships. When I asked the hon. the Minister last year why Dr. Lochner’s theory had not been tested, Minister Muller’s reply was that agreement could not be reached with Dr. Lochner on who should test his theory and the impression was created by the Minister that Dr. Lochner was refusing to have his theory tested. But is that true? According to an article in Die Burger of 4th November, last year, Dr. Lochner wrote that the impression which had been created in the House of Assembly was not correct and that he was quite prepared to submit his theory to persons, provided they could understand it and did not have a personal interest in the matter. Sir, I cannot believe that there are not such people in the Republic who can understand his theory and who do not have interests in the fishing industry either. On the opposite side, yes, but not outside! In reply to Question No. 85 this year, the Minister told me that he had recently appointed four persons to test Dr. Lochner’s theory. They are Dr. C. R. Jansen, Mr. S. du Plessis, Dr. H. J. Goldner and Dr. M. Milner.

†Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister a simple question. Is Dr. Lochner satisfied that these four people appointed to the subcommittee to test his theory are people falling in the category of not having an interest in the fishing industry and being able to understand his theory? I also want to ask this question: Is the person who, in an official reply, gave me different figures from the figures given to Dr. Lochner in an official letter, the same person responsible for assembling this subcommittee to test Dr. Lochner’s theory? I sincerely hope that this is not the case.

I want to move on briefly to the new quotas for 1972. The new S.W.A.—quotas of 338 000 tons are far in excess of those recommended by Dr. Lochner. In the 1971 report he says that he expects 225 000 tons of pilchards to be taken this year, but to exceed 150 000 tons is to cross what he calls the critical line. We have this situation, Sir, that the Government has given excessive quotas for each of the last three years in the face of warnings from Dr. Lochner, who has forecast the total collapse of the pilchard industry. He has also forecast the actual catch accurately for each of those three years. Can it still be assumed, Sir, that this prominent scientist is talking nonsense? The Government has not tested his theory. I do not think it need be tested any further because if it has proved itself right in practice for three years, there is no need to test it any further. Unless this Government can prove that Dr. Lochner has fabricated his theories and his calculations after the event, the Government must accept full responsibility for the entire pilchard industry collapse, if it takes place, because it will have taken place as the result of the granting of excessive quotas in spite of warnings from Dr. Lochner, and no one else besides the Government is to blame. This industry is worth R50 million per year to the inhabitants of South-West Africa. I want to ask: On what scientific basis have the 1972 quotas been issued? Who has made the final decision? Was it the majority report signatories to the Fish Commission’s interim report last year, Mr. C. G. du Plessis, Mr. M. C. Botma (the hon. member for Omaruru), Prof. C. A. du Toit and Mr. R. Stander? They were wrong in 1971. In the interim report at the end of 1970 they recommended a maximum annual catch of one million tons. What happened in 1971? There was a catch of over 295 000 tons, according to the figures given to me, over 363 000 tons of other shoalfish and over 89 000 tons from the Willem Barendsz, a total of 750 000 tons, in other words, 250 000 tons less than they recommended, and 125 000 tons less than the quotas that were granted.

You have got it all wrong.

I want to ask how these quotas were calculated. Were they based on the crash research programme last year? They cannot be because the crash research programme said that the pilchard industry was under severe threat. Were they based on the further crash research programme now taking place? They cannot be because what is now being researched has been researched for the last 25 years, and the strength of the marine resources still cannot be estimated with accuracy by existing methods except, it seems, by Dr. Lochner’s theory.

*Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the Division of Sea Fisheries has no methods of determining safe catches. Who in the Division of Sea Fisheries determined scientifically that the pilchard resources of South-West Africa have a carrying capacity of 1 million tons? The Deputy Minister, the Leader of the National Party in South-West Africa, was described in the Financial Mail in 1971 as being an “obsessive conservationist who is in complete agreement with what Dr. Lochner propounds”. Why, for safety’s sake, did he not adhere to Dr. Lochner’s figures? Sir, any baboon can recommend that more quotas be allocated. The art is to determine where the safe limits are. Sir, what would the public of South-West Africa say, what would his reaction be, if the sardine resources of South-West, their second most important source of income, were ruined? He, the Deputy Minister, has left his people in the lurch; he has not looked after their interests. And what would the inhabitants of Walvis Bay say if they knew that the decisive vote on the Fish Commission to expose the pilchard resources of South-West Africa to the danger of being destroyed, was that of their own representative, Mr. Botma?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Omaruru is the same hon. member who met Minister Jan Haak on 10th March, 1970, at a secret meeting held in Room No. H.410 in the Forum Building, and he requested the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry into the fishing industry of Walvis Bay because, according to him, there had been serious complaints of problems, corruption and bribery over many years.

Not without weight, eh?

But in this House, when I pleaded for a judicial commission, he remained completely silent. At that same meeting, you will remember, Sir, the hon. member for Omaruru said that the licences of the factory ships should be withdrawn and that land-based factories should receive them instead. He warned at the time that there would be reaction from South-West Africa; and it may be expected if it does happen. His own words were (translation)—

On 4th February this year, only a few days ago, the Deputy Minister withdrew their licences and granted each of the two factory ships, the Willem Barendsz and the Suiderkruis, a land-based quota of 55 000 tons per year just as the hon. member for Omaruru had proposed on the occasion of the secret meeting. However, there is one very big difference: he said at the time that the factory ships should erect their own factories if they received a land-based quota, because the erection of factories would yield additional income for South-West Africa as well as more employment opportunities and other local benefits for the inhabitants of Walvis Bay. What does he say this morning, while he knows that the two factory ships’ quota of 55 000 tons must be processed by the existing industry at Walvis Bay, in other words, without any financial benefit to his own constituents?

There are still many benefits.

What does the hon. member say about this second compromise which this Government has made with Aap du Preez?

†Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the hon. the Minister of Finance what he has to say about this “compromise”. After all, he was the one who flew to Windhoek in the first instance in 1966 to persuade the South-West African Executive Committee not to make a fuss about his granting of a factory-ship licence to the Willem Barendsz. After all, he was the one who thereafter granted two factory-ship licences to South Africans against the wishes of South-West Africa. Did he sit in the Cabinet and did he himself advocate this compromise that has now been reached or did he have the grace to recuse himself?

Let me conclude this very sad saga with an absolutely inevitable ending. Hon. members who have been listening to what I have had to say will not be in the slightest bit surprised when they hear me say that this compromise solution to the factoryship problem whereby the factory ships get quotas without having the capital expenses of erecting factories, was advocated by none other than Prof. C. A. du Toit, a director of Suiderland and a member of the Fish Commission, on page 8, paragraph 17, of the majority report on the pilchard resource, dated August, 1970. Where will all this end? The Government has granted licences and quotas to political pals and business buddies, as I have said before, and already they have had to subsidize the rock lobster industry in Port Nolloth. Now it has had to pay compensation for the withdrawal of the Willem Barendsz and the Suiderkruis licences, the compensation being in the form of land-based quotas. Next they will start, I forecast, with a boat withdrawal scheme that will cost the taxpayer millions. Patrolling, the carrying out of special crash research programmes, appointing special commissions, committees and subcommittees in South-West Africa and in the Republic have already cost hundreds of thousands of rands. The loss of income from the partial collapse of the South-West African and the West Coast fishing industries, resulting from greed and over-fishing, must run into countless millions. I have said before, I have said publicly, that the Government must subsidize a collapsing industry. I say this again today. Subsidize the industry if you must, but do not do so if your sole object is to permit continued over-exploitation and not to save the resource from extinction.

*Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude now. These marine resources belong to the nation and to posterity, not to the already too many people living on them. The resources which this Government has exposed to danger so recklessly and so carelessly, must be saved by the same Government.

I do not intend to follow up the hon. member for Simonstown’s fish stories, except to say that he demonstrated the United Party’s ability to occupy every available position at all times; and not only that, but also to carry out all kinds of manoeuvres. The hon. member who spoke before him quite strikingly referred to that party’s “vulture techniques”. And you know, Sir, that there have recently been good rains throughout the length and breadth of our country, and consequently there is no food for the vultures. That is why there is such scant discussion of agriculture in this debate. When the vulture cannot play its role, the Opposition has something else that can play the role, like the hon. member “who cries stinking fish”, as one says in the English language. The hon. member dragged into this debate the names of honest people, such as Prof. C A. du Toit of Stellenbosch, who is an academician of high standing. I wonder whether the hon. member took the trouble to confirm, with Prof. du Toit himself, the allegations he made here this morning about the professor. He chooses this place to attack a person who cannot defend himself. But I believe that on a later occasion the hon. the Deputy Minister or the Minister will deal with him.

I should like to come back to the hon. member for Yeoville, who yesterday alleged here that a National Party pamphlet distributed in Brakpan is “vile, sordid and mean beyond all description”.

Hear, hear!

Yes, that hon. member also has a good little role to play in that party, shouting “hear, hear!” to all that sort of thing. He will never get any further then that.

I had not seen that pamphlet before yesterday, but I got hold of it and read it attentively. I now want to challenge the hon. member for Yeoville to adduce any proof for this accusation of “vile, sordid and mean” that he made.

The pamphlet is the proof.

But I further want to challenge the hon. member to bring forward any proof in this House of an untruth in the statements being made in this pamphlet.

I proved one after the other.

The hon. member for Yeoville is a man who lives in a glass house and he must be very careful when he makes this kind of accusation about what is being done by others. Unfortunately I do not have it at my disposal today, but I should like to read it to the House on some occasion. I could perhaps have it here on Monday. I shall continue speaking on Monday. I have a recording of what the hon. member said at Upington during the last election, and hon. members would shudder to hear what the hon. member said there out of earshot of the Press. The hon. member is someone who lives in a glass house and he must not come along and make statements of this kind, of “vile, sordid and mean”. I want to challenge the hon. member to prove to me whether any of the statements made here is untrue.

The first statement that is made is that when the National Party came into power in 1948 the United Party had long since been ruling and had allowed the communists to play their role.

I read you the Commissioner of Police’s report.

While attending to the hon. member point for point, I also want to give him the immediate assurance. He does not have to walk round like that. I do not want to, and never will, make the allegation that hon. members on that side of the House are communists or communist sympathizers. I know them well enough and extend this compliment to them. They are not.

What does that pamphlet insinuate?

The pamphlet brings facts to the fore. The hon. member there in the comer may consult with the hon. member for Yeoville about whether these facts are correct or not. The American Congress appointed a committee which in 1947 made a list of the 500 most important communists in the world. Forty-nine of them were in South Africa. Not one of them was in gaol. At that time the Soviet Union had an embassy staff in South Africa bigger than that of any other country. As in other countries of the world, we also know what their role here was. Their role was not to carry out diplomatic work, because there was nothing for them to do. They came to do other work. I want to say again that in no way do I accuse hon. members opposite of being communist sympathizers. However, I want to reproach them for having been too spineless to take action against communism when action should have been taken. The hon. member also spoke of Sam Kahn. In 1950 the National Party introduced legislation to fight communism. At that time I did not suspect hon. members opposite of being communist fellow-travellers either. Their problem, however, is that they want to be everything to all people at all times. They were too afraid they would offend people whose votes they could perhaps obtain. We have not forgotten that the Communist Party mouthpiece, the Guardian, wrote at the time of the 1948 election ordering members of the Communist Party to vote for members of the United Party where they were not nominating a candidate themselves. I think that is something of the background to the matter.

Dr. Malan asked them to vote for you.

Oh no. I think that was part of what lay behind the United Party’s opposing vote when the Government passed legislation against communism in 1950. When legislation was introduced to unseat Mr. Sam Kahn, who sat here in the cross-benches, and Sam Kahn himself said before the commission of inquiry that he had in no way changed his views and had been and was a communist, the United Party said that he was not a communist and should remain here. These are the statements being made in this pamphlet, and now the hon. member for Yeoville says they are vile, sordid and mean.

I now come to Mr. Fred Cameson who was a member of the Provincial Council at the time. The United Party then played the same role, not because they were communist sympathizers, but because they were afraid of possibly losing the votes of people who did sympathize with them. They want to be everything to all people at all times. They played the same role when Mr. Solly Sacks was at issue. When the United Party was in power there was clear proof in their security documents that he was a communist. They say, however, that Solly Sacks was not a communist.

So could one run down the list of statements made in this pamphlet, statements the hon. member described in that language yesterday. I want to challenge the hon. member to prove an untruth in one of these statements or to prove what he said here yesterday, i.e. that the purport of this pamphlet is tantamount to the United Party supporting communism. The hon. member said this yesterday. However, in this pamphlet he will obtain no proof that the United Party is being reproached …

Is indifferent to communism.

No, the hon. member said that the pamphlet alleged that the United Party supported communism. The hon. member must remember that yesterday the hon. the Minister of Police said that he is very much like a buffoon. He and his party cause people to subsequently feel unhappy about his party’s actions. According to the Argus, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at a meeting on 3rd November “Mr. Vorster had misread the mood of the people of South Africa on the alleged suicide of Mr. Ahmed Timol” in his demand for a judicial enquiry. I want to state this morning that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the members of his party underestimated the mood of the South African population in respect of terrorism and communist activities. As a result they transgressed by statements that gave justification for a paphlet such as this. On 1st November at a meeting in Durban the hon. member for Port Natal made a statement which was reported as follows in the Star of 2nd November:

When action is taken in the interests of the security of South Africa, the hon member for Port Natal and his party help the Police in such a way by insinuating that action might be taken against hon. members of the Opposition. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, those words the hon. member addressed to me I shall cast back into his teeth by saying: “He was talking nonsense”. However, that is not the worst of it. Not only are suggestions sown amongst the population and the less educated nonwhite population of South Africa, to the effect that the motive of the Security Police is actually to counter free speech and exorcise opposition, but also to besmirch our country abroad. I now want to tell the hon. member for Port Natal, and the other hon. members who did the same things, that whether this was calculated to promote terrorism and communism or not, such action so perfectly fits the purpose of those seeking the subversion of South Africa’s freedom. Go and read the documents and instructions of Bram Fischer. It would then be seen that he told his people how they should infiltrate organizations, how they should influence public feeling.

After all, those are your tactics too.

What else was the hon. member for Port Natal really doing? I say again that it was perhaps not calculated, but in his undue haste to create feeling against this Government, he created a breeding ground, he cleared the field for those people seeking South Africa’s downfall.

But the hon. member for Port Natal is not alone. There are probably greater minds than the hon. member for Port Natal on that side of the House. The hon. member for Durban North regarded it as his calling and his task, when action had to be taken by the Security Police in the interests of South Africa’s security, to issue a statement which appeared in the Sunday Times of 31st October in which he stated:

Mr. Speaker, no normal thinking South African can accept something like this. But the hon. member for Durban North thought fit to plant this in the thoughts of people who are perhaps less informed, people who are perhaps less educated. What would the result of this be amongst the Bram Fischer followers who received orders to provoke such a stimulus in order to clear the road for them? Would Bram Fischer’s followers have lamented over the utterances of the hon. member for Port Natal and the hon. member for Durban North, or would they have laughed up their sleeves about it?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should like to move—

In looking at the map of the world, one will notice that the twentieth meridian, east of Greenwich, passes near Cape Agulhas. From that point it runs in a northerly direction to form the border between the Republic and South-West Africa. Further north it passes through Angola, past the Sudan, through Libya and from Benghazi across the Mediterranean Sea to the border between Greece and Albania. From that point it passes further north through Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Then it runs across the Baltic Sea and, passing through between Finland in the east and Sweden and Norway on the western side, it eventually links up the South Pole with the North Pole. That twentieth meridian is roughly the dividing line between the East and the West. It is roughtly the dividing line between two mighty ideologies opposing each other in the world. Geographically our location is amongst the most strategic ones; it is, to be specific, the southernmost point on that dividing line. In the course of history a great deal of blood has flowed on both sides of and backwards and forwards across this dividing line, and, if we follow the pattern of history, it seems as though in years to come much more blood will flow across that very same line. Because of our geographic location, our outspoken anticommunist attitude in South Africa and the level of development we have reached on the continent of Africa, South Africa is a much sought-after prize in the present world struggle. In looking at Africa to the north of us, we are immediately struck by the fact that more than half of the population of Africa is already under military régime. Incidentally, one wonders whether many of those people are not worse off than they were under the former colonial regimes.

Recently I conversed with a high-ranking person from an Oriental country. He told me something shocking about his own country. He said that there was one thing in his country to which he would never be able to become accustomed, namely the large lorries passing through the streets of his city early in the morning, before dawn, in order to pick up the corpses of people who had died in the streets that night. In the East, with its teaming millions, there are people who are born in the streets, who grow up in them, who grow old and eventually die without having had a roof over their heads for one single day. Those people—pre-eminently the Chinese, to mention them by name—look to South Africa and to Africa as an absolute paradise. To them we on the southern most point of Africa must seem like a crown jewel on display, which can be desired for occupation.

On this occasion I should like to analyse the development of Chinese communism in Africa, and draw certain conclusions. In looking at the pattern as it has developed up to the present, one sees that it follows painstakingly the directives of Mao Tsetung on revolutionary development. I do not have a red booklet with me now, and unfortunately I must in that respect accept the superior knowledge of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. There is a secret Chinese army document in which the position is summarized as follows—

In 1963 Chou En-lai, the Prime Minister of China, visited several countries in Africa accompanied by his bodyguard consisting of 60 people. He spoke with 10 heads of state and approximately 200 cabinet members. After his visit he gave the following verdict—

As far back as 1956 the Chinese established an embassy in Egypt. The development followed until, on 23rd April, 1964, Tanganyika and Zanzibar merged, with Nyerere as president and Karuma of Zanzibar as vice-president. Incidentally, it is interesting to note from photographs that in recent years President Nyerere has been wearing Chinese dress whenever he appears in public. A tremendous amount of Chinese aid has been flowing into Tanzania since this development. I shall mention a few examples of this aid. The following has been granted: a R32 million interest-free loan for a five-year plan; a R4 million interest-free loan and a donation of R2 million for projects envisaged by Peking; R10 million for developing the Ruvu Government farm; R7 million for a textile factory just outside Dar-es-Salaam; R2,8 million for a very powerful radio transmitter, and a R338 million interest-free loan for the construction of the Tanzam railway line. This aid amounts to more than all the other aid, taken together, that has been granted in Africa. This Tanzam railway line will be 1 770 km long when it extends from Dar-es-Salaam to Kapiri Mposhi in Zambia. Towards the end of last year 502 km, approximately one-third of it, had already been completed, and it is being envisaged that it will be completed in 1974, two years ahead of schedule. What is significant, is that this railway line is going to be 3′6″ wide, and that it will therefore have the same gauge as the railway lines of the South African Railways. Fifteen thousand Chinese are allegedly working on that railway line at the moment. Almost without exception each of them has received military training. According to Mrs. Pam Hansen, the lady chairman of the Portuguese Soldiers’ Amenities Fund of Durban, 20 000 women also entered this territory recently via Dar-es-Salaam.

Zambia has received aid in the same way. A sum of R12 million was given to them for the construction of three powerful radio transmitters for broadcasting communist propaganda. Russia is engaged in building a tarred road in Zambia from Lusaka through Livingstone to Mambowe between Kazungula and Katima Mulilo on the Zambesi. In looking at both this Tanzam railway line and the tarred road, one finds it striking that they have very little economic value, but very obvious military-strategic value. Military aid has not been lacking either. A large naval base has been built at Dar-es-Salaam by China, and up to the end of 1966 as much as 11 000 tons of arms had entered Tanzania through Dares-Salaam. Recently China made Tanzania a present of two squadrons of Mig-17 fighter aircraft, which, means that at the moment the Tanzanian Air Force has more striking power than has the Air Force of Rhodesia. Some of these Mig Jet aircraft have already been observed flying over Portuguese territory, and they are manned by Nigerian and Algerian pilots. They are being used in Guinea, and the PAIGC along with 600 Cubans are fighting the Portuguese. These people are using the 122 mm cannon given to Nigeria by Russia. They are firing across the Portuguese border, and when the Portuguese fire back, they lay charges against the Portuguese at UNO, saying that they are committing acts of aggression.

That is the pattern which is developing there. Gen. Gowon is saddled with an unstable army of 250 000 people in Nigeria, and he dare not discharge them from the army since they will cause chaos in his country. On the occasion of the OAU meeting in June, 1970, he proposed the raising of an African Army, to which he would make a considerable contribution, to be used further south. I want to read to hon. members a quotation taken from a source entitled the Intelligence Digest, which was published in December, 1971—

Russian ships are regularly circling the Cape coast. In their reconnaissance flights the maritime squadrons of the South African Air Force have already observed that those ships are heavily laden with equipment on their decks, which are covered with tarpaulins. Those ships eventually discharge their cargoes at either Mtwara on the Tanzanian coast or at Dar-es-Salaam, and when they leave those harbours, they lie high in the water, obviously empty. One does not need great powers of deduction to guess what can be secret enough to be covered by tarpaulins on a ship’s deck, and what is too big to be housed in a ship’s hold. Large quantities of arms entering Africa in that manner, have already changed owners. We have seen several examples of them. I could mention to you, Sir, a whole series of armaments which have already come into the possession of South Africa, and for which proof exists. The pattern unfolds itself gradually, in accordance with the communist precept. I want to read out a few quotations in order to illustrate Russian thinking in this regard. I shall quote from another publication, the Intelligence Digest of January, 1971—

Then they mention one of them, Prof. Ulianovski, who studied with Brezhnev. They go on to say that he lays down the policy for the Communist Party and for Russia in Africa. Here he gives a decision to the effect that one of the most important programmes which they are going to undertake, is the penetration into Africa and the military development which has to take place in Africa now. In order to state the position more clearly, I want to read out another quotation. It deals with the mobilization of the Tanzanian army, which is now being developed on the basis of a people’s militia, according to the communist pattern. The entire nation of Tanzania must, according to Nyerere, be absorbed into a liberation army which may be used both internally and abroad, and which must, in addition, play a role in wiping out the “enemies and traitors of Tanzania”, as they are called. The quotation reads as follows—

Sir, it ought to become apparent that these directives are being applied one after the other, and I want to deal with the terrorists themselves, who are being used against our borders. Some of the terrorist leaders and political refugees from South Africa have expressed very clear views on this matter. I want to quote one of them, i.e. Oliver Tambo, of the African National Confess. When he recently paid a visit to Russia in the company of members of MPLA and Frelimo, the terrorist organizations, he said—

Mr. Speaker, on 11th July, 1963, the South African Police exposed at Rivonia the underground den of communism in South Africa. On that occasion they obtained certain documents revealing the directives for Operation Mayibuye, the military operation which had to be launched in South Africa. I shall read out to you, Sir, a paragraph from that document, paragraph 1 of Part 4 of that plan—

Then they go on to furnish a list of where they were trained and the kind of training they were receiving. Amongst other things their curriculum included “booby-trapping, home bomb manufacturing, sentry strangulation, vehicle ambushing, map reading, machine-gun techniques, bazooka firing”, etc. Those people were taught to kill, and one of the directives of Mayibuye is the following—

This is how Prof. Murray, one of our greatest authorities on communism, describes people of that kind (translation)—

One of their leaders granted an interview to an Afrikaans newspaper, Dagbreek, and on 24th March, 1968, a certain George Vilendeka of ZAPU had the following to say (translation)—

Salisbury has been conquered, the Rhodesian Defence Force has been paralysed and Mr. Smith and his Cabinet have been hanged.

He went on to say—

Sir, we saw the further development of the pattern when a start was made with raids on the northern borders. One of the first incidents was the road block in Rhodesia on 4th July, 1964, when Mr. Oberholzer was attacked in the presence of his wife and child. This was followed shortly afterwards by small groups penetrating South-West Africa. On 26th August, 1966, we had the first clash between the South African Police and these groups at Ongulum-bashe. On 26th September, 1966, they set fire to the buildings at Oshikango. Mr. Sauer, his wife and children, escaped miraculously, but one of his servants was wounded. Eventually—on 12th June, 1967—we were obliged to pass in this House the Terrorism Act, Act No. 83 of 1967. That was the first step that had to be taken to enable our authorities to cope with these base and treacherous sneak attacks. Sir, some of the reactions to this step are interesting, and I just want to refer to a few of them. I shall quote to you from the book entitled “Terrorism” written by Michael Morris, who used to be a policeman; he says that in 1967 John Sprack, a former president of Nusas, appeared with the Young Liberal Southern Africa Committee on a platform shared by SWAPO, ANC and other members of the so-called “Task Force”, and there they passed a resolution of solidarity with communism in Southern Africa. It is interesting to see from this book that on a certain occasion the University of the Witwatersrand held a meeting where the following resolution was adopted—

But we could go on mentioning to you numerous examples of both internal and external activities supplementing the pattern of communist penetration. I want to proceed to pointing out to you the activities of the Russian Navy in the Indian Ocean. According to official NATO documents this Navy is increasing in size. In order that you may gain an impression of their extent, Sir, I shall quote to you from Survival, a publication of the International Institute of Strategic Studies—

Sir, these trawlers off our coastline are very interesting. I have here with me a photograph of one of them which shows clearly that in apperance it is a trawler but that it does not carry any fishing equipment. Instead of that it has on board very sophisticated equipment, electronic equipment, some of which is kept covered under trapaulins. These disguised fishing trawlers are engaged in laying navigation mines in South African fishing waters, outside our territorial waters, for subsequent use by submarines and other purposes. They are making a survey of all the electronic intelligence that can be obtained from South Africa. They are taking readings of our radar, of our navigation systems, of our radio-communication systems, frequencies, localities, and so forth. They are drawing up a very thorough plan of each of the pieces of electronic equipment within reach of their sources of intelligence.

I shall make haste to continue by telling you, Sir, that the penetration of the Russian navy in the Indian Ocean has also started to dismay others. Therefore, what is involved here, is not primarily South Africa, but something that is much wider in scope. It is important that the world should also take cognizance of this matter, because to my mind Europe and the Free World would be doing themselves a very great disservice if they failed to take cognizance of this threat in the Indian Ocean. I shall quote to you from an English translation of an article that appeared in Ons Zeewegen, a Dutch authoritative naval publication. This is what they say—

In other words, this threat is against the whole of Africa and also against Europe. Apparently the United States of America have also come to realize this. I shall quote from an issue of the American News Digest, an information publication of theirs, dated 9th February—

I want to give you a study in the contrasts in approach to the communist struggle in the South. As you know, a meeting of UNO was recently held in Addis Adaba, and there Emperor Haile Selassie and the delegates from other countries passed one resolution after the other against the south. I shall quote one of them from Hoofstad dated 15th February, (translation)—

African Unity, which is deliberating in Addis Ababa at the moment, to do something positive about Rhodesia in particular, but also about South Africa and Portugal.

I want to contrast this with the views expressed by another African leader, President Houphouet-Boigny, and I shall quote from The Argus dated 13th May, 1971. The report from which I shall quote, comes from Paris—

They are going further than that. In this dangerous world in which we are living, they have also come forward with a next step in the programme they envisage. I shall quote from the German publication Hannoversche Allgemeine, dated 25th January, 1972, in which the following was stated—

We have reached a stage which compels us to take cognizance of these things that are happening. We must take cognizance of a threat which fits into the communist world pattern, and every action taking place on the African scene, forms part of the world communist struggle and must therefore be seen in that context. Each of the directives of the communist programme is gradually being implemented in Africa, and in looking at the rest of the details of the programme, and at what is being held in prospect, we must realize that we are dealing here with a major programme, a programme of which only a minor part has been implemented up to now, but that during the seventies we ought to observe gradually the rest of the development of this pattern. On an occasion such as this it is my wish that the population of South Africa should take cognizance of this matter; cognizance of the development that is taking place should be taken, not only by our population, but also by our friends in the West, who are being threatened themselves—it is not only we who are being threatened. May we, and the Free World along with us, pause to reflect on this matter in a stage of development such as this, before this communist canker will have penetrated so deeply into the essence of Africa that no remedy will be able to eradicate it any more.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Middelburg has gone to a great deal of trouble to document the case which he has put before the House in support of his motion. I want to say at once that I—and I can speak for my colleagues on this side of the House—accept the motion. We intend to move no amendment to it because we, as I believe does every responsible South African, recognize and realize that there are threats and dangers to South Africa and that it is necessary that not only our own people but our friends in the outside world should also be aware of the reality of these dangers. I believe it is necessary that we should assess and analyze these dangers in a calm atmosphere, as the hon. mover of the motion did, and give to them a realistic assessment, unflavoured by exaggeration or panic. It is therefore a pity that we should be dealing with this motion today, a matter on which both sides of the House are fully agreed, against a background and in an atmosphere such as that which marked the end of the debate immediately prior to this one. Here we are dealing with the reality of an issue facing South Africa, an issue where the Government has the full support of the Opposition. I want to quote from a speech I made on the 20th October, addressing the United Party Durban and Coast Women’s Council in Durban. I want to place on record here what I said then. I said—

That is what I said and I should like to record it here, so that there can be no doubt about our attitude. I put it to tile hon. the Minister that what he said in public then is still the case now. I would like to ask him, because of the unfortunate atmosphere and the outside background against which we are debating this issue, to place on record—which I believe he will do —the fact that he has not any cause to doubt the loyalty or the integrity of any supporter of this side of the House serving in the South African Defence Force in the defence of South Africa. He has said that before, but I hope he will repeat it now, and repeat his confidence in the men from all political parties serving in our forces. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Police would do the same and say that on our borders men from United Party and Nationalist homes are standing shoulder to shoulder in defence of South Africa. If the Minister had reason to doubt their loyalty on political grounds, then he would have said so, or he can say so in this debate. Therefore we approach this motion as common cause, but I would like, frankly, to have seen the motion go further, because what is before us is simply an expression of concern. It expresses our concern at the infiltration and the dangers of Communism; but I do not believe it is enough just to be concerned. I would like to have seen the motion placed on record the appreciation of this Parliament to the young men who are helping to make South Africa safe and secure. I would like to have seen it have a positive leg, a positive expression, not only of thanks to the men who are serving South Africa in the forces, Police and Army, but what is more important, I would like to have seen this motion have a leg expressing the complete confidence of this House in the ability of those forces to keep South Africa safe and secure. It is important that those who seek to undermine and destroy us should know that they face in South Africa not simply a deterrent but a force which will destroy any attack on us and which will defend South Africa against all comers. I think we would have done better if we had said that in this motion, rather than simply to have expressed concern.

When you express concern it may be interpreted as an expression of fear or as an expression of insecurity. I do not believe that South Africa needs to be afraid or to feel insecure. When one analyzes the forces which are ranged against us today one can see that, as they are today, there is no threat of a take-over of South Africa by force. That it could escalate and develop into a greater threat is something which I think we all recognize. But equally, we would have notice of that escalation and we, in turn, would be able to strengthen ourselves. It is my conviction that with what we have available to South Africa today there is no force on the continent of Africa, nor any African sea force, which could launch an invasion with success. Our message must therefore be one of confidence in our strength, whilst we recognize the reality of the dangers that face us.

I believe that we have to emphasize, in any consideration of our security, the part which the loyalty of our people plays in giving us safety against undermining and against attack. Every single expert on guerrilla and communist tactics accepts as a matter of unarguable fact that the greatest weapon against terrorism and against communism is the loyalty of the local population, and that an invasion force which does not have support, logistics, access to supplies, people who are prepared to hide them, and people who are prepared to give them information, has little chance of success. It was the lesson of Malaya, it is the lesson of Rhodesia and it is also the lesson of South Africa. I believe that we have to give great emphasis in our thinking to that aspect of retaining and strengthening the loyalty of all the peoples of South Africa. That means our civil administration and the reaction of our people to civil government. That is why it is important that when a Government plays politics, fights elections, or simply runs its internal administration, it should think further than the mere effect and consequence of the policy on political administration. It should think of the effect of that policy on the loyalty of the people and their willingness and determination to stand together with and behind the Government in the defence of their country. I fear that some of the things which happen in our country tend not to strengthen, but to weaken that security which is so vital to us. That is why it was with tremendous regret that I read, for instance, that our Prime Minister indicated that independent Bantu states developing in South Africa could turn to Moscow or Peking if that was their choice, and that though we could warn them, we could not stop them. We should think of the security of our country in the political policies which we follow. It is therefore important that statements like that should not be enabled to weaken and undermine our security.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Arising from what the hon. member is now saying about what the hon. Prime Minister said, does the hon. member not have any confidence in the Bantu leaders of the various Bantu areas?

Of course I have confidence in the leaders of the Bantu people.

*But my confidence is a confidence in leaders of peoples who fall under the authority of our State and Government, and who give their loyalty to South Africa and the State of South Africa. [Interjections.]

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

No, Mr. Speaker. As long as that loyalty is given to South Africa I have confidence. But who can have confidence after we have abandoned contact with and leadership of those areas and people? If we abandon our leadership we cannot say with certainty that we will enjoy the same confidence forever.

But I think we must go further. This is not the only guarantee we need. We also need the guarantee of the friendship of other countries. We therefore agree completely with the Government in its search for friends in Africa and other parts of the Western world.

On the basis of confidence.

I should like to see it confidence.

And you mistrust the Bantu leaders.

I should like to see it go further than just confidence. In this connection I agree with the hon. the Minister who mentioned the value of possible agreements when he referred to the possibility of a “Southern Defence Pact” on 29th August, 1970. I think we must think in terms of closer ties with our friends.

†I visualize that we could have agreements with friends which could greatly strengthen our position and our security against attacks from either Russia or China. Therefore we back the Government in any action taken to try to create such friendships, to try to strengthen such bonds preferably to the extent of formal treaties.

As I have said, when we look at this question of concern for the dangers that face us, let us balance it. I appeal to the hon. the Minister and the Government not to sabre-rattle without giving the other side of the picture. I had cause during the recess to comment on what I believe was exploitation of the dangers against South Africa. I believe that it is being exploited in that filthy pamphlet to which reference was made. In this pamphlet appear pictures of terrorist weapons and burnt-out vehicles. Our security was used for political ends. I believe that that is not in the interests of South Africa. It is not in the interests of our security as a country or as a nation. When a political leader says that we are in danger of an attack and that the people must therefore support them, the leaders of that political party, then that too is using security for political purposes. We are all guilty at times, but let us keep the possibility of that to an absolute minimum. Let us try to look on security, as the hon. the Minister of Defence does, as something above party politics.

Propose an amendment to the motion.

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

When the debate was adjourned before lunch, I had made two specific pleas to the Government. One was that, when dealing with the threats and dangers to South Africa, we should balance them with the other side of the picture. I want to give one or two examples of what I mean. The hon. the Minister of Defence on 14th October made a particular point of and emphasized the danger of an air attack on South Africa. The hon. Minister was speaking to a student branch of the National Party at Stellenbosch and he emphasized that South Africa was vulnerable to air attack.

When did I say that?

The report is dated 15th October.

Where did you get hold of that story?

This is the Daily News of the 15th October and the report reads—

You must first get your facts right.

I have another report dated 16th October—

Which paper is that now?

This was in the Natal Mercury—

There have been other reports on the dangers to South Africa, but I want to refer specifically to this one on the air attacks. It was reported in all the newspapers.

You have got it all wrong.

Only three months later I had the privilege, at the invitation of the hon. the Minister, of attending the opening of the Devon Radar Centre. It is a magnificent set-up on which we have spent many millions of rand and which, I believe, gives to South Africa greater security than we have ever enjoyed before, as far as defending ourselves against air attack is concerned. Without going into any details, the fact is that we have a radar screen—this is public knowledge—with a headquarters which can not only control our Air Force and aircraft, but can also employ Cactus, of which we are so proud, and which is accepted today as one of the world’s strongest low-level, all-weather antiaircraft defences. I believe it would do South Africa more good if, when dealing with the danger of an air attack, we say in the same breath and at the same time that we warn anyone who thinks along these lines, that an air attack will be met by a radar defence screen, that we have modern planes which can deal with any aggression and that we have Cactus. In other words, when we deal with danger let us emphasize our strength.

Let me refer to other threats and sources of danger. In October the hon. the Minister also spoke at Goudini Spa, where he used what I think was an unfortunate expression—

The danger is there; we are, in fact, facing dangers on our own soil, but we are coping with this threat. We are dealing with it and containing it. I think that the hon. the Minister will agree that if there is one person who is really reluctant, it is the terrorist facing the possibility of having to cross our borders. Let us emphasize that point. Let us emphasize our strength and not our weakness. Above all, let us not play politics with this issue of our security.

I want to ask the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who spoke in another debate immediately before this one, a simple question, viz. whether he approves of the sort of pamphlet from which he was quoting, which exploits the dangers of Communism and terrorism for party political ends.

You will get your reply.

It is a simple question. Does the hon. member approve of it? He, as Chairman of the Defence Group of the National Party, has a responsibility to say: “Yes” or “No”. Either he approves of the use of the dangers facing South Africa to create a false—and I repeat “false”—picture and to accuse nearly half the White people of South Africa of blocking the fight against Communism and terrorism or he does not approve of it.

You are talking utter nonsense.

The hon. member must either condemn that pamphlet or say that he approves of it, because what greater encouragement could we give our enemies than to tell them …

Do you condemn Mr. Winchester’s speech?

I am not dealing with the Minister for yo-yo. Let him go and play the fool with his conflicting statements.

We know your man.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. Minister who is making such a noise is an ex-serviceman. I have a photograph of him here wearing his ribbons on the wrong side of his chest. Perhaps the hon. Minister … [Interjections.] He even has a white handkerchief in his pocket and his ribbons on the right-hand side. That is the sort of soldier he is, so do not let him stick his nose into serious issues. If the hon. Minister does not know how to wear his ribbons, just above this photograph there is another showing the hon. Leader of the Opposition with many more ribbons on the correct side, the side where he had earned them. However, I do not want to play the fool with the hon. Minister of Sport. I want to say that, in this serious issue of our security, the worst thing we can do …

Is wearing your ribbons on the wrong side a serious breach of security?

… the worst thing we can do is to indicate to our enemies that nearly half the White people of South Africa are sympathetic towards their objectives. I have statement after statement here showing the attitude of this side of the House: “Graaff supports Vorster”, “U.P. supports Government”, etc. Over and over there is emphasis on the unity of the White people in South Africa and the loyalty of the non-White people in opposing Communism. Let that be the image of South Africa. Let the image which goes out to the world be one of a nation united in its determination. Those who are responsible for our security carry the great personal responsibility of ensuring that that is in fact the message that goes out. The message of the hon. the Minister of Sport and pamphlets such as the one to which I have referred …

And Winchester’s speech?

That sort of thing indicates a people without determination and a people not united, but divided. It indicates a people of whom a large group, nearly half the electorate, can in fact be accused of having doubts, of not being enthusiastic, or of going further and in fact hindering the efforts to oppose terrorism and Communism. If we do this, we are playing into the hands of our enemies. We on this side of the House have no limitations in our dedication to this cause.

All of you?

Yes, all of us; every member on this side of the House. But, in our fight against Communism, we are not prepared to use weapons or methods which will undermine or weaken the Western approach and the Western thinking, the fundamental Western concepts of democracy and freedom. We say that if one wants to destroy Communism, one must destroy it at its grass roots, but that, when one uses the methods of totalitarianism, one is then in fact acknowledging that there is something good which one is prepared to take over from them and use oneself. Therefore we have always taken the line: Fight ruthlessly, fight unequivocally and without hesitation, but do not use methods which discredit or in any way can harm the picture of the Western way of life, so that those who believe in that way of life will know that they can continue to believe in it. It does then not become a choice between two systems, in both of which there is evil.

This has nothing to do with the motion.

I am sorry but I am not going to react to that. The hon. Minister obviously has not read it.

You are just making a political clap-trap speech.

This is a motion which has been put forward by a Government member and it is a motion dealing with the fundamental security of this State, but look what we get from a member of the Cabinet. I hope the hon. Prime Minister is watching and takes note of the attitude of one of his Ministers, who has joint Cabinet responsibility for our security. I hope he is watching the way this Minister regards the safety of South Africa. We on this side of the House today accept this motion. As I have said, we would have liked to see it go further. I have one appeal I would like to make to the Government. When we talk of danger, let us talk of our strength at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I think the House owes a great debt of thanks to the hon. member for Middelburg for this motion he has brought along to the House and which has again given us the opportunity to look at this problem of communist penetration as a responsible representative body. We are also glad of the opportunity, through the channels of this House, of conveying to the ears of the Western world the determination of the whole South African population to oppose communism with all its might. I shall not allow myself to be led astray by the hon. member for Durban Point, nor shall I be tempted to continue a speech I was making when another debate was interrupted. I shall conclude that speech on Monday, and I shall therefore not let myself be mislead by that temptation.

Will you just answer my question?

I shall continue with that on Monday, but at this stage I shall tell the hon. member—and unlike him I shall do so without deviating from the motion under discussion—that I did not make the statement and that nowhere in that pamphlet, to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred, was the statement made that the United Party members support communism. I have already said that this morning. I now want to reiterate categorically that I have the utmost confidence in the loyalty of all South Africans as regards our common opposition to communism. What I do object to on occasion is the kind of attitude representatives of the United Party adopt in this House. I do not want to dwell on that any further.

Shame on you, Hennie.

Do you support the pamphlet to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred?

I said that I shall continue with that speech in Monday’s debate. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that this afternoon he spoiled the opportunity he had of discussing a very topical matter at a high level by also referring to the standpoints the hon. Prime Minister adopted in respect of the non-White peoples within our borders when they have developed to the point of independence. I do not know how the hon. member can involve such a matter in this because, in the first place, the communistic threat against South Africa bears no relation to what political party is in power in South Africa and what its particular policy is. What is involved is that South Africa is the Naboth’s vineyard in the modern world. Here before me I have an article written by Gen. H. J. Kruls, editor of the official journal of NAVO. About this aspect he says, inter alia—

I can also quote from an article that appeared in the Dutch newspaper Ons Zeewezen, in which the writer states the following, apart from the importance he attaches to the sea-routes and the protection of air-routes through South Africa—

The writer then continues by saying that in the strategic sphere, in the greater part of the world, Communism is focusing its attention on Africa and on Southern Africa because South Africa is, in point of fact, the Naboth’s vineyard in the modern world. We must take that into account. I want to appeal to hon. members of the Opposition. While saying that I do not doubt for one moment the loyalty and unanimity of every South African, nor that of the people at large who support their party, when it comes to the protection of our country, I also want to ask them to comprehend the essence of the problem of the communistic onslaught against us.

I say that we are grateful for the opportunity we have gained to discuss at a high level the problem that is an international problem, because for many years South Africa’s official voice was a solitary one in conveying to the world at large the importance of these quotations I have just used here. When one talks to bodies abroad that are involved with security in their countries and in the world at large, it strikes one repeatedly that they speak the same language as you do and see matters in the same light. However, when one is dealing with certain government bodies the element of expedience unfortunately comes strongly to the fore, and not that of realism about the communist threat to the world. Recently other voices have been raised. From several regions in the Western world we have obtained proof that the lengthy endeavours of South Africa, not to make itself objectionable but to show the world that it is engaged in fulfilling a task that is not only in the interests of its own security, but also in the interests of the whole free world, are making an impression. I refer to what Pres. Nixon said a few months ago to the Australian Prime Minister. He said that America would not, with their eyes open, allow the balance of power in the Indian Ocean to be disrupted. I consider these words to be of particular significance, because for the first time in the past few decades an American president, the president of the biggest country in the free world, has intimated that the Indian Ocean on the coast of Africa has become important to him as well, to his country and to the entire Western world in whose freedom and security he has an interest.

There are further proofs. Recently news has also come of a certain Western power intending to send a task force to the Indian Ocean. Thereby that power will, by action, indicate that it will not allow communism to penetrate the East coast of Africa from the sea. In that article to which I referred earlier, the same Gen. Kruls re-emphasized this point very strongly. He said:

In this vein he continued and advocated that NATO should extend its field of activity and thereby include South Africa. He said, inter alia:

In the military field it must be decided which part of the task can be left on South Africa’s shoulders. The necessary ships, weapons and equipment will have to be supplied to South Africa by the countries of NATO.

It is significant that such voices are emanating from an organization such as NATO. I think we owe it to this Government, and specifically to the Minister of Defence, to convey the thanks of the entire South African population for the persistent manner in which he has tackled this matter at every turn. He did so in public and privately so that now we are getting all these results. We have the proof that yesterday a White Paper on defence was submitted in the British Parliament in which attention is drawn to this same problem. Reference is made to the fact that the route around the Cape is not only of the utmost importance to South Africa, nor only to Britain, but also to the free world, and that the activities of the Russian fleet in the Indian Ocean embody a substantial problem for the free world. They recommend that attention be given to this problem. The time at my disposal unfortunately does not allow me to elaborate further on the motion so substantially initiated by the hon. member for Middelburg. I just want to say that we are grateful for the opportunity of discussing the matter here, but that we are also grateful for the knowledge—and I want to repeat this for the edification of the hon. member for Durban Point—that the South African population is determined not to allow this substantial danger to penetrate its borders.

Sir, in discussing this motion we must accept that everything that is said in this House this afternoon about the great dangers which face our country, is said and meant in all sincerity. Those of us who have studied Communism to the best of our ability in the time at our disposal will have seen how it has been working through the ages. I recall the years 1940-1945, when I had the privilege of “visiting” states such as Egypt, Libya and Cyrenaica, and at that time I could see and many of my friends could see the seedbeds of Communism were being cultivated in those areas. The cultivation was going on very well indeed, all that had to be done was for the seeds to be sown and a good germination could be expected. In point of fact, subsequently there was a very good germination of the communist seeds in those areas. It is quite apparent, Sir, that Communism will only thrive when people suffer from poverty, hunger and frustration and when people live in a depressed state. It is under those particular conditions that Communism thrives. It is interesting to see what Lenin said about the price of the conquest of Communism in the world. When speaking on the price of world conquest, he said this—

One sees that at no time has Communism deviated from Lenin’s philosophy. We saw it in North Africa; we see that Communism has taken hold of those North African states where there is a war raging at the moment. We see that Egypt, Libya, Cyreraica are countries firmly in the grip of Moscow’s hands. We have seen what Peking has done in Central Africa. Make no mistake about it, Peking has already a firm grip on many little states in Central Africa. The stage of cultivating the seed-beds for Communism in many Central African states has passed; germination is already taking place, and here, today we find that we have a motion before us in which this House is asked to express its concern about the increasing infiltration of Communism into Southern Africa. Sir, over the years Communism has been spreading down to the borders of our own country. Ministers of the State have repeatedly expressed their views in this regard. Unfortunately their views have been conflicting from time to time and there has not always been consistency in ministerial statements dealing with this danger. Some Ministers have repeatedly given the assurance that all is well within our borders. As I say, these statements have not been consistent. They have varied from time to time, depending on the occasion. We find that when Nationalist congresses are held, Government supporters virtually go to town, if I may use that expression, on Communism, and we also experience this when there is a pending election. It is tragic, Sir, when our country is faced with this dangerous and serious situation that political parties should be tempted to use propaganda against another party merely for political expediency and nothing else. Nothing is solved by this process at all. This is done whenever the occasion demands it. The hon. the Prime Minister at one of the recent congresses mentioned the dangers of the Caprivi Strip and what South Africa’s intentions were there. We believe that it was a strictly confidential matter as far as our Police Forces were concerned in dealing with this problem in the Caprivi Strip, but, of course, it was also an urgent matter of dramatizing the issue as far as his supporters at a Nationalist congress in Pretoria were concerned. Sir, let us ask ourselves whether we are capable of dealing with this problem. We should be, because surely we have enough laws by now on the Statute Book to combat Communism. I cannot think of any amendment that we can bring about to these laws and Acts to improve them and to increase the strength and the power which has been placed in the hands of those responsible in dealing with this problem. Sir, it is regrettable—and I want us to get this quite clear—that spokesmen of the Cabinet and even the Prime Minister have seen fit to say that the Opposition are being used as the tool of the communists. This statement is so serious that one cannot overlook it. We, the Opposition, the people who represent approximately 45 per cent of South Africa’s electorate, have been accused not only of being used as the tools of Communism but, as the hon. the Minister of Justice has said, also of helping the communists. His words were: “Daar is die mense wat hulle nog help”. [Interjection.]

Sir, the hon. member making that noise, well I would not like to know where he wears his medals, he would do far better to rather keep quiet. This is an important subject which we are dealing with. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus is not here, I will not say much about him, except to say that what he said really does not deserve comment. I know the people of his constituency, I know some of them very well indeed. I know Nationalists in his constituency as well, but they do not deserve a member who makes the sort of speech which the hon. member made here a few days ago. It was a shocking exposition of Government propaganda. Last, but not least, there is this disgraceful Brakpan pamphlet. I am sure the voters in Odendaalsrus and Brakpan, the majority of whom are Nationalists, are wondering what it is all about. I am sure they are asking themselves: “Why must my member tell these stories in the House of Assembly? Is this necessary? What is wrong? Is my member worried? Is he getting panicky? Do not let us imagine that the Nationalist supporters all believe that the Opposition would ever stoop to anything of this sort. This is indeed a sign of panic and despair. What is more, Sir, it does not only fail to impress members in this House but many of those people outside too. I would suggest to this Government, while we are on this motion, that they sweep before their own doorstep before they look to others. The old English phrase has it that the bad workman always blames his tools. Surely they are today looking for some tools to blame because they find they cannot combat the communist problem. Let us again look at what Lenin said in regard to Communism when he was discussing communist methods of subversion. What he said was interesting, i.e. “When one enjoys an overwhelming majority of forces one can succeed by direct frontal attack, but when one’s forces are inadequate; detours, waiting periods, zig-zags, and so on and so forth may be necessary.” Let me remind this hon. House, that this is the pattern the communists are taking. If we as White people want to give the lead on the continent of Africa, then we must take a look at ourselves in the mirror and see just how stupid we look and what example we are setting to the rest on the continent of Africa. Words and platitudes are not going to help us; it is deeds which will help us, we must set the example to all the people on the continent of Africa. Unwittingly— and I repeat unwittingly—we White people are cultivating the seed beds for Communism right on our own doorstep here in the Republic of South Africa. Coming from the Eastern Cape I am naturally very concerned about the Government’s policies which they intend carrying out in this country of ours. After the development of the Reserves, which we support—and not only the Reserves but many of those unfortunate less privileged small states in Central Africa—after we have developed these Reserves to sovereign independence all that the independent Bantustans will be able to export from their countries to our country, is their labour. We are concerned at what the hon. the Prime Minister said when he was asked the question by the reporter of the magazine To the Point, i.e. “And suppose the Independent Bantu States go the way of Moscow or Peking”?

But this is not a No-confidence Debate.

I am not going to be diverted from this motion by any interjection. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister said and what concerns us—

The Prime Minister has conceded this and this has been worrying us for many years i.e. 80 per cent of South Africa’s Labour force. On the other hand the hon. the Minister of Defence came under fire during the last General election when he was quoted by his candidate for Zululand when asked the question on this very problem by the voters of Zululand. Mr. Pienaar explained what the Minister of Defence said he was prepared to do, to combat communism, remember there was an election being fought which incidentally Mr. Pienaar lost. I quote—

This conflicts with the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Now, Sir, my time is up. I am not despondent and I am not depressed provided we as White South Africans stop this uncalled for mud-slinging which gets us nowhere. I do not believe that Peking will take a hold of our country, at least not for the next ten years. The communists will avoid it, but I must warn this House that time is in their favour.

Mr. Speaker, since its birth, Communism has been pledged to the devil; therefore the road of Moscow and of Peking is spreading across and face of the globe by means of deceit, violence, revolution and bloodshed. As far as the world is concerned, we are facing a new situation, namely that as a result of the great powers cancelling each other out in regard to the utilization of nuclear power in war, there is fear throughout the world that a nuclear war should not be started; everybody is cowering away from it. For that reason there is no question at this stage of a large-scale confrontation between the great powers of the world, and they are trying to prevent that confrontation. But precisely because of these circumstances, Moscow and Peking and their satellites have the opportunity to take advantage of the fear of a nuclear war by waging local wars and achieving their goal through subversion. By means of revolutionary warfare they want to achieve what they might otherwise not achieve it there were a confrontation. For that reason I should like to thank the hon. member for Middelburg sincerely for this motion he has introduced. I think that this motion, read in conjunction with the motion dealing with another aspect of Communism, which was introduced by the hon. member for Stellenbosch and unanimously accepted by this Parliament last year, can only contribute towards strengthening our position in the Western world and bringing our people and our country into readiness for the challenges they may have to face. But I am sorry to have to say that the level to which the hon. member for Durban Point and the other speaker on his side brought this debate, was bitterly disappointing. The hon. member for Durban Point said only once that he endorsed the motion, and then started attacking the Government, followed in the same vein by the back-bencher behind him. We are discussing the dangers of communism in Southern Africa. If the hon. members do not realize this, we cannot help them. The hon. member at the back there has a pamphlet complex and I want to advise him to look beyond pamphlets at the dangers lurking on our borders. The hon. member for Durban Point should realize one thing. He said here that he thanked me for keeping the armed forces of South Africa out of party politics. That is true. We administrate the Defence Force in such a way that we try not to incorporate party-political prejudices in forming a Defence Force which is in constant battle trim. But what is required in conjunction with this is that there should be the highest motivation from this House to our young people in the Defence Force, and one cannot motivate them if one section of one’s Parliament acts in the way they acted today. I blame the hon. member and shall deal with him in a moment in regard to a few other aspects.

I have said I welcome the motion of the hon. member for Middelburg because although this motion is concerned more specifically with Southern Africa, the activities of the Russians and of the Chinese and of their satellites in Southern Africa should also be seen against the background of their overall world strategy and not merely as an isolated onslaught on Southern Africa. It would be a mistake to deal with this problem only as a South African one. We are not involved in an isolated struggle against communism. In this struggle we are merely an outpost for the free world. Another truth we must realize is that the foremost aim of Russia, China and their satellites is not merely, as my hon. friend opposite seems to believe, to try to sell Marxism which feeds on poverty and misery. Their strategy, no matter how it may differ in these days, is calculated to increase their influence by indirect or direct methods in order to attain eventual domination of the world and to exercise their power. It is a power struggle; it is a military power struggle. It is an economic struggle and a struggle for domination. It is not concerned in the first place with spreading a so-called faith. They are trying to surround the West. A world strategy is revealing itself. They are trying to control Africa by, inter alia, acquiring bases on both the East Coast and the West Coast of Africa. Russia’s policy is still aimed at dominating the world She is striving to achieve this by means of direct or indirect methods, according to what suits her. China, on the other hand, is searching for a place to off-load her millions, and in her striving she often places more emphasis on the methods in which the Communist Party is involved than perhaps Russia does.

In this regard I want to read out to this House a very significant pronouncement contained in a recent book by an expert. I am referring to Sir Robert Thompson’s book “Revolutionary War In World Strategy”. He said—

In other words, the so-called difference in action, the so-called split between Russia and China may, for technically and temporary other reasons, make them appear to the world as an ostensibly divided pair, but eventually, when the vital decision is to be taken, Russia and China will make a combined onslaught on the Western world. It is interesting how both have caused a new phenomenon to come to the forefront recently, i.e. the use of satellites. Russia and China today both sit in the assemblies of the nations. They sit around the tables of consultation. At table they have to wear the cloak of decency, even though that cloak is so transparent that everyone can see the nakedness. But now they use satellites such as Cuba, North Korea, Algeria, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Tanzania and Zambia to do their dirty work for them. As the hon. member for Middelburg said, we know from a document issued by the Chinese army, that it is explicitly stated—

This is their real standpoint. It agrees with what the great General Napoleon said in his day, namely: “Europe can be overthrown in Africa”. What is taking place in Africa today is part of the strategy to overthrow Europe.

In addition we know that the struggle in Africa coincides with the Russian ideal to control the oceans. This is a new awakening in Russia which was expressed as follows by Admiral Groscho of the Russian Navy—

Therefore the action in Africa, the action in the Indian Ocean and the action to start controlling or to try to control other sea-routes, all form part of one great world strategy which is not aimed at Southern Africa alone. It is aimed at the West. For this purpose Russia has approximately 6 000 aircraft and approximately 350 submarines. In one of the latest military journals a table is furnished to prove by way of comparison to what extent Russia is overtaking America in respect of certain arms supplies. I need not find this in that military journal alone; I can find it in the latest speeches of the American Minister of Defence and President Nixon in which Russia was warned that she should stop arming herself in such a way that it seemed she wanted to effect world domination militarily.

A few days ago Sir Alec Douglas-Home said the following words—

These are the words of the Home Secretary. We know now that it is not only an operation at sea and not only infiltration overland. It goes hand in hand with the creation of certain air bases everywhere in the world as well. In this way there are air bases in Africa over which they have gained partial control or where they have influence and from where they may operate. Without verifying his facts, the hon. member for Durban Point referred to a so-called speech I had made at Stellenbosch. What are the facts? The facts are that I gave a lecture at Stellenbosch to a group of students who had requested me to do so. I indulged in no party politics that evening. My speech dealt with the military threat in Africa.

One of the things I said there was that the African states could form no threat on their own strength. I said also the following (translation)—

That was my point. Must I not do that? Must I not divulge the reasons why a threat may arise there? Now the hon. member comes here and reads out a slanted report from an English-language newspaper whose reporter was not even present at that meeting.

I quoted from two newspapers.

Both were not present there. The hon. member must verify his facts before speaking on defence matters. What more did I say? I said that in a case where Red technicians, planners and pilots were placed in a position where they could operate from air bases such as Lumbumbashe, Mtwala, Ndola and Lusaka, they could cause an air threat for South Africa. But I continued immediately by saying that for that reason we were spending millions in order to establish an air defence system. Since the hon. member wants to talk party politics, let me tell him that nobody has done more than this Government to put in order the air defence system of South Africa.

This report comes from Die Burger.

Really Sir, as far as I am concerned, the report may as well come from the hon. member’s pocket. I have just told him what I said at Stellenbosch, and those are the facts. Here is the speech from which I spoke.

Against this background I have outlined and against the background of communist strategy in the Middle East, the Far East and South America, we should see the activities in Tanzania, Zambia, Congo Brazzaville and some other African States. Hon. members may examine the techniques merely by reading one magazine, i.e. the December edition of the Readers Digest. There they will find a survey of what happened in Mexico until the Mexican Government had to take certain steps. Let them go and read that and compare it with the pattern which is developing in Southern Africa. The relevant elements in this process of Russia’s and China’s entry into a theatre or an area of combat, always follow more or less one pattern. It starts by infiltration through subversion, for which they use persons, who have been trained in Russia, China and in certain satellite countries, from numbers which have been drawn from the country concerned. After infiltration through subversion, entrenchment follows by means of economic aid or the granting of credit. After that, indispensability is achieved by economic, political, technical and military steps. This is the usual pattern this entry into a theatre usually follows.

In the light of the knowledge we have, there can no longer be any doubt as to the objectives of the communists in Southern Africa. I want to summarize them briefly. The first objective is to penetrate and undermine a traditional Western sphere of influence. To that end they use not only military means, but also those of subversion and they infiltrate into so-called innocent organizations, crawling around even under a cloak of Christianity and religion. The second objective is to convert the South African stability into tension and conflict for their own purposes and to apply a struggle of exhaustion to us. The third objective is to create a breach from Dar-es-Salaam to Pointe Noir in Congo Brazzaville or in Angola in order to obtain a foothold on the East Coast and on the West Coast. The fourth objective is, by means of the eventual isolation or control of Southern Africa, to make the important sea route around the Cape unsafe for the West through intimidation, blockades or military action, if necessary. In this regard it is interesting to note that the route between New York and Bahrein in the Persian Gulf is 4 000 sea miles shorter around the Cape than through the Panama Canal. The transport of oil in big tankers around the Cape is much cheaper than the use of small tankers through the Suez Canal. The question which may be put in this regard is why Russia wants to have the Suez Canal open and at the same time wants to lend a hand in the sea route around the Cape. When one studies Russia’s world strategy, the answer is obvious, and that is that she wants be able to intimidate, blockade and take military action on both routes if it suits her. Attempts at belittling these dangers and at explaining them away, remind one of the words of the poet, “Who can understand the language of the blind mole?” General Merchant, a well-known strategist, said quite rightly in respect of this point: “Marxism, Leninism is an inflexible guide to action, but its dialectics lend itself to any innovation, any change, even to a paradox.” With this pattern of infiltration, entrenchment, making themselves indispensable and eventual control, Moscow, Peking and their satellites are progressing in Africa at the expense of the West. I should like to reveal this process a little. Firstly, there is the granting of credit. In 1961 they granted credit to 12 countries in Africa, and in 1971 to 19 countries. In 1961 there were military agreements with three countries in Africa, and in 1971 with 14 countries. In 1961, Russia, China and their satellites had diplomatic missions in some form or other in 13 countries of Africa, and in 1971 in 35 countries. I should just like to mention a few examples of how this takes place: Through the Tanzam railway line, through Zanzibar harbour, through ammunition factories, through Russian-manufactured radar, through road construction programmes by China and other satellite countries in Zambia, through radio transmitters in Lusaka, through Red Chinese guidance in the construction of a shipyard in Congo Brazzaville, through Rumanian development projects in the Congo, through Bulgarian aid and through the development of several air bases, in respect of which the hon. member for Durban Point takes it amiss of me when I speak of them. As far as advisers and technical aid are concerned, I can mention that at present there are more than 20 000 Chinese in Tanzania and Zambia who have been trained economically, politically and militarily, and in addition there are hundreds of north Koreans doing one thing only, i.e. providing training in revolutionary methods. Some communistic state or other, particularly Russia and China, is involved as advisers in virtually all terrorist groups. All the Chinese in Tanzania are soldiers of the People’s Army. These countries render military aid as well. Terrorist arms which are clearly of communistic origin (Russia, China, Czechoslovakia) are found on terrorists. Chinese presence in terrorist camps has been proved. Cubans have repeatedly been caught during terrorist operations. Furthermore, Russia supplies air transport to certain terrorists from East Africa to West Africa, and vice versa. Communistic organizations render financial aid to terrorists, sometimes under the cloak of Christianity. We know now that the Organization for African Unity openly associates itself with this aid and that only last year it said. “The OAU congratulates the liberation movement in the territories under foreign domination and urges these movements to intensify their struggle …”. This is where co-operation is brought about. The plans against South Africa, the unconventional onslaught we are experiencing at present and the conventional onslaught being planned for the future, are being executed under communistic leadership, by Russia, China and their satellites. There can be no question about that; they are not fighting for the liberation of people, but for the enslavement of people. They are fighting for the enslavement of black people and for the extermination of White people who can help to bring about a high standard of living in South Africa. In this regard I should like to refer to another witness. We should all accept this witness. He is an internationally renowned surgeon who conducted an investigation in the Portuguese areas last year. He let me have a report of his impressions, of his findings and of his conclusions. I just want to quote a few sentences from this. They read as follows:

He went on to appeal to the Western world not to see this struggle as an isolated one against Southern Africa, but as a struggle in which the whole of the Western world was involved and to regard Southern Africa as an outpost of the West. This man gave me the right to use this report of his. In addition he gave me the right to mention his name. He is Dr. Jack Penn, a well-known surgeon whom all hon. members know.

I have his report.

If that hon. member has this report, surely he should not argue with me across the floor of this House when I point out these dangers, but should rise and say: In spite of all our political differences, we say that this House stands united and we motivate our Defence Force and our people to stand together.

That is the very thing I want.

What you want and what you say are two things.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat to the hon. members that I have the fullest confidence in the vast majority of the South African Defence Force, its officers, its non-commissioned officers, its adjutant officers and its privates, whatever political convictions they may have. But the conduct this afternoon of that hon. member and the hon. member sitting over there, is not in accordance with the spirit we need in order to rouse our people to the dangers threatening on our borders.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Middelburg sincerely once again. I am sorry that the time at my disposal does not permit me to divulge more information. I am not advocating a situation of panic. I believe we should prepare ourselves. I believe that we should prepare ourselves not only in the military sphere, but on every other front, because it is a total struggle against Southern Africa. Furthermore, where the going has become heavy and where it sometimes seems as if things want to smother us, I believe we shall pull through with the united will of a people that wants to make of this country a bastion of freedom and strength against these powers closing in on us.

Mr. Speaker …

General Moolman.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to that interjection which has just been made, I can only say that if the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence, who has just spoken, be good company, then I was in good company at the time.

But you were a traitor.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

He was a political traitor.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word.

I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, we looked forward with interest to the contribution of the hon. the Minister of Defence, because naturally he, as Minister of Defence, has better access to information than any hon. member on either side of the House. I am only sorry that the hon. the Minister saw fit, at the very beginning of his speech, to attack two speakers from this side of the House. One of the previous speakers, the hon. member for Durban Point, devoted three-quarters of his time to matters concerning defence and gave the very strongest support to the mover’s motion. One of the relevant questions the hon. member put to the Minister was whether the latter had the fullest confidence that this side of the House was as opposed to communism and terrorism as that side of the House. He still owes us a reply to that question.

But he speaks of a united bastion.

Mr. Speaker, the mover of this motion covered a very wide front. Naturally, every person on this side of the House supports what he said in connection with the dangers of terrorism and communism and their infiltration into South Africa. The hon. member covered a wide geographic area, and I do not want to repeat this all again. The point of discussion concerns the threat to Southern Africa. Naturally one must therefore deal with Southern Africa and not only the Republic of South Africa as such. The hon. member for Durban Point specifically mentioned that we long for the time when we shall conclude military treaties with the friendly elements to the north of us and when we shall have a South Atlantic deence treaty that we shall also be a member of. As the hon. the Minister mentioned, we all feel that Africa as such, and the southern point of Africa, is extremely important, strategically and otherwise. And this is inevitable. Continents are still separated at this stage by canals. Thus, for example, Europe and Africa are separated by the Suez Canal, which is still closed at this stage, and likewise North and South America are separated by the Panama Canal. Therefore the sea route round the Cape is the only one that can be used in times of war and peace, because the canals can easily be closed in times of war. In fact, the canals are so small that even if the Suez Canal, for example, were opened tomorrow, tankers of 100 000 tons and more could not pass through at all. This is therefore a strategic sea route.

I want to reiterate that in time of war this is the most important area of all. This area is not only a geographic dividing line, as the Minister indicated, it is also the dividing line between the East and the West. This has been the case throughout the centuries and will remain so.

As far as terrorism is concerned, it has struck those of us who are frequently in Rhodesia and Mozambique and have taken the trouble to go to their borders and see what is going on there, that to a very large extent they make use of their Black citizens along their borders for the defence of their country and the combating and fighting of terrorism. I purposely mention their Black citizens. If one travels along the Rhodesian borders one finds that a battalion consists of 120 Black Rhodesians under four White officers. According to reports these are the best defence methods they have throughout Rhodesia. Black citizens are used to a lesser extent in Mozambique, but even there a great deal of use is made of them. Naturally, if the Black population is roped in for this kind of defence, they will ensure that they glean the best information about, and form the best defence front against, any sort of terrorism there may be, in order to protect their homes, families, etc. The Black population is as much in danger from terrorism as the Whites, if not more so. Their homes and families are involved; naturally they will defend them. This brings me back to the Republic of South Africa and the policy of the present Government. When I speak of the policy of the present Government the hon. the Minister must understand—and he also knows this—that it is the right and the duty of the Opposition, in an important debate such as this, to point out to the Government aspects in its policy that can promote terrorism and communism. When I speak about aspects of that nature, hon. members may accuse me of promoting communism if they want to. The fact remains that it is the Opposition’s right and duty to warn the Government. I want to come back to this Government’s policy of disenfranchising every Black South African or Bantu, as we are requested to call them here in our country. When each one of the millions of them have been disenfranchised, they cannot and will never have the same loyalty and fidelity to the Republic of South Africa as they would have if they had not been disenfranchised. This is one of the reasons giving rise to the United Party’s policy that these people remain citizens of South Africa. They must retain their loyalty to this country so that they will also want to defend it because their families and their property are involved. They must not all be disenfranchised and be allies of peoples that are far away from them and can never have the fidelity and that loyalty to the country that a citizen of this country has. It is incorporated in the policy of the Nationalist Party and the Government that the breeding ground for communism can be created because the Black population is disenfranchised. Hon. members opposite can argue just as much as they want to; the facts I am speaking about are familiar facts. If a country is not one’s own, is not a part of what is one’s own, and if one is not protecting one’s own home and family, particularly if one’s family is separated from one, it is surely logical that one will never have the loyalty with which to defend the country. That would surely be the breeding ground for communism. It cannot be otherwise. The population that is treated in that way will, in the first instance, become the breeding ground for the germs of communism. The best breeding ground for communism that one could possibly get is, as the hon. member for East London North said, a frustrated population. Frustration in the sphere of housing, salaries, employment opportunities and any basis that creates frustration amongst a population must necessarily be the best breeding ground for communism. As long as the Government follows this policy, the policy of the disenfranchisement of all Black people in the country—I am not speaking about the Indians and the Coloureds—and as long as the Bantu are made fellow citizens of another country, it is no use our saying that we shall follow terrorists right across our borders. The Prime Minister said we would follow terrorists right across our borders. Neither would it be any use saying that the Government reserves the right to grant assistance to any friendly State to the north of us which asks for it. Here, within our ranks, we are creating the position whereby foreign states are established. These states become independent states that carry within them the germ of communism or possible communist infiltration. Where does all the communism come from?

Oh man, don’t …

The hon. the Minister has no need to listen. Where does the strong communism come …

Speak about the motion.

I am speaking about the motion. I am speaking about the infiltration …

Where does the subject you are speaking about appear in the motion?

I am speaking of the infiltration of communism into countries to the north of us and here into the Republic of South Africa. Where did communist infiltration have its origins? In the liberation of those countries and the withdrawal of the hand of the White man. From that stage onwards they became communist, and as strongly communist as many of them are today. We want to walk the very same path, i.e. towards the liberation of the Bantu people living here amongst us.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am sorry, Sir; I only have ten minutes in which to speak. We want to create here exactly the same situation that was created in Africa, and after we have created that situation here we say that we would be very sorry if, after liberation, they showed an inclination towards communism, but that we would simply have to accept it.

Why do you not move an amendment if you are so much opposed to us?

Sir, we do not want to move an amendment. No one is more in favour of the combating of communism in Africa than this side of the House. The proof of that is that this side of the House is indicating to the Government in what respect its policy is dangerous and how it can take better action against communism. No one can argue against the fact that if the Government did not do what it is doing in terms of its ideological policy, one would not have the same dangers from communism in this country. Sir, we on this side are against communism, and this is incorporated in the policy of this Party. Every citizen of this country would like to see the situation under better control and would like to see us able to depend upon the loyalty of every citizen. It is because we want the loyalty of our people and because we want to combat communism more vigorously than the Government is doing, specifically because it has incorporated this disastrous element into its policy, that it is very easy for us to support this motion more strongly than any member opposite; we can do so because it is incorporated in our policy.

Sir, it is a long time since I have heard as much nonsense as I have just heard. The hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, makes the accusation that we on this side of the House are disenfranchising the Bantu. He says that we must give them full citizenship rights. I want to ask him: What citizenship rights do he and his party want to give the Bantu? Do they also want to give full franchise to the Bantu? Does he join the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who said—

Sir, hon. members on that side said initially that they were not going to vote against this motion, but they are speaking out against it. Here in my hand I have a letter the hon. member for Yeoville wrote under the heading “The Red Peril”. He states here—

They say that we are imagining the dangers of communism in Southern Africa. The hon. member then goes further and says, in connection with the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence’s warning to South Africa against the communists—

And then they say they are on our side in wanting to make people aware of the danger of communism. But he goes further; he states—

Sir, hon. members opposite speak here in the House and then say things outside …

About which they ought to be ashamed.

… about which they ought to be ashamed. Sir, here I have an extract from a document written by the Russian Academy of Science. The title of that document is “The Political Parties of Africa”, and I want to quote it as a comfort to the hon. member for Durban Point, because what does this academy of science of the Russian Government state? It states (translation)—

And then these significant words—

That is what they are striving for. They want to break the National Party, and even the Russians tell them that the National Party is the only party that is a bastion against communism in Southern Africa.

While I was listening to speakers in this debate, the words of the late Adv. Eric Louw came to me and I went and wrote them down. He said this in 1961—

And we know how this earlier leader in South Africa fought there in foreign parts to state our case. He said he had evidence that people from South Africa had already beseeched Russia for military interference in South Africa. Communism does not only want to have possession of the country. At present they are active in Southern Africa, as another writer expressed it, “to shape or warp minds, to touch or taint hearts, to douse and emploit emotions”. Do you know, Sir, that Russia and China jointly broadcast to Africa for 2 500 hours a week to flood the minds of the inhabitants of Africa with communism, to penetrate their hearts—Do you know that the Russian communist propaganda machine has spent R1 428 million per year in the past five years on propaganda in Africa via the radio, books and magazines, etc.? Here in my hand I have a book. I do not know how it entered South Africa. It is a book about the North Korean communist leader, in which he rails at imperialism. It states, inter alia—

You know, we of the Western world are “imperialists”, according to them—

Sir, I tell you we have the evidence of a man, the previous vice-president of America, Mr. David Newsom, who said after he had toured in Africa, that he had summed up the situation and observed three ideals in Africa, i.e. “isolation, economic measures and the use of military force”. And then there are many writers we could quote who say that there is one goal these people pursue, i.e. to overthrow the South African Government and, in their own words, “to replace it by communist or popular front type régimes”. Sir, let us rather ask the world at large, instead of telling each other, or instead of the Opposition telling us we are not doing our duty, what do the communists aim at? In Southern Africa they aim, inter alia, at jeopardizing the Cabora-Bassa scheme and the Kunene scheme, two schemes costing more than R600 million, schemes where more than 5 million acres of land and industries can develop and be established. We struggle against the Frelimo danger that wants to create a second Vietnam in South Africa. We are striving to keep the communist danger out of Africa, a danger which would again make our continent a dark Africa, politically speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I am told my time is up. I say to you that we have a great word of thanks for this Government and the hon. the Minister of Defence for the competent, timely and vigorous action they are taking to safeguard us in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I really want to try my best to come back to the motion. I do not want to react to what the hon. member said at the end of his speech. There is not much to find fault with there. But I do want to react to what he said in the beginning, i.e. that even the communists are now saying that the National Party is the only bastion against communism in South Africa. I fear the National Party and hon. members opposite are now making the same mistake Pres. Nixon almost made. It was clear, when they began with the politicking during the presidential elections, that Pres. Nixon had tried to smear the Democratic Party, and his opponents, by saying that by their actions they were in favour of, and actually the cause of, the licence, lawlessness and infiltration that took place in America. He had to drop that very quickly because he found that the people immediately turned against him. I know that hon. members opposite will possibly not stop carrying on in that manner because I do not believe they have the insight to know when the people are turning against them. I do not believe that the people are interested at all in those trash and smear stories of theirs.

The hon. member’s motion states that this House expresses its concern about the increasing infiltration of communism into Southern Africa, etc. That is all true, and we do have reason for concern. By way of many examples and many arguments several hon. members indicated to us this afternoon that Russia and China are both very interested in South Africa. If I must mention a point of criticism on the motion as such it would only be that the motion is limited to the concern about the infiltration in Southern Africa. Yet it is very clear, inter alia, from what the hon. the Minister said that the infiltration is not only taking place in Southern Africa, but throughout the whole of Africa. Our concern should therefore extend to the infiltration anywhere in Africa, because our lot is involved in that of the whole of Africa. Any infiltration into Africa is therefore reason for our concern.

The communists also know that Southern Africa, particularly the Republic, will be the most difficult part for them to conquer. And I think that is consequently the only reason why we are receiving special attention at this stage. That is why I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister said, i.e. that we are only an outpost in a world-wide struggle.

I recently met a person who had, up to five years ago, lived in Hong Kong. He told me that the Chinese communist youth spoke openly there about their strategy in Africa. Hon. members must remember that these things were said five years ago. They said that as communists they must try to get a country in Central Africa for them to take over, through their influence and help. They were to try and draw a belt from West to East Africa and obtain a harbour on each side of the coast. That was before Tanzania and all the other countries came into the picture. From what they said then, it is very clear that this is their policy exactly, and that is precisely what they are doing. They thus began in Tanzania, where they already have a harbour on the East coast of Africa. Now they are shifting to Zambia, and it appears to me as if the next point will be Zaire. If they capture Zaire they have their strip across Africa. Their tactics then will be to infiltrate further to the South and the North from this mid-base, i.e. the belt they have drawn across the middle of Africa. We therefore have enough reason for concern.

And yet I want to assure the hon. member for Middelburg that if it merely remains a matter of concern, it would be of no use to us. In this House we can pilot through motions about our concern and speak about the seriousness of the situation until we are blue in the face. This would not delay the attack on us one second. It would not reduce the danger one little bit. The hon. member for Middelburg quoted a tremendous number of facts to indicate to us the degree of our suggested concern; but that is merely basic. The important question is what possible steps can be taken for the prevention and combatting of this danger. That is what is important, not the fact that we are concerned, because that we have been for along time. Regarded from that point of view the question arises as to what we are going to do to combat it and what our actions in this connection are going to be. In this we unfortunately received no guidance from the hon. member or the Minister.

What do you suggest?

I am going to make a few suggestions to the hon. member. We have sent troops to the border, but that alone cannot be the solution; that is only the minimum we can do to check the real physical infiltration. I believe that there are several other channels of action that are open to us and must be properly investigated. Hon. members on this side of the House have already mentioned several measures for the consolidation of our internal security and in connection with the actions of the people. However, I also want to say that the firmer our foreign relations are, the stronger we stand against the aggressors. Therefore the outgoing policy of the hon. the Prime Minister is indeed a good one; but one would like to see it implemented more dynamically at present. At the moment we see nothing more happening. The hon. the Prime Minister said he was ready for dialogue, but as far as one can see nothing more is taking place as far as the dialogue is concerned.

I venture to say that we shall always be able to handle terrorist activities that are taking place on our borders, as they are at present, provided we do everything to consolidate our internal position. If an internal guerilla war takes place, i.e. a war with the support of the internal population, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to combat such a war. We must therefore always retain the support of our internal population. That is very clear. In Spain even Napoleon could not overcome that internal guerrilla warfare. As a result of that consolidation we shall be moving on a firm foundation.

However, we must guard against an escalation of the struggle and lake precautions against that, and in this connection particularly with respect to Peking. When its position in Africa is consolidated in terms of its stated policy and it feels itself to be on a firm foundation, a more direct confrontation could—I do not say will—develop between Peking and other Africa states, particularly ourselves. In this connection we must bear in mind that Peking is now a nuclear power. Other nuclear powers are very wary of escalation in such a case. We saw what happened in Korea and Vietnam: that where America, openly intervened, they were reluctant and in reality did not come openly to the assistance of their allies in North Korea and North Vietnam. That is because these nations, as the hon. the Minister also said, are afraid of a nuclear war escalation. The same could happen here if Peking takes open action against us, i.e. that the other nations of the West, which are well-disposed to us, would possibly not openly and positively hasten to our aid in the light of possible escalation. We have only one way out. We must make an open confrontation extremely unattractive to Peking. Such a confrontation must be too costly and impossible for Peking.

†Such a state of affairs can be ensured by strengthening and improving our own arsenal, but especially through collective security. Here we have what I feel is a very great opportunity to take the initiative in canvassing for an organization for the collective security of all the anti-communist states in the Southern Hemisphere. We need to create and protect a southern polarity.

After the Second World War the old policy of the status quo was impossible to maintain and an East-West polarity ensued with a built-in balance of power. Actually it was not a balance of power as much as a balance of fear, because of the ultimate weapon, nuclear power, which both possessed. Even if parity does not exist between the two polarities, there is still the mutual fear of second-strike capability which ensures peace to the greatest extent, because of this balance of fear. On the other hand I believe that the term “East-West polarity” is actually a misnomer, since in both cases all the power overbalanced into the Northern Hemisphere. This left the Southern Hemisphere virtually unprotected and almost fair game, as it were. I believe that we need to call upon all nations of the Southern Hemisphere that are anti-communistic to stand together and to take action for our collective security, to create a southern-hemispherical polarity of power to balance the monopoly of power in the Northern Hemisphere. I believe that we in South Africa at this stage are in a unique position to take the initiative today, and every thought in this direction should be welcomed and encouraged to the greatest extent. I believe that it is in the collective security of such an organization that we will be able to get the sort of power together on our side which will have the necessary deterrent effect towards any aggressor, whether it wishes to aggress in South Africa or in any part of Africa.

As I have said, it is obvious that acts of terrorism on our borders as such can be contained. I believe that we have the necessary moral strength, arms, equipment, knowledge and know-how to contain any such aggression. Our greatest problem lies in an escalation and in an open confrontation. I do not believe that there is any possibility of this now, but that is why we must prepare now, because we need time, and time is on our side at this stage. But we must now decide what steps must be taken and can be taken for any possibility. We must try and keep all possibilities in mind in future, and we must try to see what steps can be taken and take them while we still have the time, while we still have our options open. I believe that in collective security lies our only salvation for the future.

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—

Firstly, I would like to give the House a definition of what abortion is. The law applicable to abortion in South Africa is set out in South African Criminal Law and Procedure, Gardiner Stansdown, Volume II, as follows—

There is comment on this definition, and this comment can be found particularly on page 308 of the same volume. In South Africa there is no specific Act dealing with abortion. In our country abortion is dealt with as a crime against a person or potential person. The prohibitions regarding abortion have in the main been based on religious beliefs, particularly on the sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”. From time immemorial abortion has been a problem and is dealt with in the Hippocratic Oath. Medical opinion has, however, never been considered, until recently, in the drawing up of legislation dealing with abortions. It is not my intention to argue the case for or against religious beliefs, religious instruction or the religious faith of a person. Any change in law must on no account interfere with the religious beliefs of any individual. If the law is changed and if abortion is considered by this House to be less than totally prohibitive, the person who has deep religious beliefs will have the option to adhere to his religious beliefs or to take the opportunity that is offered by any change in the law.

Prohibitions can be very stringent and can cause great hardship. It is felt that the hardships which can be brought about by this prohibition should be aired. The famous gynaecologist Alec Bourne informed the authorities in England in 1937 that he was going to procure an abortion on a girl of 13 who had been raped by some soldiers. Following on this operation, he was arrested and tried. He was tried by Justice MacLachlan and found not guilty and discharged. But Justice MacLachlan posed another question. He said that if a doctor refuses to perform the operation when it is necessary to save the mother’s life and in consequence she dies, the doctor could then be convicted of manslaughter. This was the problem.

In most countries, certainly not in all, some degree of break-away from this strong prohibition now exists. I will give the House some of the changes that have taken place in various countries, so that we can see how the thoughts on abortion are changing. There is absolute prohibition in Belgium and Ireland. If there is a threat to a woman’s life, abortion is allowed in Albania, Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. On medical grounds it is allowed in France, the German Federal Republic, and Switzerland. On medical, eugenic and/or humanitarian grounds it is allowed in the German Democratic Republic, Greece and Rumania. For medical social and eugenic reasons it is allowed in Great Britain. For medical social, eugenic and humanitarian reasons it is allowed in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden; where social grounds as well as the above are found as a contributory reason for abortion it is allowed in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia. On request, or as they call it now “on demand”, it is allowed in Bulgaria, Hungary, the USSR, New York State, Washington State, Hawaii, Alaska and also in Japan and Hong Kong. The changing attitudes of persons concerned in studying this problem is illustrated by an investigation that has been conducted through the Society of Clinical Psychiatrists. This society sent out a questionnaire to all its members throughout the world. This was done in 1967 and repeated in 1971. They asked certain questions, e.g. whether they were in favour of free choice,

“on demand”, if a woman comes during the first three months of pregnancy. The second question they posed was if a woman’s life or health was seriously threatened, plus other social and economic circumstances. The third question was termination for health or life reasons only without any other circumstances being taken into consideration. Lastly, complete prohibition. To illustrate the changing attitude of the people, we notice that in 1967 24 per cent of the people voted in favour of abortion on demand. In 1971, four years later, this figure had risen to 42 per cent. Termination, if the mother’s life or health is seriously threatened—56 per cent in 1967. This percentage fell to 49 per cent in 1971.

Where was this survey done?

The survey was done by this organization at the headquarters in England, but the members who were asked to participate were members who were practising throughout the world. In the third case 16 per cent were for termination for health reasons in 1967. This figure dropped to 7,25 per cent in 1971. Lastly, 4 per cent were in favour of total prohibition in 1967 as against 1,5 per cent in 1971. It is quite clear therefore that there is an increasing feeling amongst psychiatrists throughout the world that abortion should be allowed in the first three months of pregnancy. That does not mean to say that I agree with this. But I want to illustrate to the House that there is a change of thought about what was once totally prohibited. There is now a greater liberalism in thought in this regard. We have recently been made aware in this country of the problem that abortion poses in South Africa, by the facts and findings of a case that recently took place in the Transvaal where a doctor was charged with procuring an abortion on a child who was raped by her brothers. The family history was one of mental retardedness throughout. The doctor performed the abortion in good faith. He was acquitted of the charge against him. We feel this was done on therapeutic grounds. Therapeutic grounds in this case meant not only danger to the mother, not only the bringing into the world of an unwanted child, but also the danger that a child might be brought into the world who would mentally be so retarded that it would be unable to fend for itself at any time and hence become a burden on the State. The State apparently is not satisfied with the findings. I understand that there will be an appeal. In any event, it brings to light the difficulties with which we are faced when even one or more doctors suggest in good faith that it is dangerous for a woman or unreasonably risky for a woman to have a child. When they recommend that such a woman’s pregnancy be ended, the doctor who does the operation may still be charged.

What do we find? Let us consider the position as we who are in the profession know it. When a woman falls pregnant we consider whether there are any abnormal circumstances associated with the pregnancy. We think about her and any concurrent illnesses she may be suffering from at the time of her pregnancy. What do we do if a woman is suffering for instance from incurable cancer and falls pregnant? What do we do when she is seriously mentally deranged and falls pregnant? What do we do when her heart and kidneys are so affected that continuance of her pregnancy may cause her death? What do we do when there is such mental stress that the woman herself may attempt to commit suicide if abortion is not done? What do we do when there is a risk of permanent damage to the woman, often inflicted by herself in an attempt to procure an abortion on herself for one reason or another? We know that such a woman attempts that abortion in the full knowledge that she may permanently damage herself, that she will certainly attempt, perhaps successfully or not, to kill the child that she does not want. Lastly, she is prepared to take the risk of dying in the attempt to procure the abortion. There are figures which show that in Johannesburg from the year 1959 to 1964 there were 302 deaths from abortion. This is a large number of people that have died as a result of this. We know what has been happening lately. Very few women are not aware of the risks that they take when they fall pregnant and wish to continue the pregnancy. They know full well that they may bring into the world a child who may be permanently deformed, physically or mentally. This could happen, if a woman took or was given certain drugs, especially those in the tranquillizer group. We know the case of the thalidomides and the results of that. A woman may become infected with a virus such as German measles. A woman may have to be X-rayed for one reason or another, knowing that the baby may be affected by the X-rays. Are we going to stand by and let these children come into the world? Are we going to stand by and let these mothers live under all that stress and strain because abortion is prohibited? Whatever article you read today which deals with such a subject, most plead that the women who fall pregnant at such a time should be relieved of the anxiety of continued pregnancy. There is chapter and verse to tell us what permanent damage is being done to these women. Besides that, is it fair to bring such children into the world, children born deaf, blind, dumb, without arms, without legs? I say to the hon. the Minister that he, with the knowledge that he possesses, with the information in his hands, must consider favourably what I am asking for. I am not taking sides in this matter at this stage. I am only putting the facts before the House. It is not only for me to know what is happening, but those people who are interested in the present state of affairs, especially those in this House where the laws are made and where laws are changed, should also be given an opportunity of hearing from the experts what their views are. After they have heard the evidence and weighed it, they must come to the Minister and say to him: “We think the time has come for a change. What can you do to help?”

In England there is a law which deals specifically with abortion. It was adopted in 1967. Before I come to that, I want to tell the House that I do not think a change in the law of this country will lower the number of abortions that are being carried out. However, what I do know is that if therapeutic abortion is allowed and is as clearly stated as in this Act to which I have referred, then, I know, a number of mothers will live who might easily have died through an illegal abortion. I know that far fewer crippled children, deformed mentally and physically, will be brought into the world.

That is what I am asking for.

In Britain the relevant provision reads—

1. (a) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of injury to the physical or the mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
2. (b) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

At the moment 30 million abortions are done per year.

That we know of.

Yes, those that we know of.

I will not bore the House with further statistics. We all know about the incidence of abortion and can read about it for ourselves. What I want to say again is that where we have these special cases such as I have enumerated and where children have been raped and are pregnant or where children have become pregnant through incest, surely they must be helped. Can we stand by and allow these people to have their children? The other extreme is abortion on demand where, for any reason, women want to do away with their babies. I think that that is just as bad as preventing a woman from having an abortion on therapeutic grounds. I want to say to the House that it is not my intention to suggest —and I am sure that everyone will agree with me—that abortion should become an alternative to contraception. Abortion must not become the means of controlling the population explosion. If that were to be a reason for abortion, we might as well go again to the other extreme of increasing the death rate because there are too many people in the world. That I do not believe in. The fact that more and more people are using up more and more of the earth’s resources is not a reason for legalizing abortion. That is a problem for people who are dealing with the population explosion and it is up to them to find ways and means of educating the population of how best to plan a family.

I have said that I do not think legalizing abortion here for some reason or another is going to lower the incidence of abortion.

It will not bring down the figures. However, I do feel, as I have said a moment ago, that it is time for this House to hear the opinion of religious bodies on this matter. I think it is time for this House to hear the opinion of the medical profession. I would particularly like to hear how the legal people feel about it. I want to hear also what the women’s organizations have to say. I want to hear the opinion of the ordinary man in the street. For those reasons I move my motion.

Mr. Speaker, the literature on the pros and cons of therapeutic abortion must by now virtually fill an average-sized library. Every expert in every field has had his say— some by invitation, some unasked. Each and every one has had his say and yet we are no nearer to a solution. The legal experts have put their case. The obstetricians and gynaecologists have held numerous conferences. Even the World Medical Association has on many occasions discussed this very same matter. In 1970 the World Medical Association issued a directive, called the Declaration of Oslo. Even that is only a directive and the problem has not been solved. The churches and the humanists have from time to time raised their voices, but to no avail. In some countries the laws against abortion have been abolished. In other countries they have been relaxed and in yet other countries laws against abortion have been steadfastly retained. In these countries all abortions are illegal. The protagonists of therapeutic abortion have made use of the available statistics to try to prove their case. The antagonists on the other hand have made use of the same statistics to try to prove their case, to try to convince people that the moves and laws can never be relaxed or even slightly relaxed. The only fact that seems certain is the law, that law which the hon. member proposes should be examined. The law at present does not reflect the opinion of the public, as he has proved by his statistics. I am sure that it does not reflect the average opinion of the medical fraternity in South Africa. It must be agreed that the law as it stands today sometimes puts the doctor who handles a case in a most unenviable position, a position where he is almost forced to break the law in following approved medical principles. Why then, when it comes to thearapeutic abortion, do we seem to be stymied? Where are we going and what is the answer?

*In order to analyse this problem fundamentally, one has to consider it from three points of view. In the first place there is the religious point of view, in the second place the scientific point of view, and in the third place there is what I want to call the humanist point of view. Under the humanist point of view I include the sociological, the socio-economic and the economic points of view. As far as the religious aspect of the matter is concerned, this is perhaps the easiest aspect of all. Almost all religions accept that man’s soul develops at one stage or another and that it has a continued existence in the hereafter. It does not matter whether the religions differ from one another, this fact is accepted and it would serve no purpose to argue about these particulars. The scientific problem is also easy. Medicine has developed to such an extent that they can now determine whether problems may under certain circumstances arise for the mother and other circumstances for the child. Consequently they can even take these various symptoms, send them through a computer, and the answer will come out on the other side. In the third place there is the viewpoint of the humanists. They can discuss what is in the interests of humanity; they can discuss what is in the interests of that person, and they can even consider the economic factors which are involved. In this way some of them have calculated that if a baby is born from a mother who had German measles, he will at the age of 20 have cost the State approximately R76 000 because of two cataract operations, an open heart operation and a bilateral hernia operation which he will have had to undergo. Even calculations of this nature have been made. That is why I say that the problem can be approached from all these different angles. If we had been able to see each of these scientific, religious and humanist problems separately, the problem would have been easily solved, but our problem lies in the fact that every person, every individual, every doctor himself harbours within his own mind, within his innermost thoughts, more than one of these elements, so that he really unleashes a conflict within himself. The church may be dogmatic and say that life may never be destroyed, but I belive that the more intelligent members of the church—they may not include the minister—cannot ignore science completely. As far as the scientists are concerned, I do not believe that you will find in South Africa that a doctor will get up at a congress and say: “Let us forget all these fairy tales of the life hereafter and concentrate on scientific facts.” There may be one here and there who feels this way, but I believe that he would in any case be unable to convince the great majority of other people. That is our problem. Almost the same can be said of the humanist. He can argue about all these problems from an economic point of view; he can argue about them from a sociological point of view; he can argue about them from the point of view of a population explosion, and let me say at once that I cannot but agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville one hundred per cent. The plan adopted by the Japanese in legalizing abortion on demand for the purpose of trying to prevent a population explosion in this way, so much so that one or more abortions are performed for every living child born in Japan today, has in any case, not solved their problem of population explosion. But I think these are two things that have to be separated from each other. Even that humanist cannot get away from the idea within himself that there is another side to this matter. Hence this real problem, this threefold problem the various parts of which we cannot consider separately, that within the being of every person there is this conflict which he first has to solve for himself, and if he cannot solve this problem for himself, then you can understand, Sir, how difficult he will find it to persuade outsiders to accept his point of view.

Sir, I am not going to try to suggest a solution here. I think that would be unfair; I do not think I should be competent to do so at this stage either. I can tell you my point of view. But Ï am going to leave it at that. Sir, I should like to leave it to my colleagues on this side of the House to continue the discussion of this matter.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious from what the hon. member for Fauresmith has said that he believes, too, that the time has come when this whole matter should be the subect of investigation, and I want to associate myself with the motion put forward in the name of the hon. member for Rosettenville. I believe that he has made an excellent case this afternoon for the favourable consideration of the Minister.

I believe that when one considers a subject of this nature, it is desirable to bear in mind at least four factors. I believe firstly that one must examine as far as possible the present position, and take into consideration facts and statistics where they are known and where they exist; secondly, that one has to deal with the trend in other countries (and this, I believe, has been adequately covered by the hon. member for Rosettenville) thirdly that one has to consider the attitude of the professions, and particularly of the medical profession which has such a vital part to play in a matter of this nature, the attitude of the churches, of social welfare services, of various bodies, associations and individuals, I believe, fourthly, that one cannot ignore the effects of abortion on the population explosion. Before I deal with these in the limited time at my disposal, I would like to look back to man’s wrestling with the problem of abortion which goes back to the pre-Christian era, centuries before the birth of Christ. We have in recorded history the Hippocrates collection and the Hippocratic oath which saw the light of day in the fourth century B.C., and I wish to quote just one sentence from the oath of those days. This is what it says—

I believe, Sir, it is fitting in these modem times to pay tribute to the medical profession because I believe that they have adopted a responsible and cautious attitude to any suggested changes in legislation affecting abortion. As a pharmacist I can claim to have some knowledge of the tragedies and the mishaps which have occurred through the abuse and misuse of alleged nostrums which in themselves are available from day to day under normal circumstances, but which are abused in the hope of procuring an abortion through these means. I also have some knowledge of the back-alley untrained abortionists and the evil which they perpetrate against society.

I want to come back, Sir, to certain facts and statistics because I believe they have a bearing on the request which my colleague has made to the Minister. I have selected my facts, as far as possible, from a world-wide publication which could be regarded as an authoritative work of reference in most spheres. It is estimated that from 10 to 20 per cent of all pregnancies terminate as abortions, but it is also interesting to note the claim that is made that the frequency of therapeutic abortions is decreasing rapidly with the advances of medical knowledge and with the improvement in medical treatment. But, Sir, when it comes to the question of illegal abortion or induced abortion, it is a question of using estimates. I am told that in the mid-fifties in the United States of America the figure for illegal abortions carried out annually ranged between 500 000 and 700 000. One also reads that in Japan, where induced abortion is practised, the number of induced abortions in the mid-fifties was reported to be approaching 2 million and also that sterilization of women was on the increase. It is interesting to travel west a little, to Europe, and to consider the position in Rumania, where abortions were permitted on demand. The position was that for several years the Rumanian birthrate, as a result of this, claimed the signal distinction of being the lowest in the world, and the authorities in their concern, did away with this form of abortion. As a result the birth-rate more or less doubled, although it was considered, in all fairness, that this increase may not have been of a permanent nature. Sir, we have other facts and other estimates. We are told that in Italy, for example, the annual figure for abortions approaches 1,5 million. My colleague, the hon. member for Rosettenville, has dealt with various aspects of legislation concerning abortion and it is interesting to see that many countries have over the years reconsidered their attitude and that there has been reform and relaxation to a certain extent in the conditions which apply to what is known as therapeutic abortion. Although reference has been made to the factors which entitle the performance of therapeutic abortion, I feel it fitting to refer to them again to make it quite clear to this House what is implied by therapeutic abortion.

Firstly it is permissible when there is danger to the life and health, both physical or mental, of the mother; secondly, when there is a substantial risk that a child may be born with abnormalities which could cause a serious handicap: thirdly, if a mother’s capacity is seriously taxed by the care of the coming child or of other children; and, fourthly, in the case of a pregnant woman who is either mentally defective, under the age of sixteen, or who is pregnant as the result of rape.

Reference has been made to the question of religion and the churches attitudes and it is quite apparent that there has been a great deal of soul-searching and rethinking in so far as many of the churches are concerned. The information which I quote is by no means exhaustive, but I wish to refer to some of the churches in other lands to give some indication of the trend of thinking in this direction.

Let us take for example Canada. The General Council of the United Church of Canada decided in 1966 to approve therapeutic abortion, but it laid down specified safeguards in giving that approval. Then we have the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. At the church’s triennial convention in 1967, approval was given for the removal of legal restrictions against therapeutic abortion in cases of rape and incest. Then in contrast in 1968, in so far as the Roman Catholic faith was concerned, we had a statement by Pope Paul VI in which he announced the banning of abortion and of direct sterilization of either sex but in the same year we had the American Baptist Convention adopting a resolution which reads as follows—

According to my information, in so far as the Jewish faith in America is concerned, we find that the American Rabbinate was divided on the U.S. Abortion Laws. The Orthodox section regarded abortion as sinful, whereas the conservative and reformed congregations maintained that the decision should really be in accordance with the dictates of the conscience of the parents.

When we come to consider these various aspects—and all of them need very serious consideration—I believe we can come to some conclusions. The facts reveal that there is generally a trend towards reform; that in so far as the churches are concerned, and the medical profession is concerned, the steps in this direction are cautious, well-directed and slow. But I believe that some of the factors amongst many others which could influence this concern could be cited as follows: Firstly, there is the question of the population explosion, a matter which is of growing concern to all nations on this planet. Then there is an increase in the incidence of illegitimate births, and I believe too that the more permissive approach to sex is an aspect which cannot be ignored.

Then, from a medical aspect, there is, too, a development in regard to a drug which appears to a large extent to have overcome many of the hazards of therapeutic abortion. I am referring to the report on the intravenous infusion of Prostaglandin— which I believe can be conducted without risk to the patient and in cases, where necessary, with reliable and satisfactory results. So when we consider all these facets and aspects I believe that the time has come for us in South Africa to ask the State to carry out an investigation to consider the modern developments and trends and to take cognizance of the opinions expressed and I believe that this request can be well achieved by this motion of the hon. member for Rosettenville. I fully support it and I draw the attention of the House to the opinion expressed by the hon. the Prime Minister last week in a previous debate when he was at pains to emphasize the responsible task which lay before select committees of this hon. House. I have much pleasure in supporting the motion of my hon. colleague.

Right at the outset I want to express my appreciation of the responsible spirit evinced here in the discussion of this motion. Sir, we are dealing here with a very delicate subject, a subject touching on many moral aspects of our lives. That is why it behoves us as representatives in this House to approach this matter in a very serious light.

The hon. member for Rosettenville indicated in his speech that since the Second World War new laws regarding the regulation of abortion have appeared on the Statute Books of many countries of the world as a result of a moral revolution and the winds of permissivity blowing throughout the world. Almost without exception all those laws, or most of them, had the effect of liberalizing existing laws which were for the most part of a restrictive nature. Laws were made which had the effect of making abortions far more freely available to people. The effect of many of those laws was to lift all restrictions, as happened in Japan and in certain states of the U.S.A., for example. In many countries the laws were drawn up in such a way that although they were to a certain extent restrictive the provisions of those laws were stated so widely that there was almost no question of restrictions. The hon. member for Rosettenville read out to us the law as placed on the Statute Book in England in 1967, and it was clear from that, when one makes a study of that law, that one could rather speak of regulation of abortions through medical ethics than through statutory provisions. This consequently led to an almost tenfold increase in abortions in England during the last few years. Now, it is not strange that we in South Africa, under these circumstances, also feel ourselves called upon to see what the situation is regarding abortion in this country.

We have no statutory provision or any statutory measure which legalizes any form of abortion. Therefore it is time we had a look at the situation in our country. The spotlight should also fall on what we ought to do in this respect. It is not strange that several symposiums have already been held since 1965, for the most part arranged by medical practitioners, to focus attention on this matter. Although there were calls at these symposiums for the liberalization of our attitude towards abortion, one feels very grateful that the papers delivered at the symposiums testified for the most part to a scientific approach and to the maintenance of high ethical and moral norms, and generally speaking there was no question of the liberalization of our abortion laws.

The question of abortion may be approached from two specific angles or points of view, on the one hand the conservative standpoint or the purely moralistic standpoint, that any form of abortion whatever its nature and for whatever reason, is illegal and wrong and should therefore not be condoned or allowed. Far to the left of this we find the other standpoint, the ultraliberal standpoint that a person should be free to carry out or to undergo an abortion at will. In other words, when a woman, whether she is married or not, falls pregnant she must have the right to undergo an abortion. The choice must be hers and hers alone. The facilities must be readily available. What it really amounts to is that she is entitled to this facility of abortion. That is more or less the situation in Japan today. I do not think that either of these two extreme standpoints is correct or valid. To my mind it is a serious question whether either one of these two divergent standpoints is in any way justified or morally justifiable. It would be a bad day if we, in our evaluation of the merits of abortion legislation, allowed ourselves to be lead by the permissivity of the times and if we allowed ourselves to be dragged along by the powers of evil which are the cause of the moral revolution. Similarly we would be shamefully neglecting our duty if we simply shrugged our shoulders and said that abortion was evil and left it at that. Too many Christian considerations, ethical principles and moral considerations are at stake simply to dismiss the matter with a shrug of the shoulder. I believe therefore that the balanced view, the standpoint which will stand the test of high Christian standards and principles, one which is justifiable on moral grounds and one which will comply with the high ethical norms of the medical profession, most probably lies somewhere between the two extremes I have referred to.

We must not allow the emphasis to fall on the number of abortions which are being performed, legally or illegally, today. The Government of a country can never compromise with what is wrong and remedy it by introducing legislation to condone it. It would in my opinion be a very bad mistake, and certainly not the course we ought to adopt. In our merit evaluation of abortion we must clearly realize, as the Kerkbode of 4th August, 1971, stated it, that we are with this venturing into the realm of medical and Christian ethics, a realm where it is essential that the Scriptural principles and religious convictions should be thoroughly explored, clearly understood and honestly applied. The same leading article in the Kerkbode goes on to state (translation)—

As has already been said, South Africa has no statutory provision which legalizes abortion. In an article which appeared in the Medical Journal of 20th July, 1968, Prof. Strauss states the situation as follows—

Provision in regard to illegal abortion does in fact exist in our law, as has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Rosettenville. There is therefore no general rule. Every case of therapeutic abortion must therefore be dealt with on its own merits. Gardiner and Lansdowne state it thus—

But unfortunately it is not as simple as that. Therapeutic abortion is sometimes indicated not only in cases of pregnancy where the life of the mother is threatened, but often, too, in cases where the pregnancy could give rise to serious physical or mental complications and permanent damage. As the law reads at present the medical practitioners who perform an abortion under these circumstances run the risk of criminal prosecution, however ethically defendable his action may have been. It is also clear that no provision is made for therapeutic abortion in cases where there is a real danger that the foetus will at birth be seriously deformed or will have a mental deficiency. These cases occur where pregnant mothers contract german measles in the first trimester of pregnancy. In general it can therefore be said that therapeutic abortion is almost in every case a potential crime and is regarded as such by our law. Because this is the situation our medical practitioners frequently find themselves in a very serious dilemma. They are often forced, as a result of the circumstances, to compromise with their conscience. To any rightminded and conservative medical practitioner the performance of an abortion is an extremely serious matter because he, more than anyone else, is deeply aware of the wonder of God’s creation—life itself— and does not lightly want to put an end to any form of life. The conflict between the respect he has for life, God’s creation, and the interests of the mother frequently lead to soulrending situations for the medical practitioner. When this element of a possible crime also appears in the picture, the situation sometimes becomes unendurable for the medical practitioner.

The Government therefore has an important duty to regulate this matter of abortion by way of statute, in order to eliminate the present uncertainty. Medical practitioners are entitled to this protection which the law can offer them. But similarly women as well have the right to be protected by the law. For many women it is an emotional and physical disaster when her pregnancy has to be terminated for valid and ethical reasons. When, as is at present the case, the stigma of a possibly unlawful deed attaches to the operation, the position for them as well becomes unendurable.

In my opinion the Government has every right to lead us as members of the public and to indicate to us by way of legislation how far it is prepared to go in this matter. After all, the Government is also the guardian of the morals of the people. It is part of the duty of the Government to indicate to its supporters and fellow-citizens how far it wants to go in such an important matter. That is why I feel that a Select Committee, as requested by this motion, is not necessary at this stage. I want to concede that when the hon. the Minister comes forward with legislation in which he will indicate how far he is prepared to go in this matter, it will be time enough to refer such a Bill to a Select Committee to hear evidence from all the persons and bodies concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I shall take a line somewhat different from the line so far proposed in this House. The hon. member for Rosettenville has asked for a Select Committee of inquiry, and the hon. member for Cradock, who has just sat down, says he does not want a Select Committee. He wants the Government to come forward with legislation which could then be referred to a Select Committee. I think there is a case for an inquiry into this whole bristling question of abortion; but I would want the inquiry to be conducted by an independent judicial commission. Quite frankly, I do not believe that this House is capable of providing the cross-section of experts that I believe should sit on such a commission of inquiry. I believe even the doctors in this House are first and foremost politicians, and thereafter they are doctors.

What has this to do with politics?

This has a great deal to do with politics, because the Select Committee will consist of politicians, unfortunately. I might say that I am not alone in this point of view. The Transvaal leader of the United Party has also expressed himself in these terms. He says he wants a committee not consisting of politicians to examine this matter. He is on record as saying so in the newspapers. I want a commission of inquiry which would be an independent commission and would consist of doctors, gynaecologists and obstetricians mainly, of psychiatrists, of women who are qualified in those fields, quite obviously, of sociologists, also including women who are so trained, of representatives of women’s organizations and of the legal profession. I think this sort of commission of inquiry would be able to give a much more expert opinion on this whole thorny question of abortion.

But is that a judicial commission?

Yes, I want a judicial commission.

But is that one?

It could be headed by a judge. Good heavens, I know of commission after commission that was headed by a judge, but contained experts in other fields as well. I want an independent commission of inquiry.

The women on that commission are not to be politicians?

Yes, preferably. The women are not to be politicians. I am not keen for politicians of any kind or any sex to investigate this particular problem.

I believe it is necessary to have an inquiry. Incidentally, I want to say that I am talking today in my personal capacity as a private member. I am not expressing the view of my party and I hope that in this respect the debate is in fact non-party-political today. I am expressing my own personal opinion. I do not know if there is, and I do not believe there is, any official view on this matter as far as my party is concerned, and I have not canvassed any such view. I am prepared—and I take a different view again from the views expressed—to commit myself in favour of abortion in certain cases. The hon. member for Rosettenville said he was not prepared to commit himself. The hon. member for Berea also did not commit himself. The hon. member for Cradock went a little further and, speaking as a physician, said that he believed that it was time that the law was changed, although he did not tell us in what direction. He simply expressed the fears that I believe are held by most members of his profession, namely that they are in a constant dilemma over this matter, simply because there is no statutory law in South Africa which permits legal abortion, even where the life of the mother is at stake. It is true that in common law it is generally accepted that an abortion may be done in order to save the life of a mother.

Only.

Only in those cases, and that is only in common law. It has not reallly ever been properly tested in the courts of law, although legal authorities expect that this is probably the opinion which the courts would express. But again, even this particular question has different sides to it, as the hon. member pointed out. One does not know exactly how far the court’s interpretation would extend when it comes to the question of saving the life of a mother. The article by Prof. Strauss, to which the hon. member referred, goes very clearly into the vital question regarding the termination of pregnancy for therapeutic purposes, even under the common law. He mentions several possibilities: Must the mother’s life be in imminent and immediate danger? Is it sufficient to show that there is a reasonable possibility that the mother’s life expectancy would be substantially shortened? Would an abortion be justified on the grounds of preserving the life of the woman, or when it is performed in order to avert a serious threat of suicide? He mentions various other circumstances as well. Not even the common law as regards saving the woman’s life is really very clear in this respect. I want to say that I have thought this matter out for a long time and I have put several questions in this House to the hon. the Minister of Justice dating back to 1968, asking whether he would consider a change in the law on abortion. I asked him again in 1969. He told me that a committee was examining this, but we never heard the result of the deliberations of this departmental committee. Last year in the Justice Vote I asked the Minister whether his attention had been drawn to the resolutions of the Medical Association, and to those of the Van Wyk Commission which, although it did not have the question of abortions included in its terms of reference, nevertheless has, as the Minister of Health told us the other day, considered this question. I also asked whether he had considered the resolutions passed by the society of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians.

I have personally come to the conclusion that a prima facie case can certainly be made out for introducing laws in South Africa to permit legal abortion on certain specific grounds. I think that most people will agree with these grounds, except people who have really deep religious convictions about this. I certainly am the last person to criticize people for that. As the hon. member for Rosettenville rightly said, however, they would have the choice of rejecting the idea of an abortion if it happened either to affect themselves or a member of their family, and so would a doctor if, as a matter of conscience, he did not wish to perform an abortion under those circumstances. The British Law of 1968, which was introduced in 1967 as a private member’s Bill, actually made provision for the doctor who, if it is against his conscience, does not wish to perform an abortion. I think that abortion should be legalized in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or her physical or mental health will be affected by the continuation of the pregnancy. Secondly it should be allowed where there is a considerable danger that the unborn child, when born, will be seriously retarded mentally, or physically deformed, such as in the case of women who have contracted German measles during pregnancy. Thirdly, it should also be allowed where pregnancy is a result of rape. I think that these are three obvious oases and I myself have made up my mind on this score. Of course, we have had the Van Druten case, which was referred to and into which I cannot go in any detail now because I believe it is sub judice. This is very similar to the Bourne case in England which was mentioned by the hon. member and which eventually led to changes in the British law. It took something like 30 years before the British law was changed after the Bourne case. The judgment in the Bourne case, where the doctor was acquitted, simply served as a guideline for the courts of law meanwhile. I sincerely hope it is not going to take 30 years for the Van Druten case to lead to a change of law in South Africa. I hope it is going to be very much sooner than that.

Another party will be in power by then.

I think it is even possible that this Government may change the law long before then. I have mentioned the cases where I believe most people in this day and age would accept the legalizing of abortions. I am not going into the position in other countries. It ranges from abortion on demand in Japan, in New York and various other American states, to absolute prohibition. In fact, 13 states of America have now legalized abortion, or some aspects of abortion, in other words where the mother’s health, physical or mental, is in danger. Other countries are considering changing the law. Last year, when I was in West Germany one of the main political debating points—and it was a political point, may I assure the hon. member for Rosettenville—was the changing of paragraph 218 of the German Constitution which allows abortion only under very limited circumstances. There is a very heated debate about this going on in Germany at the very moment. All countries are facing these difficulties but, as I say, I have made up my mind and am certainly in favour of legalizing abortions in the cases that I have mentioned.

That does not deal with the really big problem however. It does not deal with the simple problem of the unwanted child. I would say that if one were to take the total number of abortions that are performed, one would find that the number of those that are performed in order to do away with the unwanted child are probably far in excess of those which are performed in the cases which I have mentioned, cases or pregnancies arising out of rape, cases where mothers have contracted German measles or where the mother’s physical or mental health is in danger. What do we do about those cases? This is a very difficult ethical and religious problem indeed. I think one cannot simply introduce an immediate change in the whole structure of the law in this country without a proper investigation. It is more particularly in the case of the unwanted child, where abortion is procured by a woman who does not want to continue the pregnancy, for reasons other than those I have given, that proper attention and investigation is required. Here I think we could well learn from the experience of other countries, because in Britain it has been found that the number of abortions has not gone down. In fact, it has gone up considerably. I think the latest available figure is 90 000 abortions per year in England.

No.

I have the figure here. This is as a result of legalizing abortions. These are legal abortions. I am not talking about illegal abortions. Nobody knows how many there are in Britain. Nobody knows the number of illegal abortions that are procured in South Africa. We do not have any idea. We only know that many women die as a result of illegal abortions which are either procured by measures taken by the woman herself or by these dangerous back-street abortions.

That will always happen.

These are the people that I am keen to obliterate from the social and medical scene in South Africa. I agree that in England there are still abortions performed illegally. No country has done away completely with illegal abortions by legalizing abortions under certain circumstances, for the simple reason that there are many women, such as those who are having illegitimate children or those who wish to do away with their children without their husbands knowing about it, who still prefer to go to a back-street abortionist and have an illegal abortion instead of going to a hospital and having it done under proper circumstances. By the way, it goes without saying that in the cases where I recommend that abortions be legalized it should of course be done by proper physicians, and there should possibly be two physicians who have made the decision. It should of course be done under proper circumstances in proper hospitals. I am not for simply allowing these abortions, even in the cases that I have mentioned, to be done under just any circumstances and by unqualified people.

You are not advocating abortion on demand or by request?

No. Please, I want to make that absolutely clear. I should like to have an enquiry into this whole question. I want to know how South Africa will cope with the question of back-street abortions, illegal abortions. We should examine the whole question of legalizing abortions under the circumstances I have mentioned, and perhaps in other circumstances as well. Here, as I say, we can learn from the experience of countries which have gone much further in-legalizing abortion than we have ever considered in South Africa. As I say, I support the idea of an enquiry. However, I want an independent commission headed by a judge and with experts serving on the commission from a wide spectrum of medical, legal and sociological experts, women’s organizations and women who are qualified in the fields that I have mentioned. Then I think we will get somewhere in this country and modernize the whole system. For the rest, as I say, I personally am in favour of legalizing abortions in the cases that I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, in her speech the hon. member for Houghton covered a far wider field than the wording of the motion under discussion. Consequently I cannot conclude that she necessarily supports every word of it. What I did conclude, is that she wants to legalize certain cases. In no country except Sweden and in certain states in America has it been the approach to legalize a set of cases. The approach in most countries, including Switzerland, Germany, and even England, has always been to retain the common law, viz. that abortion is a crime, that it is a crime against life, but that in the light of certain circumstances exceptions may be made. If the hon. member would look at the Abortion Act of 1967 of England, she would see that it begins as follows—

That implies that the common law has remained in force, but that in certain cases persons are then not guilty.

Yes.

That is the situation there. Hon. members made a comparative legal study of the situations in other countries. I do not want to come back to that now, but it is very interesting, for example, to consider the finding of Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits of the British Islands in which he interpreted the Talmudic Law as follows—

Therefore, to keep pace with the rest of the world, we must immediately note that, with a few exceptions where abortion may take place at request, as in Japan for example, the approach is to maintain the common law and to make an exception for certain cases. As I shall indicate, the legal approach has been to keep pace with developments in medical, psychiatric and other fields in the determination of these exceptions.

To understand the situation in South Africa we must touch on a few facts, and bear them in mind at all times. In the first place the religious premises of a specific legal community plays an exceptional role in the determination of the common law or the statute law. This applies to almost every law we make in this Parliament. This is to an even greater extent the case where it affects the propagation of a human being. Secondly, we must distinguish clearly between direct and indirect abortion. Indirect abortion has up to now in this debate been called “therapeutic abortion”. Opposed to it one has direct abortion. That happens when the foetus is destroyed for the sake of the foetus as such. To state it in elegant terms, what this entails is that the living foetus is removed or the undesirable pregnancy is terminated. This is a species of infanticide and we expect it from a permissive society.

Our old writers, for the purposes of punishment, distinguish between a foetus possessed of a soul and a foetus unpossessed of a soul, but I do not think that this is important now. What is important, is that indirect or therapeutic abortion takes place when the fact that the foetus or living foetus is destroyed, is a by-product. This was laid down as long ago as 1664 and it is still today the situation in our jurisprudence. What it amounts to thus is that our common law recognizes an exception when the mother’s life is in danger and an abortion is carried out on her. In that case no punishment is visited upon such a perpetrator. The perpetrator may be a second person or even the mother herself. Such an approach is therefore, according to our common law, based on a specific set of rules, and that set of rules is also known in virtually all legal systems, but specifically in Roman-Dutch Law and in English Law. In fact, their Abortion Act of 1967 is also based on it. That set of rules is known as the “law of necessity” rules. They fall into the same category as the case of a captain who has to jettison a cargo to save the lives of his passengers. This falls into the same category of grounds of justification for an offence where a policeman for example, acting on authority, were to shoot a person who was threatening the lives of others. The South African situation is thus that if the mother’s life can be saved an abortion may be justified.

These are then the legal principles as they are known at present. We must now ask whether they have remained static, and to that question we shall soon have to give thought. A great truth which we should bear in mind in regard to this problem, is that the common law is not static. The needs of a legal community develop as development takes place in the medical, technological and more specifically the psychiatric spheres. Public opinion requires and determines that the statute law be from time to time adjusted to this development in so far as the common law is concerned. The question before the House is therefore whether the practice and whether the public, the majority opinion in South Africa, has changed to such an extent that the common law as set out by Matthaeus in 1664, which allowed one exception, today recognizes further grounds for justification. In other words, are there, apart from the justification mentioned, further grounds for justification? If so, a second question is implied by the motion of the hon. member for Rosettenville, viz. whether these new grounds for justification should find expression in our statute law. To find an answer to the first question, we must consider the standpoint of the people who work with this matter every day, viz. the medical practitioners. As long ago as 1963 the South African Medical and Dental Council stated it as follows—and remember that they are entitled to impose certain ethical prescriptions on their members—

Here we have the facet of a threat to health, and we note immediately that it is an extention of the common law as it has been known up to now. We note at once that this standpoint implies further expansions, viz. considerations as to what the case would be if the mother, under specific circumstances, were to become mentally disordered, and what the case would be if her life were to be curtailed for only a few years. We note further that in all these years we have not yet had a decisive ruling, apart from the one in the Van Druten case, which is at present on appeal. Let me add in parentheses that in this case the late magistrate Van Wyk gave a ruling which in my opinion is a monumental one in regard to this issue. I think that it would be fitting in this connection to pay tribute to him. If we consult our writers who have to interpret our law, we find that men like Prof. Strauss, the expert in this field, Adv. Hunt, the new writer of Gardiner and Lansdown, all reach the conclusion that the Attorney-General would be loathe to prosecute in the cases I have mentioned. They also add by way of explanation that— “probably” and words like this are frequently used—if a conviction is obtained a heavy penalty should not be imposed. Hon. members will therefore see that there is a lack of clarity in a sphere which will give our friends who want to apply therapeutic abortion many problems. Then, too, I want to mention to hon. members that in Medical Jurisprudence, of Gordon, Turner and Price, the following is said—

These are the facts I mentioned a moment ago by way of summary to hon. members—

In reply to the questions we have put so far, our conclusion thus is that the development as far as our common law is concerned and as far as the exceptions are concerned, is such that grounds of justification for abortion are quite different to what they were in the common law of the time of Matthaeus, 1664. It is therefore desirable, for a variety of factors to lay down these exceptions in a statute. The result of such a step would be to bring shady practices—the problem with which my hon. friend from Houghton was confronted —to the surface. It will have the result that our churches can take over those cases which do come to the surface and rehabilitate them. This brings me to a very important point. As far as South Africa is concerned, such legislation must be guided by the standpoints of the Christian religion, and specifically the Protestant Christian standpoints because this has been written into our Constitution. I shall demonstrate in a moment to hon. members why this is important. These standpoints give recognition to indirect abortion solely when the removal of the foetus is a secondary factor. The primary factor is the saving of the mother’s life. This happens when an emergency arises, when there is a threat to the mother’s health and the foetus is then removed. In my opinion direct abortion— that is, where the foetus as such is removed and where the action is aimed directly at the foetus—in contrast to indirect abortion can only be justified in the cases mentioned by the hon. member for Fauresmith and the hon. member for Cradock. They placed such cases under the category of “pregnancies as a result of offences”. Only in that case can one consider this. I do not want to be dogmatic about this, and I therefore repeat that we can only apply this in the case of direct abortion. This would then be the reply to the problems people see in the so-called “abortion on request”. I return now to the religious standpoint. Our particular religious standpoint in this country places us in the position where we look at abortion from a specific point of view, as I have already sketched to hon. members. In Japan, for example, it is admitted that the foetus has no life. The view there is that a person only begins to live when the fully-developed foetus is separated from the mother. In that case there is no question of a foetus possessed of a soul; consequently it is not repugnant to their faith that they allow abortion at request; it is not contrary to the dictates of their conscience that they apply abortion for social reasons and because of over-population. Consequently I say that we in this country will find a completely different approach. Now I should just like to sound a word of warning, which is that when we approach this matter, and when we apply the English approach—in my opinion the obvious approach if we should ever apply it—we should introduce control measures and should learn from the English experience, so that what is being written about England will not be written about South Africa. It is written about South Africa: “Doctors move for legal abortion”, but the Sunday Tribune of 5th October, 1969, states—

This destruction on a tremendous scale is contrary to ethical and other norms. For example the situation in England is being abused. There is, for example, abortion on credit; that is lawful in England. Doctors earn up to R400 000 per year with such practices. We will definitely have to be on the lookout for such practices. Then we note the fact that in certain states of America, where it was already applicable but where it may perhaps have been applied too rapidly owing to bad judgment, considerable movements have been launched to return to the status quo ante, the previous situation. In New Zealand we read in the Star of 25th March, 1970—

For those reasons our approach in this matter will be that our law and our legal principles on this matter are known. We will allow ourselves to be lead by public opinion as it has developed on the basis of experience in the technological, medical and other spheres. I think we will be inclined to consider these aspects if the bulk of the public opinion has developed as has been sketched. I want to suggest that this is in fact the case. Then, I should just like to mention, for decision by the hon. the Minister, that while we are dealing with this matter involving the propagation of human beings, we also note that in England, for example, there have been steps to legalize sterilization under certain circumstances. When one considers that subject and when one notes that these are practices which are in fact being applied, regardless of whether there are health problems or not, then what about castration? Would these facets, which centre around the propagation of human beings, also receive attention if the hon. the Minister should decide to give attention to this matter?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow on some of the matters which have been raised by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I would like to deal with some of the deeper and more difficult legal aspects. I do not want to concern myself with the moral or religious aspects at this stage. The hon. member has rightly said that abortion was a crime in the very origin of our law. It was a crime according to the Roman law and it was a crime according to the laws of Holland. It has come to us as part of our common law and not in our statutory law. It has come to us in the very basis of our legal system, but as with so many other matters that have come into our legal system through the common law, the approach in regard to this has changed over the years with the changing circumstances and the changing environment in which we live.

For instance, one reminds oneself that not many centuries ago marriage without having published banns, was punishable by the death penalty, but it was for a specific reason, the type of relationship and the social living then existing. As medical research has unfolded new truths of human beings and of human life, so I believe there have been new thoughts and new techniques to deal with the circumstances of today. One only has to remind oneself, for instance, that in Holland the killing of a foetus was child murder; it was not abortion, it was child murder. Today, when we look at the question of terminating a pregnancy, I believe there is a considerable difference of opinion as to whether one is in fact terminating the life of a human being when the foetus is still in utero. There has been a recent decision in Australia where damages have been awarded for damage caused to a person before birth—damage in utero. Damages have been awarded in courts whose approach has differed from other approaches that a human foetus, however far it is developed, is not in law a human being, while it is still in utero.

Sir, I think that question is one of legal nicety which must be decided, and it must be determined what our approach is going to be in this country in our Statutes. When does a human being become a human being? At what stage in the gestation, before or at birth, do we look at an unborn child as being in fact a human being? I believe that that is why today one finds, when the question of abortion is discussed, more and more, the expression “termination of a pregnancy” is used and not the word “abortion”. The term “termination of a pregnancy” is being used more and more today and it seems to have gained popularity as against the use of the old-fashioned word “abortion”.

Sir, we have differing opinions and differing approaches in the public sector. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West tried to assess public opinion, and I believe there is a wide spectrum of public opinion in South Africa at the present moment which has not been canalized into any particular direction. Sir, the hon. member for Houghton gave three instances in which she would support the termination of pregnancy. That brings me to the point which I wanted to raise pertinently in this debate and that is the necessity of legal clarity if we are going to introduce any legislation to tamper with or to change the accepted common law on this subject. The hon. member for Houghton mentioned, for instance, that an abortion could be performed if a mother’s life or mental health was in danger. I should now like to deal with just the one aspect, where the mother’s life may be in danger. Let us assume that a medical practitioner in his judgment says “no, I do not think that life is in danger”, and he refuses to perform the abortion and the mother dies.

That is the position under common law now.

I am assuming now that this is legalized without clarity. If that mother dies, does that medical practitioner not lay himself open to a charge of professional negligence for having made the wrong diagnosis at the time? I will come later to certain discussions which have taken place in the United Kingdom on the dangers and consequences when this burden is placed on the medical practitioner to determine these inexact facts. The other point which arises is, when is there “considerable” danger. As any lawyer knows, it is difficult to define what is “considerable”. How is it going to be defined? I raise these points not to suggest that there is no point in what the hon. member for Houghton says, but to emphasize that I believe that this is essentially a matter where evidence needs to be gathered by a Select Committee, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Rosettenville.

Sir, that brings me to certain comments which have arisen and which I think are also pertinent to the points raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, when he said that at the present moment the justification in our common law is a question of necessity. Here again he will appreciate as a lawyer that there will be many arguments as to when it is necessary and when it is not necessary to perform a particular operation. Sir, that has been the trouble in the United Kingdom since the introduction of the 1967-’68 Act. I find in an article published in the British Medical Journal of 25th January, 1969, that the medical profession themselves found—

It goes on to say—

That was where, as the hon. member for Houghton has suggested, the law broke down in its application in the United Kingdom. On this question of the problems that they are experiencing in the United Kingdom, I would like to refer also to a conference which was held on this Abortion Act in practice and quote in this connection from the British Medical Journal of 15th February, 1969. Some very important and learned gentlemen were present at this particular conference, including well-known people such as Sir John Peel and others, who took part in this discussion. It was pointed out that—

Under the heading “Who makes the decision?” the journal goes on to say—

He then goes on to mention other persons who might well be involved in coming to this particular decision. But, Sir, the effect on the medical profession according to this particular conference is this—

This was the view of these senior practitioners in dealing with this particular matter. The legal consequences of this particular type of latitude which needs investigation, were pertinently referred to at this particular conference and I would like to quote what was said by Sir Geoffrey Howe, Q.C., at this conference. He said—

He then referred to the other complications and precautions, because of the very liberties which are given to the doctor under the British Act, without a clear definition and at least protection from any liability for his decision not to perform an operation if it turns out that his medical diagnosis was incorrect.

Sir, finally I want to refer to just one further reason why I believe that this inquiry asked for by the hon. member for Rosettenville is so necessary. Reference has already been made to the number of abortions which are now taking place in the United Kingdom. The figures that I have indicate that in the first year there was a jump from something like 6 000 known cases of abortion to 35 000—in one year. An interesting fact in passing is that the percentage of single women and married women who underwent abortions was approximately the same in the first year. 55 per cent were single women and 45 per cent were actually married women when they had abortions in the first year of he application of this new Act.

In Japan, as the hon. the Minister will know, the position now is that it is estimated that the number of abortions exceeds the number of births. What is worrying in South Africa is whether our strict laws are the cause of the vast number of illegal operations performed. The hon. member for Rosettenville mentioned 302 deaths in Johannesburg. I want to read from the report of the Groote Schuur Hospital, just one hospital, for 1970. I read from the report of the Gynaecology Department—

These are the septic abortion cases. I will give the Minister the figures which I have obtained. Of 6 118 admissions in 1971 in the gynaecological wards of Groote Schuur, 1 687, or 27,6 per cent, were cases showing the septic consequences of illegal abortions or attempted illegal abortions. In 1970 the figure was 1 820, representing 29,3 per cent of all admissions to that department of the hospital. The fact that this number of abortion cases comes to the hospital is, I believe, a very valid reason why the House should agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosettenville to let a Select Committee investigate this matter and find out what the reason for it is. Is the law too strict, or is there something in the law which we apply in this country which accounts for it, or are there other factors which contribute to this vast incidence of septic abortion cases? For those reasons I believe that the hon. member for Rosettenville and others who have spoken and who have said that there should be an inquiry—I think it is a question of how that inquiry should take place —are correct. I can think of no better way than having a Select Committee of this House to go into this matter and then to make recommendations to this House with or without proposed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of any subject which is more evocative of human emotions than this very subject of abortion, because it has ethical aspects and religious roots and because it touches one’s heart. That is why it is a subject which one has to approach with great circumspection and great level-headedness. I must say that to me, as a doctor who has had to deal with these matters, this is a special day in that we are able to discuss this subject. I must also say that this is one of the most difficult and exacting tasks which I have had to perform in this House, because of the fact that we are concerned with life here. Let me say immediately that we regard the foetus as life in South Africa, and this being the case, this matter brings out the best, but sometimes also the worst, in the people who have to deal with it; because, as you know, love and cruelty are very close to each other. That is why I appreciate the fact that this debate has been conducted on the level on which it has.

†May I say to the hon. member for Rosettenville, who moved this motion, that he gave the House valuable information. He did it calmly, with ease and with assurance because he was moving in a field that is well known to him. May I also say that I am indebted to him for putting emphasis on the respect that this House ought to show for the religious beliefs of our people in passing legislation.

*I also wish to express my appreciation to other hon. members on our side as well as on the opposite side for maintaining a high level of debate, for conducting a responsible debate, and for generally conducting a conservative debate. It is good that we should think and debate conservatively on a matter such as this.

†Let me first give the House the legal position in South Africa as it is today. Abortion is not prohibited by Statute in South Africa. However, according to our common law, abortion is an offence with only one generally accepted exemption, namely when it is necessary in order to save the life of the mother, as has been stated by hon. members. Abortion could possibly also be allowed if it is necessary in order to obviate serious damage to the mother’s health, but this is a moot point; there is no certainty about it. With this legal position, what has happened in practice in South Africa? What is the practical situation today? Respected medical practitioners, in consultation with other colleagues, openly undertake abortion operations in cases which are probably not allowed under our existing law, but which they undertake within the ambit of medical ethics. I do not wish to go too far in quoting examples, but let me mention just one which has been mentioned in this debate, that of rape, sometimes rape of a young girl by a mentally defective person. In such a case abortion is undertaken with general approval, but the doctor runs the risk if being prosecuted.

The situations which are created by the existing state of affairs are inter alia the following: In some cases there is no prosecution at all. In other cases of a similar nature a prosecution is instituted and the position actually differs from province to province. Thirdly, medical practitioners find themselves in the unenviable position that they are not sure what the law prescribes or, owing to the ethics of their profession, they feel obliged to act illegally. Moreover, the uncertainty may lead to the professional help of a doctor being denied to an expectant mother, with the result that she comes to a tragic end because from sheer necessity she seeks help somewhere else where an abortion without the necessary skill and care is undertaken. Let me say that this is most unfair to the medical profession and also extremely unjust and inhuman to the patient. I think it is our duty as legislators to remedy this undesirable position, and I am pleased to inform this House that good progress has already been made.

What has been done up to now? Firstly, the commission appointed to inquire into the Mental Disorders Act of 1960, namely the commission presided over by Mr. Justice Theo van Wyk, investigated certain aspects of abortion and sterilization and has made certain recommendations. The report is at present being considered and will be laid upon the Table of the House. Secondly, the S.A. Medical and Dental Council, which, as members know, is required to advise the Government on medical matters, appointed an ad hoc committee to investigate the matter thoroughly. The confidential findings of the committee have recently been made available to me and I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the council for an outstanding and thorough piece of work. Thirdly, I have had personal discussions from time to time with a view to possible legislation and I have also received certain requests from various quarters. Lastly, the Cabinet has recently considered the matter and has decided on certain steps to be taken.

*I should like to group the standpoint of the Cabinet under twelve heads. The first one is this: As the Government is aware of the great public interest in this matter and is itself very much aware of the religious, moral and ethical aspects involved, it has been decided to give ample opportunity for representations and discussion before legislation is placed on the Statute Book.

Secondly, the present confused and extremely unsatisfactory position will be rectified in separate new legislation, so that (a) a medical practitioner who performs an abortion for valid reasons and in terms of a prescribed procedure, will in fact be protected, and (b) the public and medical practitioners will know precisely what is in fact right or wrong and what procedures are to be followed.

The third aspect I want to mention in regard to the standpoint of the Government is that the responsibility for drafting and administering the new legislation will attach to the Department of Health. In the fourth place, it is desirable that legislation relating to sterilization should be incorporated in this legislation.

I want to emphasize the following two points very strongly.

†May I say that I am indebted to the hon. member for Rosettenville and also, in a lesser degree, to the hon. member for Houghton for their attitude in this regard. The hon. member for Rosettenville said that abortion should not become an alternative to contraception or a means to control the population explosion. I cannot agree more.

*However, on behalf of the Government I want to go a little further and say that the Government is completely opposed to general abortion, or “abortion on demand”, as it is sometimes called. This cannot be allowed to become part of our South African way of life. The proposed legislation must leave no doubt or loopholes in this regard.

I come to the sixth point, which I want to emphasize just as strongly. Having said what I said a moment ago, I want to point out that the Government is nevertheless sympathetically disposed towards those few cases where abortion is desirable on therapeutic grounds. I want to mention a few examples in general. Firstly, where a choice has to be made between the life of the mother and that of the unborn child. Secondly, if continued pregnancy presents a real danger to the physical or mental health of the mother. Thirdly, in cases of rape. Fourthly, where it is likely, in the light of experience, that the child will be born an abnormal one as a result of certain diseases contracted, for example German measles, or as a result of taking drugs such as thalidomide, or as a result of certain kinds of radiation, or where pregnancy resulted from impregnation by mentally defective persons, and possibly in cases of epilepsy. I say “possibly”, because I am mentioning this in general.

I now come to the seventh standpoint of the Government. In cases where the termination of pregnancy is in fact legalized, it must only be carried out according to clear, strict rules and procedures which should be incorporated in either the legislation or regulations. In this regard I have in mind inter alia the following aspects. Firstly, when a decision has to be taken as to whether a pregnancy should legally be terminated, the patient herself, the husband, the parent or guardian, the doctor, the magistrate and the police, among others, should be consulted; and the legislation should also provide that permission has to be granted by more than one responsible person. You can call it a panel if you wish. The second aspect I have in mind, is that the procedure to be followed must also be laid down very clearly, either in the legislation or in the regulations. In the third place, it must be specifically provided which persons will be vested with the necessary authority in regard to these procedures. In the fourth place, it should be prescribed in what institutions an operation for an abortion may be performed legally.

I want to put the eighth standpoint of the Government as follows: On the basis of these general guiding principles which have already been laid down, and with the aid of, inter alia, experience in the rest of the world, recommendations in the Van Wyk Report, to which I have already referred, the paper by the Medical Council and other representations and points of view, which we can also get from the persons mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton, my Department is already drafting legislation. I can also inform the hon. House further that as soon as the draft Bill is ready—I hope it will be before the end of this session—it will be published for general information and comment. Moreover, it is intended to introduce the Bill at the beginning of the next session of Parliament and to refer it to a Select Committee. The Government will decide later whether it will be referred to the Select Committee before or after Second Reading. The Government will take that decision on the basis of representations before it after the published Bill has been commented on.

I now come to the eleventh point I want to mention. In the light of the information I have furnished to the House, it is clear that it is unnecessary to appoint a Select Committee at present to investigate matters relating to abortion. I am sure the hon. member for Rosettenville and other hon. members will appreciate this and I want to thank them in anticipation for that.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton—she suggested that a judicial commission should be appointed—that I have every confidence that we shall get comments from those people who have an interest in this matter; secondly, that I have complete confidence in a Select Committee of this House to deal with a matter such as this; and thirdly, that the persons she had in mind and who will naturally be able to make important contributions, will all assist this Select Committee by stating their views and giving evidence. Since we already have a great deal of information at our disposal, investigations, etc., I therefore do not think it is necessary for this matter to be referred to a judicial commission of inquiry now.

In the final instance, I want to mention the twelfth point. It is also Government policy that inter alia the following—I say “inter alia”, because there may be more— should be clearly reflected in the Bill: Firstly, respect for the unborn child—the foetus—irrespective of the stage of pregnancy—in other words, in contrast to the Japanese view; secondly, the Christian beliefs and moral norms which are peculiar to the South African way of life; thirdly— and I want to emphasize this, particularly after all the newspapers recently carried reports in which a fuss was made of having extra-marital children as though it were a wonderful achievement—that extra-marital pregnancies are wrong and should be condemned most strongly; and fourthly—and I conclude with this—that severe penalties are prescribed for abortions performed in conflict with the provisions of the legislation; in fact, laying down minimum penalties will be considered.

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear from the hon. the Minister that this matter has already received some attention from the Government and that they have, in fact, already decided upon legislation. I hope, however, that the hon. the Minister will bear in mind some other considerations, apart from those which he has just put before us, in dealing with the list of principles which have been decided upon by the Cabinet.

I said “inter alia”.

“Inter alia"; I am glad to hear that, because I should like to say something in regard to his remarks about the moral aspect of this question. He said in that context that the moral aspect would be controlled as much by legislation and regulation as any other. Abortion is without doubt a very tricky problem indeed: it is a source of great social, legal and moral discord and of very great uncertainty also. There is much psychiatric confusion involved in this subject and in most cases a great deal of personal anguish too. The hon. the Minister will appreciate that.

I think it is true to say that there is not a single nation in the world today which seriously believes that it has discovered the perfect solution to this problem. I doubt whether we are going to find it either; in fact, I doubt whether there is any single religious body anywhere in the world which has any degree of unanimity in its ranks on this subject. Judging from the debate this afternoon, there seem to be only two main points upon which everyone is agreed. The first is that it is intolerable to tie the hands of the medical profession in such a way that they are only entitled to carry out this operation if the consensus of medical opinion is that without it the life of either the mother or the child is in danger. As the hon. the Minister and other members have said, if the mother-to-be is a psychiatric case or even if she has a clinical history of haemophilia there are, at the present moment, instances in which members of the medical profession are not entitled to act, and this makes it very difficult for them, depending on the circumstances. The other point on which there seems to be a high degree of unanimity is the medical dangers of underground abortions carried out by quacks or unqualified people. There are no easy answers in this field either, in terms of legislation. Whether the Minister imagines there are, I do not know, but I think probably he must admit that this is going to be very difficult to control.

Now I want to deal with the question of the religious approach to these matters. The Catholics, of course, reduce the whole problem to the philosophical, theological question: “When does life, which is God-given, begin?” That is the basis of their thinking and their whole approach. Others see the whole question of abortion, as has been mentioned this afternoon, in terms of the woman’s right to decide these matters for herself. There are some people, of course, who have even crusaded for abortion on demand as part of the women’s liberation campaign. I am very glad we have not over-simplified the case and had too much of that sort of argument here today.

If we face the matter squarely, this problem is so complex that it covers a great deal more than some of the fields that have been mentioned here today. If we face it squarely, we find that abortion is at once a moral, a medical, a legal, a sociological, a demographic and a psychological problem. That goes for the women as well as for the professions involved. This type of problem is not readily amenable to one-dimensional thinking. That has become apparent from the discussion today. Unfortunately for humanity, there are only two possibilities, whatever the circumstances are. Once a woman is pregnant, she must either have an abortion or a child. That is axiomatic. Both are traumatic experiences and neither is easily forgotten; so that the range of choices facing women in general, married or unmarried, and facing society and the medical and legal professions, is perilously narrow. That is why I hope the Government is going to give very, very careful consideration to the type of legislation that is introduced. I think it is right that both thought and emotion should be involved in any consideration of an issue of this complexity.

I am glad that we have not had any tawdry references in this discussion today to the desire on the part of certain people overseas to liberalize the abortion laws and the suggestion that, because it is so permissive it is in fact another way of undermining our society. As legislators—the hon. the Minister is perfectly correct—it is our duty to direct our thinking towards the human complexities of this matter. I am the last speaker today so it is a little difficult to raise a new point, but, as has already been said, the high illegitimacy rate in our own society resulting in the birth of hordes of unwanted children, is a very real problem, indeed. The crux of the moral issue with which we are all faced, even if we are largely unaware of it, the dilemma in fact, in which any woman finds herself in this connection today, is essentially something which is universal. It is essentially the struggle of technological man to decide how to make a moral use of medical skills and techniques which are now so readily at our disposal. As the hon. the Minister knows, abortion can now be procured within a matter of hours, and the patient sent away within a matter of hours as well. One wonders what hope there is of any kind of consensus of opinion in this country any more than anywhere else on this subject. The difficulty is that the average person approaches this matter with a considerable degree of ingrained bias, from whatever point of view they look at it. I would hope that the hon. the Minister, as he has already decided to take action in this matter and has presented us with draft legislation, would quite apart from canvassing a broad spectrum of public opinion, bear certain fundamental things in mind.

First of all, the Department of Health should lay down specific guide lines limiting abortion to well-equipped hospitals and clinics. Obviously, if we have it controlled by statute, I know that will be the case. Then, I think, there should be some legal deadline, depending of course on how liberal—the Minister talked about moral justification—his attitude is going to be. There should be some legal deadline established in these moral cases where some specific period of pregnancy should be laid down, for example no abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy. I really think that to perform an abortion, even for moral reasons, after three or four months, could be almost too traumatic for many people who might find themselves in that difficult position.

I do not agree with you there.

All right, the Minister may not, but I think these facts should be considered. I think the operation should not be performed upon any minor in law without the concurrence of her parents. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with that. Obviously, we would have to keep a close watch on institutions practising this type of operation on any scale, particularly people who are out to do it for reasons of financial benefit. By the very nature of things, it is most often the very poor or those who are ignorant of modern preventatives who would be likely to become the victims of financial extortioners or the unqualified quack. That is the case today. I think we need to watch that situation very carefully.

Until this question has been carefully investigated and the situation in other countries carefully studied, it is quite impossible for the hon. the Minister or anybody in this House to say how many problems the legalization of abortion under certain circumstances will solve and how many problems it will create. In the long term, of course, if you take a constructive view, family planning associations and some degree of sex education for the adolescent, together with comprehensive provision of birth control methods, would go a long way towards helping to counter any general deterioration in the field of abortion and unwanted birth generally. I do think that we should put a great deal of emphasis upon the constructive, preventive side of the matter as well as on the other side. This means in effect, that apparent from the moral issues with which the individual is faced, there is a very great deal that can be done by means of preventive medicine to ease both the problems of health and of conscience in this regard. I would hope that the Minister and his department would give equal emphasis to this aspect of the matter.

I just want to raise the point about illegitimate children born of single mothers. Before the 1968 reform of the abortion laws in England, in 1967, for instance, of the 832 164 live births in that year, 70 000 were illegitimate. Of these only 3 167 were placed in institutions and 18 000 of them were adopted; which left more than two-thirds to be brought up fatherless by their unmarried mothers. I have taken those figures from a book by Dr. Anthony Horden—the hon. the Minister may have seen it—called The English Experience of Legal Abortion, published last year. The psychological effects on any child brought up in these circumstances, however well cared for in the material sense, must be profound. I mention that specifically because the hon. the Minister talked about the moral aspects of this matter where cases would have to be decided in various ways. On the other hand we must not make the mistake of thinking of abortion as referring only to single women who want to get rid of an illegitimate child. One of the most important reasons for this motion can be said to be the existence of poor socioeconomic conditions in which the spawning of hordes of unwanted children leads to the vicious circle with which we are so familiar, namely that of greater poverty, overcrowded housing conditions, lack of care and supervision, malnutrition, inadequate education, and then juvenile delinquency and from there to a life of crime, which again can lead to procreation of yet more illegitimmte children.

However, and I want to end on this note, I take the view that if steps are to be taken in law, no attempt should be made by the law to influence a woman’s personal decision in matters of this kind. It must remain a matter of privacy and of individual assessment for her. The hon. the Minister talked about a whole group of people helping to make this decision if there were a moral reason for justifying an abortion. It is quite consistent with my thinking on this issue to say that I reject any approach to this matter which savours of the extreme, either the slickness of abortion on request argument or that of an immutable divine right which prohibits any alteration of the law. I cannot agree with the hon. the Minister that where moral considerations only are involved, which he mentioned specifically, that a whole group of people should be consulted in these cases. I think that however the legislation is drafted provision must be made for some other approach as well. Women have an undoubted right to a degree of privacy and personal choice in such matters, married or unmarried. Only the pregnant woman herself can judge the validity her own reasons either for wanting or refusing to have an abortion, unless she is mentally deficient. In the last resort I think the law must take some cognizance of this right of freedom of choice. The law cannot presume, for instance, to judge the validity of a woman’s personal motivation in matters as delicate as this. I think that the law must step aside here, even if the grave responsibility for making this decision leaves the matter of life and death in the hands of the woman herself. She should be free to make the decision. There are no circumstances that I can think of in which such a decision would in any case be easy one way or the other, married or unmarried. The emotional and psycological distress, as the hon. the Minister will know, can be very considerable. In that instance the final choice should in my opinion be hers. I would like to plead with the hon. the Minister that this aspect be seriously considered before he presents us with draft legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are very grateful to the hon. member for Wynberg for making at this late stage of the debate a serious plea for us to keep calm when we may perhaps feel that we have in fact made out a case for the legalization of abortion. In particular I am also glad that she gave special attention to the moral aspects of this matter, as well as the psychological effects which an act of this nature may have on a woman. We are also grateful to her for having made special mention of the value of education and upliftment in respect of the preventive aspects of this problem.

If one looks at this motion, it seems as though there is in fact no motivation for it, as the hon. member for Rosettenville put it. The question is merely whether this whole matter should be referred to a Select Committee. He did not compromise himself at all in regard to the principle of the matter. Although he did to a certain extent motivate it in the course of his speech, I hope that politically the hon. member is not perhaps a little shy to motivate this motion frankly. As the matter stands and as also became apparent here this afternoon, there is in South Africa no legislation legalizing abortion under the common law. For the sake of clarity and an objective approach to this whole matter, I think we should just repeat briefly a few of the basic points. It is possible that I shall have to repeat some arguments, but in doing so I may also add to what has already been said here. Before doing so, I should like to sound a grave warning this afternoon. This warning concerns the tendency found among so many people, namely that of always trying to apply to South Africa what is happening in other countries of the world. I feel that we do not necessarily apply to South Africa examples taken from other countries, especially where some moral principle or other is involved. That is why I think that, as far as our moral values are concerned, we in South Africa are on a higher level than are most Western countries. I think we are in a position to apply our own moral principles when it comes to a matter such as this one. We must have regard to the fact that, especially in the Western countries, changed values of life have already come into force. Values in respect of the structurally functional components of our social structure are changing. Inevitably our norms are also affected by that process. Values which are not acceptable to us and, as we see matters, may not be accepted either, obtain in many other countries. We are dealing with a permissive world, especially in countries abroad. To a large extent this permissiveness has also made itself felt here, and is in the process of eroding many of our values. If we ever do anything in this regard, we should realize that we are doing so within the framework of our Christian convictions and our national pride.

It was a shock to me to read in the paper this morning about a plea made by a certain group of people in this country for “abortion on demand”. I did not think that this erosion and watering down of values in South Africa had already progressed so far. All the aspects and factors which are relevant in regard to this matter, were mentioned here this afternoon, namely the sociological, medical, judicial and also the demographical factors. I should like to associate myself with what was said by another speaker, namely that although this is an extremely important aspect of the whole problem, we should not allow demographical considerations to be a decisive factor in deliberating on this matter. However, before we consider these various factors, there is another matter which I should like to emphasize. In respect of the common norms that exist as far as other social structures in the world are concerned, as well as other religions and even agnostic thinkers and atheists, there is one thing which is acceptable to all of them, i.e. that no person has the right to take life. This is in fact very much in keeping with the religious standpoints stated here today. Before dealing with that, I should just like to mention a few other medical considerations. Up to now the emphasis has been put chiefly on the medical considerations. However, there are also social considerations which sometimes carry much weight with the doctor when he has to make decisions on these matters. Important ethical principles are also involved in this whole matter. Just think of the Hippocratic Oath, which specifically lays down that no doctor may take any step which is not aimed at extending life, except under specific circumstances where the mother’s life is in danger. That is the only exception.

For many years the medical profession has been faced with this problem, i.e. that it has to make decisions within a very short period of time, for instance, when a patient is under an anaesthetic and he is faced with an accomplished fact. It often happens that the doctor, because of his dedication to the profession, commits an unlawful act as regards certain life-saving actions.

In looking at the classification of pathological reasons under which abortion may be legalized, we see that there is a whole variety of headings.

†There is one particular aspect which was not mentioned today, namely the anatomical abnormalities, for example in a contracted pelvis where caesarian section is not possible. I mention this particularly because this is an abnormality which has presented very great difficulties. Just for completeness I want to mention the physiological conditions, endocrine imbalance where abortion is usually inevitable in any way. Various psychiatric conditions were mentioned today. In view of the fact that one is inclined to judge psychiatric conditions rather superficially, I think it is important that family history should be very carefully taken into account.

We are all aware of the congenital abnormalities as a result of an infectious disease, for example German measles, the organic diseases which were mentioned here today, neoplastic disease, nephritic syndrome and the cardio-respiratory diseases which often pose very difficult problems in our profession.

There is another matter which needs careful consideration. I do not think that it will be a factor during the course of this debate. We might as well take note of some very important aspects of genetics. These can require difficult decisions to be made in the future if ever abortion under certain circumstances be legalized in South Africa. I also want to indicate in short the standpoint which was expressed by various religions in respect of the questionnaire which was sent to various people. The Moslems said—

The Hindus said—

The Christians said—

*I think it is also interesting to hear that there is a clear difference between the standpoint of the Catholics and that of the non-Catholics. The Catholics, irrespective of race or colour, condemned abortion as strongly as they did euthanasia, whilst, in this survey that was made, the non-Catholics were more indulgent towards abortion, but felt just as strongly about euthanasia.

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

Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned on Friday, I had dealt with certain matters which, you will concede, may to a certain extent not be discussed under the present circumstances, perhaps to the disappointment of the hon. members for Durban Point and Yeoville. However, I do not think it would be wrong or out of place, in resuming my speech, to refer to the matter which I touched upon in conclusion last Friday, viz. that there is a heavy responsibility resting on all members of this House, and specifically on members of the Opposition, to do nothing in all their outspoken attempts to drum up support for their party which would make the almost superhuman task of our security forces more difficult. I was referring to the remarks made by the hon. members for Port Natal and Durban North. I do not want to repeat them. I only want to refer to a speech made by the hon. the Minister of Police on 8th December, at a police parade in Pretoria, when he said the following (translation)—

Sir, I think that every member with a sense of responsibility in this House can endorse every word in that statement. Therefore I do not think it is out of place to make a fresh appeal to members of this House, and specifically members of the Opposition …

Talk about your own people.

… to abide by this serious and urgent request, which has no political implications, but only seeks to safeguard South Africa. I said to the hon. member for Yeoville the other day: “People who live in glass houses should not throw stones”. I want to quote a short passage today, perhaps out of the distant past, for the edification of members who were muttering a moment ago, so that they can for a change examine their own conscience and take a look at themselves, and see themselves as the people of South Africa see them. I have here a pamphlet which was published by the United Party about 20 years ago. [Interjections.] Sir, there is an hon. member who is very loath to take his medicine, but he is going to take it now. The pamphlet reads as follows (translation)—

Then the pamphlet goes on to say—

Sir, there is nothing further I want to say on this subject. I just want to repeat: “People who live in glass houses should not throw stones”.

In the time left to me, I should like to talk to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but it seems to me he is not here today, nor is the hon. member for Yeoville. During the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister towards the end of the no-confidence debate, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout interrupted him with these words (col. 407)—

Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout went on to say that this was indeed the standpoint of the Leader of the Opposition. In the Press and elsewhere, at congresses, there was a whole hullabaloo over the question: “What precisely is the United Party’s policy in respect of the representation of non-Whites in this House?”

You do not learn easily.

No, we learn quite easily. Sir, the hon. member for Pinelands, who made that interjection, was told by his own newspaper that they cannot understand what the policy of the United Party is. It is the task of that hon. member, and not mine, to teach his own people. Before this remark by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, there was a continual public altercation between the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. First the one said the United Party had changed its standpoint, then the other said it had not. After that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout told the hon. the Prime Minister the other day: “Are you not aware that this is an interim measure as far as the United Party is concerned?” If we cast our minds back, Sir, it strikes one that as long ago as 1963 the hon. member for Yeoville, who attacked the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in public, expressed the same standpoint in a television interview, i.e. that this policy is an interim policy. Sir, I am raising this matter today because it has been discussed as a matter of the utmost importance over a long period in this House, and outside, because the United Party is struggling to take over the government. It is this: What is the United Party’s plan in respect of the representation of non-Whites which the United Party believes should have representation together with the Whites in this House? Hon. members of the Opposition then said that there would be eight representatives for the Bantu, but that these should be Whites, and that there would be six representatives for the Coloureds who could be Whites or Coloureds. The question was then put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: “But are you going to keep it at that? What happens if they subsequently begin to demand that these representatives should be Bantu?” (The point on which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is now fighting his own party) and then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that as far as his party and he were concerned, they would remain Whites. The question was also put: “But if they insist that there should be more of them, what then?” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopted the standpoint that the number would remain at eight. This question has been put to him repeatedly—I myself have put it to him three times in this House—“How are you going to guarantee that those numbers are going to remain the same and that the representatives are going to remain White?” He then said he was going to hold a referendum. Then I, and others as well, asked him: “But why hold a referendum if you do not want to increase the numbers or change the representation; what is the sense of a referendum then, and what are your instructions going to be in that referendum? Eventually he then said that his instructions under such circumstances would be: “Vote against it.”

Some of them wanted to shoot them.

But what is more— the hon. member is correctly reminding me of this now—the question was also put: “Suppose the White voters vote against the suggestion that the number should be increased or that the representatives should be Bantu, how are you then going to maintain the so-called White leadership, which your party is peddling?”, and then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition replied: “If necessary, with all the power the Government will have at its disposal”. Sir, I do not think there is any hon. member in this House who does not realize precisely what those words imply. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been given to understand by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout— and this has not yet been repudiated—that this dispensation is an interim one. We repeatedly asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: “Is that promise of a referendum which you hold out to protect White leadership, as the United Party calls it, in this country, not a bluff, measured in practical terms against what a referendum means?” I now want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Is he still prepared to hold a referendum on the question of an increase in or a change of the representatives of Bantu in this House? Is he still prepared to guarantee a referendum? Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to speak to me, but the hon. member for Pinelands and I are good friends and he seems to be quite good-natured. Would, the hon. member for Pinelands please tell me what the position is.

Vause says he is going to shoot them.

Sir, may I inquire of the hon. member for Pinelands whether his party still intends to hold a referendum in regard to this matter or not? [Interjection.] The hon. member says “No”. I should like to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, or from some or other leading or lesser light on that side, whether it is still the policy of their party to hold a referendum in regard to the question of representation of the Bantu in this House? Is there one of the leading lights who could give me a reply to that? Sir, what about the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central; what about the hon. member for Transkei? He is deeply involved in this matter. Would the hon. member for Transkei not be so kind as to give me a reply? Or would the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District give me a reply? Sir, in the absence of a reply, I think that on my argument alone I have every justification for stating in this House today that that promise of a referendum is as great a piece of deceit as one could imagine, particularly when measured in the light of what has just happened in these last few weeks when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, without being contradicted, intimated that it was merely an interim dispensation, and that is why I say that the voters of South Africa cannot take any notice of a promise of this nature from the United Party because it is a party which trims its sails to the winds of expediency and does not serve the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to spend much time on the arguments raised by the hon. member for Stellenbosch.

They were not arguments; he was playing the fool.

He said here last week that he did not accuse the members of the U.P. of colluding with the communists. He said that he wanted to state this quite candidly; he did not accuse them of doing that, but he did have an idea that the U.P. were colluding with the communists behind the scenes. Today he came along here and issued a warning to members on this side of the House that they should be careful in their actions in regard to communism and terrorists. Sir, he was implying something there which this side of the House rejects with contempt. The hon. member then went on and tackled the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the U.P.’s policy, and asked what they would do if a proposal were to be made that the eight Bantu representatives in this House should be increased.

Sir, I do not want to spend much time on that. When it was decided to proclaim a Republic, a referendum was held in that regard, and I assume that any Government would hold a referendum if there is any question of a change in our constitutional system. No, Sir, this is simply the old story all over again. Hon. members on that side decided even before the session to blow up the question of terrorism and communism into a vast smokescreen to distract attention in that way from the real economic problems of the country. They decided to embroil the United Party in a debate on terrorism and communism and on the question of non-White representation in this House. Sir, we know that story. I do not want to argue about it any further. But before I return to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the statements he made here in the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill, I want to refer to certain things which the hon. member for Carltonville, who is fortunately present at the moment, said and which we cannot simply allow to go unanswered. In his speech—I do not know whether to call it a moral sermon, an oracle or a debacle—the hon. member for Carltonville adopted the attitude that the Nationalist Party is the only party with moral strength and that it would be advisable for the many Van Blerks whom we find outside today, to go running back to the Nationalist Party. The hon. member then went on to describe the integrity and the credibility of the Nationalist Party. I wonder what Nationalist Party he was talking about. Was he not perhaps talking about the Nationalist Party of just prior to or just after 1948, for then I could perhaps concede that he was correct, but if he was talking about the Nationalist Party of today and then went on to speak in the same breath about integrity and credibility, then one must append a very large question-mark to that utterance of his. Hon. members on this side of the House have repeatedly pointed out the credibility gap which applies to that side, and then the hon. member has the temerity to come and say here that the Nationalist Party is a party with moral integrity and credibility.

The hon. member went further. He implied that the Nationalist Party was a party with firm, strongly moral and religious codes. Sir, the hon. member must not imply, as he did, that the party on this side is not a party with credibility and that it has no moral strength. When the voters look for a party in which all democratic White people can feel at home, regardless of their faith or origins, then it is this party. But look at the party on that side of the House. How can all Whites feel at home in that party? I should like to turn to the economy and what this hon. member advocated, i.e. a slow growth rate, and not the growth rate we had in 1964 and 1969.

[Inaudible.]

On a point of order, Sir, is an hon. member opposite entitled to refer to hon. members on this side as “White Communists”?

Mr. Speaker, I said, with reference to the membership of that party, when that hon. member mentioned all those who felt at home there, then I said “also a White communist”.

Order! I want to ask hon. members to be careful with their interjections. The hon. member may proceed.

I was dealing with the matter which the hon. member for Carltonville advocated, i.e. that he stands for a slow growth rate or a moderate growth rate, to use his words. Sir, there the hon. member let the cat out of the bag in regard to why this entire Government now advocates a moderate growth rate. I shall come to that later when I speak to the hon. the Minister of Finance about this moderate growth rate. The hon. member asked what is necessary for a good growth rate. It is capital and labour. He then dealt with the question of capital. Where must the capital come from? Does he not know that capital comes from an increased turnover in the business world, and does he not know that what is retarding it at this stage is the lack of labour necessary to generate more capital? The hon. member spoke quite derogatorily of the non-White labour we have; their labour is of such a nature that one cannot place them in senior positions. Their labour is of a humble kind which is only qualified to do certain things. Sir, that is why I ask in all earnestness whose fault is it that the non-White labour in this country, and particularly Bantu labour, is not capable of pulling its weight in the economy? Is it not the Government’s fault? The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Deputies have repeatedly stated that the Government will not allow the Black man in the Republic of South Africa to be trained, to be technically trained, to pull his weight; he can be trained in the Bantu areas to pull his weight there, but not here. As long as they are of that way of thinking, it is surely not possible, for the manufacturers have to make do with a mere a quota of the labour which the country has at its disposal; they cannot use all the labour.

But I should like to return now to the hon. the Minister of Finance who told us last year that he had inflation by the short hairs, that this country would be amongst the foremost ten countries owing to its economic strength, and that there was no question of devaluation. He was still saying that well into the year. Then, within the space of two months the Minister not only devalued, but also applied stricter import control. I want to know what two methods there were which the Minister could have utilized to bring about greater inflation and to cause the cost of living to rise more steeply than precisely those two methods. He devalued—and I shall deal later with how this has caused our cost of living to rise—and he made import control even stricter, and there the cost of living goes up; you can see no way of halting it, as the hon. the Minister will know. Do you know, Sir, that when I cast my mind back over this hon. gentleman’s past, and I have known him for many years, I think of the days when he was the leading light in the Reddingsdaadbond He was the pivot on which it turned. You know as well as I, and the old school knows, Sir, what the Reddingsdaadbond stood for and how he figured in that organization. That hon. Minister was the man who spoke up with a strong voice in the country for the lesser privileged Afrikaner, for the man who was living on and below the bread-line. He tried to work miracles for the upliftment of those people. You know it as well as I do, Sir, and we had great esteem for him, and still have it today, and for the views he held in those days. But if we come to where the Minister is today, we wonder whether he is still of the same opinion and whether he still has the same feeling for the lesser privileged. We wonder whether he is still so concerned about the cost of living and how those people are getting on. After all there are pensioners and other people who have to come out on very little, thanks to the methods he has again applied now, and which will cause the cost of living to soar again. Is the hon. the Minister still thinking of those people whose month is longer than their salaries, and how they must live on that? Now that the Minister finds himself in a different environment, is living in a marble palace, does he still look after the interests of these kind of people, as he is expected to do? Has the hon. gentleman ever tried to draw up a budget for the man earning R300, from which he must pay his house rent, or interest on his bond, insurances, licences, clothing, staple products, butter, milk, vegetables, fruit, meat, coffee and tea? Has the hon. the Minister tried to draw up such a budget to see whether such a person can come out? And if he cannot come out, can we afford to cause the cost of living to rise ever higher? Or is it time the Government did everything in its power to prevent the cost of living from rising higher? I do not doubt that the hon. the Minister knows as well as any other member of this House that devaluation coupled with increased import control can in many respects only cause the cost of living to rise. Imports, for example, are more expensive.

I sometimes wonder by whom the hon. the Minister is being advised in these times in regard to certain fiscal and financial methods. Does their advice still mean anything? What about businessmen such as Dr. Jan Marais, Dr. Hupkes, Mr. Van Aswegen and Dr. Wassenaar? Does the Government still take note of the advice of these people when they level criticism and want to lead it in other directions? Or have they, too, now that they are criticizing the Government, become national enemies of the Government? I sometimes wonder who supplies the hon. the Minister with advice, in view of the methods he utilizes.

The hon. the Minister says—

I should like to put the following specific question to the hon. the Minister. Does the Government still believe in private enterprise? How does it reconcile this with its many State and State-aided projects which could just as well have been developed by private enterprise, i.e. if he still believes in private enterprise. Then one still has the high taxes and the lack of a purposeful incentive to greater production. That is surely retarding private enterprise. In addition, industrialists are expected to get along with only a quota of the available labour, while industries throughout the world are allowed to compete in the entire labour field. If devaluaton increases production costs, how must they compete purposefully with the rest of the world?

I want to return again to the question of the availability of labour and the problem we have in that regard. This is a problem which businessmen and industrialists must inevitably have. They simply do not have sufficient labour available. The hon. the Minister encourages them to produce more. They must produce more otherwise our exports will not increase. If that industrialist has to increase production, with the increased production costs as a result of the increased costs of all imported goods, such as capital goods and so on, and with the unobtainability of sufficient labour, I wonder how that hon. Minister would argue in this regard. Even if they are being encouraged, how must they do this? The tax pressure on these people is exceptionally heavy. I do not need to mention this; the hon. member for Umlazi has done so repeatedly. The tax pressure on these people is heavy; their production costs must inevitably increase and their labour has been restricted. In fact, they do not know what the Government’s policy in regard to labour is; whether it is the policy of the Minister of Transport, which is that they are to be given a little more scope, or whether they will still be under the quota system so that they have to obtain permits to find people who come to work for them for only a while. These people are not permanently employed by them and they cannot be trained and conditioned for the work they have to do. The temporary permits make provision for transportation to and from the place of work and the Bantu states. In one way or another we are all associated with industralization or business enterprises, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister knows what a brake on, and what a lack of incentive there is for these industrialists, an incentive which could encourage them to greater production. If there were some method by means of which they could be given an incentive after having increased their production, an incentive which provides for diminished taxation as production increases, it would encourage these people more. I should very much like to have the hon. the Minister’s attention. I know that there is a tax incentive for the man who produces more, but the incentive is far from sufficient to encourage the industrialist to produce more and better products. How does the hon. the Minister want to succeed in getting industrialists to produce more if he places three or four brakes on him and gives him no incentive to produce more and better products? In heaven’s name, is this possible? Will they respond to that call?

Now I want to return to the appeal which was made to organized labour not to ask for higher wages. The Minister said—

I repeat that greater productivity is dependent upon a number of requirements. The man must have sufficient labour; he must have the methods at his disposal with which he can produce more cheaply and not more expensively as is at present the case, and he must have an incentive. As far as labour is concerned, how many quotations are there dealing with the labour problem? In the latest edition of Commercial Opinion I read the following—

What have we been saying? We have been saying that it is necessary to make fuller use of our non-White manpower resources; that Government spending has become excessive; that taxation has become burdensome; that the continuing inflation has led to misinvestment and the creation of a pattern of exploitation that cannot be fulfilled; and that certain other Government policies are not conducive to economic growth.

To the man in the street—and, we fear, to many officials in Pretoria—these are broad generalizations that fail to evoke much response. Their impact is dulled by repetition. But one day the consequences may become evident. And the consequences are manifested in the only possible way, namely by a decline in living standards. Money incomes are not easily cut, so the inevitable adjustment takes place through a rise in the price level —what is called the cost of living.

In the latest edition of the Financial Mail, the following is said—

They realize (and so it seems, does everybody else apart from the diehards inside and outside the Nationalist Party) that continued growth and prosperity require a fundamental change of attitude to the non-White worker—to his stability, his housing, his education, his training, his productivity and his pay. The country is ready for it. The management is ready for it. And many of the trade unions are ready for it.

I have asked repeatedly, and I want to ask again now, that the hon. the Minister, when he replies this afternoon, should tell us whether the Government’s labour pattern and labour policy has changed or whether it is still the same. Would he tell us whether more Bantu and non-White labour can be made available? Would the hon. the Minister tell us whether it is Cabinet policy that they may be given technical training in the Republic of South Africa to enable them to pull their weight in industries? Or will we again receive no replies? I want to repeat that industrialists as such, particularly in commerce, do not see their way clear to complying with the hon. the Minister’s appeal that more and better products should be produced so that the gap between our exports and imports can be closed. The Minister’s appeal to trade unions, that they should not ask for higher wages, is a farce. Has the House ever heard anything like it? The cost of living is rising as a result of methods which are being applied by that Government. If the worker’s cost of living rises, and he consequently cannot come out on his salary, what must he do? Would it help to make a moral appeal to the labour force in the Republic not to ask for higher wages while we know that there is already agitation for higher wages in many sectors, and also in the sector of the hon. the Minister of Transport? Of course these people will want higher wages. The spiral keeps turning; it is the same pattern: Every time wages increase, inflation increases as well.

Lastly, the hon. the Minister made the following statement—

Surely this is not an accurate and true statement. Does the hon. the Minister really think that when import control makes other articles more expensive, this helps make it easier for our local manufacturers to compete? Surely the hon. the Minister knows that the prices of commodities we have to import, are not only affected by the devaluation of 12,28 per cent which occurred here, but that these are also affected by the revaluation of the monetary units of the countries from which we are importing, such as Germany and Japan for example. The difference is therefore not only 12,28 per cent, but in fact 20 per cent. In addition to that, sales tax has to be paid on the prices which are 20 per cent higher. When the hon. the Minister came to light with sales tax, we told him repeatedly that he should make it a purchase tax. Now the term “purchase tax” is being used, while in reality it is a sales tax. It simply amounts to the same old story again: More money is being paid out owing to devaluation on the one hand and appreciation on the other, higher sales tax and a higher price structure as soon as imported commodities are used. How must the producer produce more cheaply? That is the problem. I think it is time the hon. the Minister took the country into his confidence and told manufacturers and traders throughout the country what the policy of the Government for the near future is in respect of the country’s labour pattern in the first place. He must tell them whether they can rely on getting more labour and that the labour will be given technical training here in this country or whether it is now and for always the Government’s policy that this will not be done?

The second point, one which I have mentioned previously, is this: What incentive will there be to produce more and better products? The hon. the Minister must indicate to us what incentive there will be apart from what I call “minor incentives” which exist at this stage for the manufacturers to produce more and better products in spite of all the problems they already have. I want to repeat that there are many countries in the world where this incentive is being given; when they are hard-up for exports of their own products and they want the manufacturers to double their yield, they not only say that more and longer working hours must be worked, they also say that if the manufacturers can double their production quota the incentive will be so much, and if they can triple it, they need not pay tax on the third portion. After all, that is probably what manufacturers here want. It is also probably the incentive the country needs to produce more. We are looking forward to the hon. the Minister’s reply in this regard. If neither he nor the Prime Minister nor anyone else in the Cabinet can furnish those replies, or can tell us what the Government’s policy is in this respect, I want to say that not only Brakpan, but many other places as well will say: “Out with this Government! We have had enough! ”

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said here a few days ago that this debate would possibly be one of the most significant of this intire session. I do not think the hon. member could have realized how close he came to the truth. This debate which has almost concluded has in many respects been one of the most remarkable I have ever attended in my long experience in this House. I regret to say that it has been one of the most barren, boring and uninspired debates I have ever heard on the part of the Opposition. There has been a boring repetition of statements from that side of this hon. House, statements which have been made over and over again in this House during the past years.

In the second place, I must say that to my regret I experienced a bitterness and an acrimony from hon. members on that side of this House during the past debate such as I have never known in this House. In the two or more decades for which the hon. the Leader and I have been sitting in this House, I have crossed swords on the floor of this House with men such as Mr. Waterson in the debates which have been conducted here. We fought a tough battle with each other, but we could always look each other in the face, because we tried to conduct the debates on a high level.

Just like Stellenbosch.

In recent years, however, the situation has changed completely. I am very sorry to have to say, that since my friend the hon. member for Parktown became the U.P. leader in the economic and financial debates in this House, there has been a complete change in the relationship between the Opposition and the Government. There is now a feeling of bitterness in which arguments no longer count. Because the Opposition know that their arguments no longer count, they are trying to create an impression by using strong language. We could perhaps forgive them this acrimony if it were not so harmful to the country. This acrimony only springs from a feeling of frustration on the part of people who would so much like to come and sit on this side of this House, but know that, in spite of everything, they will never succeed in doing so.

Which side spoke about finance?

I shall come to that in a moment. From this side it often seemed as if those hon. members were speaking in a sound-proof room. They rant and rave, but nobody listens to them. Those who do listen to them, do not pay much attention to them. In the past few weeks I made a point of getting in touch with the business world as well. It is my job. I shall not deny that those hon. members have supporters in the business world, because we know this. But I want to tell hon. members that some of the most prominent businessmen told me that I should take no notice of what those people say. Even some of the severest critics of the Government’s economic policy still firmly support the National Party. A few days ago I spoke to a prominent industrialist in this country, a person who has been critical of certain aspects of the Government’s economic policy. When he asked me what he should do with a Government which refused to do what he wanted, I advised him to vote the Government out of power. He replied: “No, not on your life.” However critical those businessmen may be, many of them merely in order to see their names in the newspapers, they do not want that side of the House ever to take over the government. A party has never come into power by berating and abusing its opposition. A party has never come into power by repeating dozens and dozens of points of policy. Does the Opposition not remember what happened in 1953? In that year the United Party came forward with hundreds of promises and thought it would win the people’s votes by that means. However, it suffered a heavy defeat. The many promises they make will harm them rather than help them to make headway.

In conclusion I want to say in this connection that no party has ever come into power and remained in power in South Africa by means of pure bread-and-butter politics, with a purely materialistic philosophy such as we have heard from that side of the House. The only party which will govern in this country is one which can look after the material needs of the people, but which also has a message for its people, a message which transcends all material gain. What inspiration have those hon. members given the people? What inspiration have they given the youth? They say that the youth are becoming estranged and are turning to them. Let us look for a moment at what has been revealed by scientific investigations. I have here a scientific investigation carried out at the University of Pretoria, in which it is stated (translation)—

When was this?

Last year. Further on they make another interesting statement—

[Interjections.]

An investigation was carried out at the University of Stellenbosch as well, in which inter alia the following is stated (translation)—

I should like to proceed to discussing a few matters of policy, but before doing so, I want to draw the attention of this hon. House to a few points to prove how ineffectual and desperate that party is, a party which cannot even form a proper Opposition and is therefore incapable of governing the country. I want to mention a few examples—and I can mention numerous such examples—which have occurred in recent debates. In the first place, I want to make the statement that hon. members on that side are incapable of making even the most elementary arithmetical calculations. Surely a party which wants to govern the country must be able to do some arithmetic in the economic and financial spheres, but they cannot even do that. Let me mention a few examples. I referred in this debate to the cost of living index actually being 4 per cent. In talking of 7 per cent, we include the 3 per cent in administered prices, which must be dealt with differently. This is the finding of the Reserve Bank. Hon. members did not understand that. I explained it in my Second Reading speech and watched the hon. members over there. I am sure not one of them could understand that calculation. Secondly, the same thing happened when a report of an interview with me appeared in Die Transvaler in which it was said that I had predicted that the cost of living index figure might drop after March. The hon. member for Parktown looked at me with an expression of utter amazement on his face that one could say something like that, and asked me whether I had really said it. The rules of this House did not permit me to reply to that. Subsequently I replied to it in the Second Reading speech, but up to this very moment hon. members have understood nothing of it. I have not received a proper reply to it even now. In the third place, I mentioned in a previous debate that one of the reasons why we had devalued, and had devalued more than the dollar had, was that we would receive more rands for our gold than if we had not done so. I hope you can remember the expression of consternation on the faces of the hon. friends opposite. They simply did not understand that one would receive more rands for one’s gold if one devalued more than the dollar had.

The hon. member for Yeoville mentioned a beautiful example a few days ago. He said that the old people were not cared for in our country. In 1948 they received R12 per month in old-age pension, and now they receive R38. In the meanwhile the value of the rand had decreased from 100 cents to 45 cents. Then he asked: “How can they be better off when the rand is worth 45 cents?” He cannot do arithmetic. Suppose the rand was once worth 100 cents and now, according to him, it is worth 45 cents, then it has lost 55 per cent of its value. But the pension has increased from R12 to R38, i.e. by 220 per cent.

Of the R12, yes.

But one can look at it from the other side as well. The buying-power of the R12 has decreased by 120 per cent, but the allowance they now receive has increased by 220 per cent. The hon. member still understands absolutely nothing of this. In addition, the hon. member forgot that pensions have in the meantime been supplemented with a deferred pension of R11 and an attendant’s allowance of R10, so that pension can be R59 per month, or R118 for a married couple.

Hon. members opposite have proved in this debate that they have no conception of economic principles either. In the first place, we explained to them ad nauseam that there is something like fluctuations in the economy. My friends on this side of the House spoke about that. No economy ever remains on an even keel; there are upward and downward movements, there are the cyclical fluctuations. This is the case in every country in the world. If one tells them that things have gone well in South Africa for more than 20 years, but that one of those cyclical fluctuations is taking place now, they simply do not understand it. I am beginning to think that those hon. members, the so-called alternative government, are a lot of scared people and that they have taken fright. Now that a slight deceleration has unfortunately entered our economy, something we should like to change, we find that they are paralysed with fright. If they get such a fright in the Opposition, how would they not take fright and run away if they were the Government?

In the second place, hon. members do not understand the economic concept that economics is international, and that we here form part of what is taking place in the economic sphere throughout the world. We are not isolated. Our economy is part of world economy; we are affected by world trends. We repeatedly tell those hon. members this, but their blinkers are closing their eyes. They cannot see farther than right in front of them. They cannot see farther than these benches, in which they would so much like to sit.

In the third place, we have tried to explain that the inflation we have today, is due mainly to excessive consumption and that the methods which must be employed against excessive consumption are fiscal and monetary ones, which are also recommended by the International Monetary Fund in such circumstances. But they do not understand this, Sir. They do not understand it, and that is why we never heard anything positive from them.

I come to the hon. member for Durban Point, who said in a speech in the previous debate: “It may be true that the 4 per cent increase in the real domestic product is mainly in the form of wages and salaries, but look at the terrible cost of living.” Did the hon. member not know that in that 4 per cent the cost of living had already been taken into account and that it was a real figure which was determined after the cost of living had been taken into account? Did the hon. member not know this, or was he merely indulging in propaganda?

Just ask the housewives.

Sir, that hon. member is not the only one speaking like this. The other day the hon. member for Simonstown addressed a meeting in the Strand together with the hon. member for Yeoville, and referred to the cost of living which was so terribly high. He spoke of the tremendous “inflationary rate”, and said that the growth of South Africa did not nearly approach and could not be compared with the high inflation in our country. But the hon. member omitted to tell his people that the growth rate may be more than 10 per cent this year, while inflation is 7 per cent at most. He omitted to say that in monetary terms the growth rate was higher than the rate of inflation (ruilvoet).

When I spoke about the rate of exchange in the previous debate, I tried to explain that one of the main reasons why we had had to devalue and why we had devalued more than the dollar, was that the rate of exchange in our foreign trade had changed unfavourably towards us. The hon. members sat looking at me as if they had never before heard of something like the rate of exchange. The hon. member for Constantia mentioned a few dates here and asked what had happened between 22nd October and 24th November, when we introduced import control. Did the hon. member not take note of what happened then? Did he not watch what was taking place in the economic sphere? Did he not know about the outflow of money from South Africa and of the leads and lags and the other reasons for import control? Imports increased because the people were expecting import control or devaluation. As a result, there was a flight of capital from the country, and under these circumstances every responsible Government would have been obliged to do something in November in order to protect its reserves. Now the question is put to me: “But did you not know that the Group of Ten were going to meet in December?” Yes, we knew they were going to meet, but we did not know what they were going to decide or that a decision would be taken. We did not know whether they were going to decide to devalue or to what extent they were going to devalue or revalue. There were rumours that they would reach a compromise perhaps only in February, or perhaps only at the end of this year. Did the hon. member for Constantia and others on that side know what the Group of Ten was going to decide in December? On 24th November, when we decided on import control, did they know what the Group of Ten was going to decide in December? If they knew, why did they not tell us about it?

Sir, a great deal has been said here about the £80 million gold loan which was made to Britain in 1948. I think it is time for us to come forward with the truth in regard to that loan. We are always told here that in those years when we took over, the economy was so wonderfully sound that they could afford to lend Britain £80 million in gold.

You supported us.

In 1947 the deficit on current account was R354 million and the national income was R1 612 million. The deficit on current account was 22 per cent. In 1948 it was 19 per cent and in 1970 it was 8½ per cent. This was the wonderfully sound economy we took over in 1948. Every day the greatest surprise is expressed here at the great deficit on our current account and on the balance of payments. This is correct, but in our case it is 8½ per cent of the national income; in their case it was 22 per cent. Sir, what happened then?

They were bankrupt then already.

Soon after we had come into power, the entire £80 million gold loan which had been made to Britain had to be used for paying for purchases over there, because our coffers here in South Africa were empty. What else did we have to do? We had to decrease the gold coverage from 30 per cent to 25 per cent. When we came into power in 1948, we had to introduce import control at the insistence of members on that side of the House, and in 1949, as a result of the economic position, even after import control, we had to devalue the £ by 30 per cent. In spite of this, hon. members ask us: “Why did you introduce import control here and then devalue?” In view of the position we inherited from them at the time, we were obliged to introduce import control and to devalue as well.

The hon. member asked me: What about the national debt? The hon. member for Simonstown said: “Our national debt is staggeringly high”. Sir, in 1947 the national debt was 75 per cent of the national income; in 1948 it was 72 per cent and in 1970 it was 54 per cent. Just look at these figures again. In 1947, when they were in power, the national public debt was 75 per cent of the national income, and in 1970 it was 54 per cent. Yet the hon. member says it is “staggeringly high” at the moment, but he does not tell our people that the debt of a country such as ours is the capital with which the country works. A country does not issue shares; it borrows, and with this capital which it borrows we build the roads, bridges, railways, schools, hospitals —the entire infrastructure. The whole of this “staggeringly high” debt of our people is represented by positive assets.

Then the hon. member for Constantia, of whom it surprises me even more, comes along and says—

Did the hon. member say this? Yes, he said—

But surely this is not true, Mr. Speaker. It is everything but the truth. In 1966 there was a “lifting of the ceiling” by R104 million, in 1967 by R274 million, in 1968 by R280 million, in 1969 by R487 million, in 1970 by R361 million and in 1971, up to September, by R187 million. Over that period credit was increased by almost R1 700 million. But the hon. member asks us to believe that there has been “no lifting of the credit ceiling”. This is the credibility gap of which the hon. members speak so often. These are the hon. members who condemn us so often for allegedly governing the country in an inflationary way and financing the Budget in an inflationary way. But let me point out to the hon. members that in this period from 1966, the credit of the private sector increased by R1 696 million and that of the State by R212 million, approximately one-eighth of that of the private sector. In spite of this we are told that this inflation has been caused by the State’s extravagance and by its making use of bank credit, but these figures prove that the private sector borrowed eight times as much money from banks as the State.

The hon. member for Von Brandis made a few jokes here in regard to the rate of increase. In response to what we said about the rate of increase having dropped, he made several jokes about a motor car travelling over a bad road at 50 miles an hour, then at 65, and then at 60. I am sorry to say that if the hon. member makes such jokes, he simply shows that he does not want to understand the position. I think it was rather flippant of the hon. member to do such things. It was in fact a ridiculous comparison, because he knows this is not the position and that it will not go down with any economist in the world.

Then growth was discussed here. We have heard so often about the growth rate of 4 per cent, that we have fallen so low that we have reached a growth rate of only 4 per cent. Sir, let us take another look at how wonderful things were in their time. In 1946 their growth rate was 1,7 per cent. In 1942 there was a negative growth rate under their régime. In the eight years from 1940 to 1948 the average growth rate was 3,2 per cent.

Yes, but that was in war time.

And if one takes the population growth into account, the growth per capita was 1,4 per cent as compared with 2,7 per cent in our case, about which they are complaining today. I want to say that the hon. members have no understanding of our monetary concepts either. The hon. member for Parktown too made the statement here that if it is good for gold that we should devalue more than the dollar, why do we not continue devaluing and devaluing?

I think that is an argument which certainly is not worthy of that hon. member. He can do much better than that. If this is the position, we should say that, if it is good to reduce taxation, as they say every day, we should continue reducing taxation until nobody pays tax any more. If we should relax credit, we should simply continue relaxing credit. This is no argument. But the hon. member for Parktown made a much more dangerous statement than that. I said that we had devalued by 12,3 per cent in order to have finality in respect of devaluation, so that it could not be said that we would also be obliged to devalue further if the dollar were devalued again. From this the hon. member then made the deduction that the dollar was a weak currency, as well as the further deduction that the rand was one of the weakest currencies in the world. These were his deductions. But this is nonsense. Does the hon. member not know of the disquiet which prevailed at the Rome meeting of the Ten when America merely hinted that it may devalue up to 10 per cent?

The other nations had a fright, because they did not want America to devalue up to 10 per cent. Do hon. members know that the meeting adjourned for that reason? Do they know of the disquiet which existed only recently when there was talk that the Bill which is going to be introduced in America, would allow her to devalue by more than 7,9 per cent? The other nations do not want America to devalue by more. But suppose America devalued by 10 per cent or 12 per cent. Do hon. members think Germany, Japan and other countries would do nothing? They would not do nothing; they would also devalue. They would also reduce the value of their money, because they want only a certain gap between themselves and the dollar. They do not want the dollar to do better and to find things easier on the market than they do. This is an elementary monetary concept. I assume the hon. member understands this; he must understand it. Or does he not understand it? [Interjections.] No, he does not understand it. It is as I have said: They do not understand it.

The hon. member for Constantia made as outrageous a statement. He said: “Devaluation is an act of insolvency.” This is not only an insult to South Africa, but also prejudices South Africa in presenting it as an insolvent country which may not fulfil its obligations. How will such a report be received abroad, i.e. if those people who have to lend us money are told by an hon. member from our own country that South Africa has committed an act of insolvency and cannot fulfil its obligations towards its friends? I think it is time the Opposition reflected on everything it is doing to South Africa.

After all the sad tales we have heard here, I can at least present something good to hon. members by pointing to what other people are saying about us. There are other people who also know something about South Africa and who make a point of saying something favourable about the country. The hon. member has probably heard of the recent visit by Dr. Lutz, the Director of the Swiss Credit Bank. He toured South Africa for a month in order to examine the investment possibilities here. This Dr. Lutz issued a report of four big pages which appeared in a magazine. The Star of last Thursday contained a short summary of that report. This person is a prominent banker. The heading of the article reads as follows: “Put Faith and Cash in South Africa—Swiss Banker’s bright view.” I quote from the article—

He went on to say—

Furthermore, he said—

The hon. members must please listen now—

Here we have an unprejudiced view from someone who has made a thorough study of South Africa.

I want to come to points of policy now. Hon. members have asked me in the past to put our policy. I want to say I cannot do so fully, because many matters have to wait until the Budget is presented. However, I want to elaborate on a few points today. In the first place, I want to say to the hon. members that they ought to know what our policy is, because they have been criticizing it for 20 years now. Surely they have seen in the past few months what we have done in respect of import control and devaluation—two very brave steps which reflect the Government’s policy. They know that policy. Before continuing, I want to ask the hon. members, in the first place, what their policy is in regard to devaluation. No, let us rather start with import control. What is the United Party’s policy in regard to import control? Are they in favour of it or opposed to it? [Interjections.] I am calling all the people of South Africa to witness. There we have a party which wants to govern the country, but in respect of one of the most cardinal issues of the country it cannot furnish a reply.

We have already furnished it. It is untrue. [Interjections.]

In spite of the fact that it was generally welcomed by industry, I have given those hon. members a few seconds to tell us whether they are in favour of it or opposed to it. But they remain as silent as the grave. I want to put another question to the hon. members now. Are the hon. members in favour of or opposed to devaluation?

If you do not know, it is time that you knew. [Interjections.]

I honestly do not know …

It is time that you found out.

The hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Yeoville expressed themselves in favour of devaluation, and in the previous debate I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he was in favour of it or opposed to it. He said he would still come to that, but to this day he has not done so. I am asking the hon. the Leader again whether he is in favour of or opposed to devaluation.

You had to devalue and we all know it.

Must I accept that if the hon. members had been in power last year they would have devalued? I receive no reply. Two of the hon. members said they were in favour of it, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has furnished no reply and the hon. member for Constantia expressed himself against it in the strongest of terms. He said it was insolvency. We have here two different points of view, and today we still do not know whether they are in favour of or opposed to devaluation. I think we have touched a very sore point as far as they are concerned and I think we can accept that if another similar situation were to develop while they were in power, they would not know what to do. They are the people who want to govern the country. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows what his attitude is and what it was in 1967, when Britain devalued. At that time the hon. member deplored the fact that South Africa had not followed Britain’s example. He said we had allowed a golden opportunity to slip by.

We did too.

When the economy of South Africa was so strong that it was not at all necessary to do so, the hon. member said South Africa could not devalue, apparently because it was too strong. Now the hon. member cannot furnish a reply. In 1967 he said, yes …

Are the circumstances the same at present?

No, the circumstances are not the same. I just want to quote to the hon. member what he said—

When we did not devalue in 1967, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition deplored the fact, because we would allegedly have had a chance then to increase the price of gold and we did not make use of the opportunity. What does he say now that we had an opportunity and used it? He says nothing now. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we have enough examples now to show hon. members opposite …

What did Senator Horwood say?

Order!

… that at this stage we still do not know what their policy is in respect of two of the cardinal issues in the economy. I can continue in this vein and mention numerous things. They are capable of acting negatively, but they are incapable of acting positively and of stating their standpoint.

Now I want to proceed to the policy …

Now you are going to state your policy.

Yes, now I am going to state our policy. The policy of the National Party which we have not only stated in this House, but also implemented, has taken this country to unprecedented economic heights. [Interjections.] If hon. members opposite doubt this, it is merely another illustration of their ignorance in respect of the economy. Right from the start the National Party made the industrial promotion of the country one of the major points of its policy. When that side of the House was still indifferent to that principle, we realized that the promotion of industry afforded us the only method of making South Africa prosperous and of providing employment opportunities for our people. We strengthened the Board of Trade and Industry and gave protection to our industries. From that time on industrial development really started in South Africa. We laid down the principle of private initiative on which South Africa has been firmly built. We established an infrastructure in South Africa which is wonderful when compared to our resources, the size and vastness of the country and the sparseness of the population. This brought public debt. Where do we stand now? We still stand by that same policy. Where we are standing particularly in the light of balance of payments problems, and where we have devalued and introduced import control beforehand in order to safeguard our balance of payments and in order to protect our reserves, it is our policy to do everything in our power to safeguard our balance of payments, to push up our reserves and to ensure that we do not get into a similar position as last year, if we can help it in any way. Devaluation and import control are provisional steps to protect our reserves. The increase of our reserves is one of the basic grounds for the implementation of our further policy in respect of the economy. In order to safeguard this balance of payments, we must take a further step, and that is to promote our exports with every means at our disposal. We have already done a considerable amount in this regard. In previous Budgets we announced certain measures for promoting exports from this country. We have established bodies such as Safto; we have sent trade missions abroad, we have stationed trade representatives throughout the world and we have appointed the Reynders Commission to advise us on further steps in respect of exports. This Commission has submitted its provisional report. We are studying that report at present and shall tell this House at a later stage what we are going to do in that regard. Hon. members may accept that this Government is going to do everything in its power to promote exports. Now we ask, “What about the private sector?” Do the hon. members want to encourage the private sector as well to promote exports? Surely they are the people who should do so in the first place. In order to promote exports, we need production first.

Labour!

What is needed now, is that we should increase our production. Our production has decreased, or it has not increased as it should have. The State is not to be blamed for this. An analysis was made by certain people who know more about these matters than some hon. members do, and they found that capital expenditure and management were responsible for 80 per cent of any increase in production. They said that management and capital expenditure were responsible for 80 per cent of an increase in production and that labour was responsible for 20 per cent. We should take a look at the private sector and not blame the State for everything. Hon. members are not doing South Africa a favour when they blame the State for everything, and do not encourage the private sector to play its part as well. When I speak of production promotion, I am thinking in the first place of the refining of our minerals. This is a tremendously large field waiting for us. I have faith in the future of South Africa. As regards the substitution of gold by our base minerals in their unrefined, but particularly in their refined form, the world will have to look to South Africa to an increasing extent for obtaining its raw materials. In coming years we shall have to take all possible steps to refine our minerals as much as possible so that work may be provided for our people, so that transport may be saved and so that a larger measure of foreign exchange may be earned.

We need capital. We shall have to teach our people to generate capital. The first step in that direction is to teach people to save more. If the Opposition wants to work in the interests of South Africa, I want to ask them not to make a joke of the matter when we speak of saving more. There are people in this country who are able to save. I know there are people who are not able to save. This is the position in every country of the world, but there are also people in South Africa who are in fact able to save. When we look at the high consumption figure in South Africa, the actual real consumption I have mentioned, we see that it is tremendously high and that it is growing annually. But every time we speak of saving, hon. members joke about it. This is not doing South Africa any good.

That is a half-truth.

Which hon. member said, “That is a half-truth”?

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

In the second place, we should welcome capital from abroad in South Africa just as we did in the past. There are numerous people who want to come to South Africa. I do not want to mention their names, but I can assure the hon. members that some of the most prominent people in North America and Europe are interested in investing in South Africa. We should not discourage them, as the hon. member for Constantia did by saying that South Africa was insolvent. Let us welcome those people if they want to invest in South Africa.

We shall have to provide credit as well. Already in my previous speech I stated that we should pay attention to the question of credit provision and to the ceiling imposed by the Reserve Bank, on which the Reserve Bank was having discussions with the various monetary banks. The hon. member accused me as though I had only just discovered that this matter was unsatisfactory. I have always known that this matter is unsatisfactory, but let the hon. member suggest another and better method to me. I can assure the hon. House that as soon as there is another and better method of controlling credit, that method will be introduced by the Reserve Bank. It would be stupid and absolutely foolish on our part to lift all credit restrictions now, because it would lead to aggravated inflation in this country.

Let us look at the problem of the protection of our industries. We gave a new directive to the Board of Trade and Industry, which has always performed this task, to protect the industries deserving of protection as far as possible. After I had spoken about our difficulties with GATT, the hon. member for Parktown made the snide remark that in 22 years we had either done nothing or, if we had done something, we did not have the right to speak against GATT. This is the way hon. members opposite argue. The hon. member for Parktown ought to know that in the past 22 years the import duties of hundreds of industries have been increased as a result of agreements with GATT.

We are not complaining about that, but …

The hon. member should first let me finish speaking before interrupting me. The hon. member knows that there are hundreds and hundreds of tariffs which are bound and which we cannot and may not increase without granting compensation for it. The motor car industry, which is one of our strongest industries today, was one of those industries, and over the past 20 years we have conducted numerous very difficult negotiations in that regard. But I have not yet finished with the hon. member for Parktown. We have received numerous increases, also in respect of bound tariffs. At present many of our industries are still subject to bound tariffs and we are experiencing great difficulty in having them unbound so that increased tariffs may be obtained in that way. We also send officials to Geneva who work there sometimes for months and years to fight for our tariffs. In addition we have an embassy operating there. There is one in Geneva which pays attention mainly to this matter. From time to time we also send people over there to do special work. The hon. member for Parktown describes them as “a flock of pigeons over the Continent of Europe holding discussions with GATT”. This is the way in which hon. members opposite treat the public servants of South Africa. When they are sent out on such essential work, they are regarded as a “flock of pigeons” flying over the Continent of Europe. [Interjections.] No, this is not the first time this has happened. By now it has become customary for them to attack our public servants, who cannot defend themselves in this House. This is what the hon. member for Parktown did. We are appointing a standing committee to make a penetrating study of the GATT issue, one which will continually be dealing with it. The Government and the Departments of Commerce and Industries continually pay urgent attention to the most effective protection of our industries. However, if the hon. member thinks this is an easy matter, he does not know what it involves. I do not want to be unfriendly, but the hon. member for Parktown and all his sophistry and very subtle reasoning made me think that I should append a name to that reasoning of his. I thought the best name would be Emdinitis. If, however, you regard it as being too personal, Sir, I am prepared to withdraw it.

No, don’t.

Very well; then I shall call it “Emdinitis”, which goes with “Parktownomics”.

I am not surprised they call that cuckoo the “Diederichs cuckoo! ”

Taxation was discussed here as well. I realize that the tax burden is heavy. However, it is not as heavy as in many other countries of the world. I want to tell hon. members that it is the desire of this Government to reduce taxation as far as possible, but then the public should not expect of the State what it expects of the State at present. Then they should not expect the schools, hospitals, roads, new ministries and all the other things they want from the State nowadays. At the beginning of this session I started writing down everything hon. members opposite requested of the Government. In the three weeks which have passed, they have put dozens of demands to the Government. However, let us take a serious look to see to what extent it is possible to reduce the tax burden of the country so as to encourage saving and industrial growth.

I come now to the problem of labour. As the hon. the Minister of Labour said last week, labour is one of the most difficult problems with which a government can be faced. I am afraid the Government which tells me that it has found an answer to the labour problem in its country, no matter what country it may be, is not telling the truth; because it is one of the most difficult issues any government has to deal with. In regard to our labour, it is necessary that we should examine it, because I have mentioned the figure before that in the past year, up to July last year, the number of labourers in non-agricultural industries increased by 5 per cent, but production by 4 per cent only, in spite of increasing mechanization. There was something wrong in that regard. That is not only for the Government to rectify. I think this should be examined by the Government on the one hand, but particularly by the private sector and by the managers and leaders in industry. The Government has established a productivity institute. That institute is making a study of various industries, and has found that there is a tremendous backlog in most industries as far as productivity is concerned, something which they themselves should rectify. We need not only supplement our labour all the time, but should make the best use of the labour we have. In most industries which have been investigated, it has been found that it is possible to increase productivity tremendously by means of the better utilization of the existing labour force. Before drawing in more and more labourers from outside, we should make better use of those we have. I want to give hon. members the assurance that the Government always listens with a sympathetic ear to the leaders in our production sector, in trade and industry, when they ask for labour. We indicated that in the White Paper issued last year. This gave us the impression that industry in general was satisfied with it and could continue expanding under it. We are always ready to hold discussions with them. There is a standing committee on labour constituted under the Ministry of Labour. We are always prepared to make fair concessions in that sphere, especially for those industries which cannot move away. The Railways have often been mentioned here, but it is a location-orientated industry. The Railways cannot be moved away; the Railways are at a certain place. What applies to the Railways, applies to all location-orientated industries. What the Railways can do, industries can do to a certain extent as well, and that is to come to an agreement with their trade unions about the reclassification of skilled work, so that less skilled work may be performed by semi-skilled workers. I think if members of the industrial world were to apply themselves a little more to the better utilization of the skills of their labour force, they would have less reason for complaints.

However, there are two things we shall not do. In the first place, we shall allow no uncontrolled influx of Bantu labour into the White areas. Secondly, we shall not allow the labour peace prevailing in our trade unions to be destroyed in any way, because it is particularly on this that the production capacity of South African industry depends. Thirdly, we shall proceed with our policy of decentralization, no matter what hon. members opposite say. The hon. member for Pinetown made a less kind remark here. Speaking of the wages in the decentralized areas, he said: “The gutter is the limt”. I know the hon. member very well. I think our personal relations are very good. But to say something like this in regard to the wages in the decentralized areas, namely “The gutter is the limit”, does not suit the hon. member. He himself has many border industrialists in his constituency. Now I want to ask the hon. member: Has he ever asked the industrialists in his area to pay the Bantu employed in their factories higher wages? After all, they may pay higher wages; we do not forbid them to do so. The private sector may pay as much as it wants to; we do not forbid them. Has the hon. member asked his people in his constituency to pay the Bantu higher wages? Apparently he has not. Therefore he has no right to say to us, “The gutter is the limit”.

Sir, I come to the final point, and that is Government expenditure. Hon. members launched many attacks on us concerning Government expenditure and said that it was too high. Hon. members should realize that there are certain essential services which must be rendered by the State. They are essential services which can be rendered only by the State. If one studies the infrastructure of our country, one finds that in the last Budget, more than 50 per cent of our Government expenditure was devoted to the infrastructure. This is what must be done. We must expand our roads, our hospitals, our harbours, our railways, our postal services, etc., otherwise hon. members would complain that those services were not available. In this regard, Sir, may I mention a figure to hon. members which comes from the well-known publication International Financial Statistics? According to that publication, consumer spending by the Government in South Africa, expressed as a percentage, is the lowest in the whole world. And now we are not comparing us to fifth-rate nations, but to the best in the world. If we compare our consumer spending in South Africa to that of the rest of the world, we find that ours is 11 per cent of our total Gross Domestic Product, while that of other countries is as high as 17 per cent, 18 per cent and more. Ours is the lowest of the comparable countries in the world.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, H. J. vap Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

In clause 1 I just want to make a correction. In the discussion during the Second Reading the hon. member for South Coast asked if these are loans to farmers who wanted to plant forests, of the same kind as agricultural credit allocations to category 3 farmers, and whether they also qualify. After discussions with the hon. the Minister of Forestry I find that the reply given to the hon. member for South Coast’s question was not completely correct. The aim of the Minister of Forestry is to initiate and encourage private afforestation. The means test will still apply; a means test will be applied, but not on the basis for agricultural credit farmers who are in financial difficulties. Each case will be considered on its merits by the Minister of Forestry and the recommendation will be made to the House for the granting of loans, provided funds are available. The aim is to encourage private afforestation.

The position is then that such a farmer who is planting trees could obtain a loan from the Department of Agricultural Credit, apart from other sources?

As I have said, I made a mistake. I said he is not our customer if he can be helped by the Land Bank or by a private commercial bank. But according to what I hear from the Minister of Forestry those people, after his recommendation, can be helped under this new scheme.

In connection with this clause I just want to express a few thoughts. Afforestation and the planting of trees has now become a necessity in this country, and it is one industry that can be practised profitably on a part-time basis. It requires capital, and at present there are newcomers in the field doing this on a part-time basis. Since afforestation extends into future generations, and a large amount of capital is invested in it, I want to make a friendly recommendation to the Minister about whether the set-up cannot also be extended to grant assistance not only to the full-time farmer, but also to the part-time farmer who enters this field in all good faith and invests a large amount of capital. There is a parallel in respect of wattle-bark, where the loan on the subsidy paid through the agency of the Land Bank, is made available to all growers. Therefore I also want to make that request in this case.

I want to state beyond all doubt that we must not get the idea here that any man, the Mitchells, the Streichers, the Graaffs and the Koekemoers, who are prosperous and rich people, may now consider themselves able to obtain loans from Agricultural Credit for the purposes of afforestation. We do want to stimulate afforestation, but I do not want to let the idea take root here that a person can plant forests to his heart’s content and that he will obtain loans at 5 per cent. We would then be misleading the people. The Minister of Forestry will consider each case on its merits. To the hon. member for Ermelo I can say that he should actually bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Forestry. He mentions a person who is not exclusively a forester, but is a prosperous owner of flats who has investments of half a million rand—I then ask myself the question and I do not believe it to be our task to finance that man at Agricultural Credit. But if a person is perhaps a maize farmer, or he has a small shop, and the Department of Forestry says it has delved into all the aspects, the man can qualify and we can help him in order to stimulate afforestation, then this can be done. This is a question one cannot answer “yes” or “no” to. Every case must be treated on its merits.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

This clause, which makes possible and facilitates the establishment of waterworks, is so important to my constituency, in fact to the entire South-Western Districts, that I should like to dwell on that for a few moments. In this belt we have mixed farming. On the one hand one has stock farming and then one also has grain farming. Normally the two go together very nicely. We had a very good grain harvest last year, for which we are very grateful. But the previous three years things went very badly for the farmers in that region. There were three crop failures that accumulated very great losses, and at those times it was very important for one to have had help in the form of one’s stock farming. And the general comment amongst the farmers was that if one did not have one’s livestock one would have gone under. When one comes to stock farming the provision of water is probably the most important element of the entire set-up, because without a good supply of water one cannot farm with livestock. This clause is specifically so important since it now helps one with the provision of water. There one normally has recourse to boreholes, but these are frequently very briny, so much so that one sometimes catches codfish in them. At other times one bores 10 or 12 holes, as the Department of Water Affairs has already found, without obtaining water. Where the soil is hydrous one can build dams, but the summer rainfalls are at times uncertain. The Department of Water Affairs plans to lay a pipeline for our farmers from the irrigation dams in the mountains, so that they can obtain water from those dams. But a great deal of planning and research must still be done before this becomes possible. This clause has now made it possible for a number of farmers to get together—10, 12 or 15 of them— for the establishment of their own water scheme. Without the subsidy being given to them in temrs of this clause such a move would never have been possible. What they now do is, firstly, to look for a suitable point in one of the rivers that flows past the area. Then they can abstract the water from the river with a good pump, and a plastic pipeline can then serve fresh water to 10 or 12 farms from the river; something they could not have obtained previously. You will find the farmer’s livestock in a much better condition, because with fresh water such an animal’s condition easily improves by 10 per cent to 15 per cent. On the other hand a farmer can graze a great many more head of cattle—perhaps half as many and sometimes even twice as many. He also has the advantage—and this is very important—that he can make a garden for himself around his house, lay out lawns, plant flowers and beautify his farm. Thus he can make life pleasant for himself as a farmer. In this clause special mention is made of category 3 farmers who will benefit markedly from this measure. On their own they cannot establish such schemes. The subsidy here being given to them now makes it possible for them to participate in those schemes, to be that much better farmers and to have that much better incomes. With the establishment of the water schemes problems do crop up, and I should like to bring these to the hon. the Minister and his department’s attention. If about 10 or 12 farmers get together to establish such a scheme for themselves, a scheme that is subsidized and that could not be constructed without the subsidy, there are usually only one or two of the farmers adjacent to the river who have water rights from the river and who can pump when they want to and as much as they want to. The other 10, 12 or 15 who lie further away, who do not border on the river and do not have water rights, now find a problem developing. If such a farmer is a poor man, he can end up in a lot of trouble. They now have to apply to the Supreme Court for water rights from the river, rights which the farms normally do not have. If they go to the Supreme Court there is quite a lot of work and quite heavy costs involved. A deputation must go along and the application must be made through an advocate. He must make the application before the judge and then the judge gives his decision according to the circumstances. Those costs, which are frequently quite extensive, make it altogether impossible for the less well-to-do farmer to participate in this scheme. It would be too expensive for him, as the hon. member has said. All the water rights of the farmers who have such rights below the abstraction point will be affected by such abstraction. Hon. members probably know that one could rather interfere with a farmer’s wife and children than his water rights. The moment you touch his water rights, even though you never use them, he immediately rebels. These people must also be taken into consideration. This whole scheme will make matters so much better for the farmer who is situated some distance from the river. They in particular need this water so badly and they are the ones who would like to use it. These exceptionally heavy costs, legal and judicial costs and the costs involved in the registration of their deeds of transfer, make the costs of the scheme so steep that it will be beyond the reach of many farmers. I want to ask the department to give attention to this matter. They must see whether in future we cannot obtain a recipe, a formula whereby we can find an easier way for these farmers than is now the case with the marked costs involved. To satisfy the farmers below that abstraction point, one may perhaps broach with the Department of Water Affairs the possibility of compelling irrigation dams higher up in the river to allow a certain amount of water to flow through, a quantity equal to that abstracted by this scheme. This would quite possibly satisfy the farmers who are situated lower down on the river and have water rights but do not want to relinquish them, in that they will not offer any opposition to the schemes being planned there. I should like to bring this point to the hon. the Minister’s attention and the attention of his department. I want to suggest that in future we give proper attention to that. Let us accommodate the category 3 farmer in particular.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to a matter that we want to give attention to. Actually the Department of Water Affairs will have to be closely involved in this. The hon. member referred to a public stream that is declared a State-controlled scheme where each person is a registered owner of the water right in that stream. That would make him a riparian owner. It does happen that farmers who are not riparian owners also want water from this public stream. The Department of Water Affairs is then faced with the problem that if it gives such a farmer abstraction rights, another farmer could perhaps be prejudiced in the process. Where is one going to draw the line? Later one could receive requests for abstraction rights from farmers living 20 miles from the stream. That is why I say that it is not necessary for a farmer to take a lot of legal advice on this matter. The Water Act is very clear about this. As I said, every case will have to be considered on merit. We should like to help such people, but then this must be within reasonable limits. It cannot be expected that a person living five miles from a stream should be able to claim abstraction rights. We are specifically faced with the problem of too little water in this country. The hon. member is right; there are cases where one has a few category 3 farmers and a few prosperous farmers that are drawn together in one irrigation scheme. Cases such as this are very sympathetically considered by the Department of Water Affairs. If they have a practical canal system or abstraction system, if it justifies its existence, if their request has foundation, the farmers will obtain a loan from the Department of Water Affairs for the establishment of such a scheme. We shall investigate the hon. member for Mossel Bay’s requests.

But your department gives the money.

Yes, the Department of Agriculture gives the money, but on the recommendation of the Department of Water Affairs. That department must tell us in what cases it feels a loan ought to be granted. In terms of legislation we have the power to grant loans of more than R9 000 in cases where we see that the applicants can utilize water to the benefit of the country. But, as I have said, each application is linked to a thorough investigation. A general rule cannot be applied.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with an amendment which provides that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture shall designate from time to time an officer in the Public Service to be the Chairman of the Land Tenure Board. As was pointed out during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, the Land Tenure Board is a board vested with tremendous power and tremendous responsibilities. As this amendment is phrased by the hon. the Minister, he is now asking this Committee to give him the power to designate any officer in the employ of the State. If we have a look at the Public Service Act, we find that this includes officers in the employ of the Provincial Administrations as well, and, of course, in the employ of the Administration of South-West Africa. We on this side of the House feel that this is a good move. Because of what has happened in the past—I refer particularly to the so-called Agliotti scandal—it is only right that the Minister should have direct access to the Chairman of the Land Tenure Board and that this should not be a person acting independently on his own, but that he should be somebody under the direct control of the Minister. Therefore we on this side of the House support the principle that the Chairman of this Board should no longer be the Chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board, but should be a civil servant appointed by the hon. the Minister. With one proviso: We feel that the person so designated by the Minister should be a senior civil servant. As the Bill reads, the hon. the Minister could designate anybody. I know that someone is going to say that that is unreasonable and ridiculous, because he is not going to appoint the person who pours the tea. However, the unfortunate experience which we have just had, is still fresh in the minds of the people of South Africa. I think that, if the hon. the Minister were to accept the amendment which is being suggested by this side of the House, this would go a long way towards allaying any suspicions which may linger, or still do linger, in the minds of the public outside, because we are here handing over tremendous powers to one person. It is for this reason that I move the amendment as printed—

I have gone out of my way to have the Bill modified the way the hon. member asked for it to be modified, but the legal advisers tell us that there is no definition of a “Senior official”, not even in the Public Service Act. I have asked them to help me since we intend appointing a senior man. They told me we would then experience all kinds of problems as far as definitions were concerned. Previously an “under-secretary”, for example, was a senior man. That has been changed. The concept of “senior officer” has been changed to “deputy secretary”. When a senior man is instructed to perform a specific task he has, at that moment, powers up to a certain point. If the amount he deals with is exceeded he has to consult the Minister. This we have done on account of our experience in the past. But then again he has to have the power to send another man to view a piece of land and to determine whether there is a canal for example, before we buy such land. Is it necessary for a senior man to be sent on a trip of a thousand miles to ascertain that? Officers of lower rank should be able to carry out tasks such as those. When a title deed has to be registered, for example, a more junior officer will be given that job. As I said during the Second Reading, when speaking of a senior man, we mean and have in mind an officer who is an expert in his field. I may tell the hon. member that I should like to insert the word “senior”, but the legal advisers tell us that it is not practicable. We simply cannot do it. For that reason I ask the hon. member to be satisfied and to withdraw this amendment. I should have liked to insert it myself. The relevant person may even be given a more important sounding designation than “senior man”, because that person will really be a top man. We simply do not have the power to include it in the Bill, and this applies to all legislation we deal with.

On account of the explanation furnished by the hon. the Minister and the feeling he has expressed here, namely that he is desirous of appointing a senior man in this position, we on this side of the House are prepared to accept it. If this is not complied with in future when the appointment is made, we will simply expect to be able to take the hon. the Deputy Minister at his word as given to this House today. That is the spirit in which we approach this matter. We should like to see that the officer designated as chairman of the Land Tenure Board will, in fact, be the expert referred to by the Deputy Minister. Under those circumstances I believe that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, because he also accepts the viewpoint of the Deputy Minister as I do, will be inclined to withdraw his amendment

Mr. Chairman, I must admit, that like my friend, the hon. member for Newton Park, I must accept the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do know that he faces a problem. There is another aspect that perturbs me. Just now we are going to come to another clause in which that hon. Deputy Minister is going to ask us to allow him to delegate the power to deputize such a person to act for the board.

As Myburgh is delegating powers to you now?

This is another point where I do feel that we need a little bit of reassurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] If that hon. Whip knew a little bit of what was going on and if he were able to read the Bill he might not keep on with that inane interjection all the time. We are dealing with a serious matter here, unless that hon. Whip does not consider R5 million of public money as being serious. Because he cannot read a balance sheet, he perhaps does not know what R5 million means. It is public money and that is what we are dealing with now. I feel that the public outside do require this reassurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister. He has given it, except for this one point. While we are dealing with this question of the board I wonder whether he cannot at this stage show us what is going to happen. The Minister will be allowed to delegate to some officer of the State the power to appoint another officer of the State as chairman of this board. Is this really what he intends to do and to whom is it his intention to delegate that power? With the approval of the Committee I withdraw my amendment, having received this assurance from the Deputy Minister, but I would like to have an assurance from him on this second point as well.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District the assurance that this will be a senior man. If I do not appoint the right person I am sure the hon. member will let me know soon enough. The Chairman will be appointed by the Minister.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, here we are dealing with the crux of this Bill and with the crux of the whole application of the principle of this Land Tenure Act. How does this clause intend to amend section 9 of the Act? We find that the Minister may not delegate certain powers, and I think that I should detail what these powers are for the benefit of the Committee. He may not delegate the power to appoint members of the board, except the chairman of the board. That power he may delegate. He may not delegate the power to determine the period of appointment of the members of the board. He may not delegate the power to terminate the period of office of the members of the board. He may not delegate the power to determine the allowances, the remuneration, leave conditions and other conditions of employment of the members of the board. He may also not delegate the power to make regulations. When we put against these powers which he may not delegate, those powers which he may delegate, we find a completely different story. The powers which he is allowed to delegate, which he may hand over to some officer of the State, include firstly, as I pointed out just now, the power to designate a civil servant to be the chairman of the board. In terms of section 4 of the Act, he may also delegate the power to purchase, from moneys allocated by this House, land suitable for farming purposes. He may also delegate the power to exchange State land for any other land. This involves millions of rands of public money allocated by this House. In addition to that, in terms of subsection (2) of section 4 of the Act, the Minister may delegate to a civil servant the power to expropriate for farming purposes land or rights in or over land in a water-controlled area. In terms of section 5 the Minister has to decide whether State land is or is not suitable or is required or not required for farming purposes, and whether it should be disposed of. He may delegate this power to a civil servant. In terms of section 6 of the Act, the Minister may develop any State land for or for use in connection with farming. So the decision is his; but he may delegate the power to make that decision to a civil servant.

They have got it back to front.

My hon. friend from South Coast has seen the point. Surely, it appears that the whole matter is back to front. The important issues, the expenditure of millions of rands of public money, the appointment of the chairman of the board, the disposition and development of State land, all these powers may be handed over by the Minister to any civil servant. But the unimportant powers, such as determining the terms and conditions of employment of a member of the board, may not be delegated by him. It appears that this matter is back to front. Accepting the responsibility which is being handed over, and that it should only be handed over to a responsible person, once again I move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, an amendment to the effect that these important powers may only be delegated to a senior officer of the State. I know the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to come with the same story that it is impossible to define, but I want to say to him that it is surely not beyond the wit of his department and of the legal advisers to find some way of protecting the public in this matter.

I can see the problem of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District on account of the explanation he has furnished us. However, he must bear in mind that it makes no difference whether it is a senior or a junior official. It is a very small amount in respect of which a limit is being laid down, and the Minister has to decide whether any land which is more expensive should be purchased. How is one going to appoint another chairman in case the chairman falls ill? How is that meeting going to function without a chairman? The intention in that case is to designate a deputy to act as chairman.

By whom is he going to be designated?

He will be designated by the fully authorized Secretary or other senior officials of the department. This is simply how it works in practice, but I say again that I can see the problem the hon. member has. I may just tell him that it will be a senior man. We have given all aspects of this matter our careful consideration to see how it is going to work in practice. Section 9 of the principal Act provides for the delegation of all the powers the Minister has in terms of that Act, except those in respect of section 2, i.e. the appointment of the members of the board other than the chairman, and those in respect of section 8, i.e. the making of regulations. The amendment proposed in clause 2 therefore only deals with the power the Minister has in terms of the new section, i.e. to designate an official of the State to act as chairman. The hon. member may now elaborate on the matter further and foresee certain complications. If somebody wants to “swindle” (verneuk) you, he wants to do so. That is the important point. You have to plug the loopholes now. To our way of thinking I believe the best solution will be to appoint a senior man, a reliable man— that does not mean that there have been any unreliable ones in the past, that is not what I should like to insinuate—who has a sense of responsibility, one who will appreciate that certain cases will have to be referred to the Minister for his decision before those matters are taken any further. We are all just as concerned about the matter as the hon. member is.

Mr. Chairman, as I have said, I am aware of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s problems in this regard, but he has just said something which perturbs me even more. Is it his intention that there is going to be more than one official of the State who is going to be designated, at different times, to be chairman of this particular board?

You have to have a deputy chairman, because at certain times the chairman may be ill.

Yes, there is a deputy chairman; that is fine. Provision has been made in the Act for a deputy chairman who will act in place of the chairman when he is ill, but I believe that the Deputy Minister went a little further than that when he spoke about appointing people at different times, and that this power must be delegated to the Secretary because the Minister may not always be available. Frankly, I do not see the Deputy Minister’s point. There is one other point in regard to which I should like clarity from the Deputy Minister. He says that an amount has now been fixed, above which all matters must be referred to the Minister, and that the Minister must personally take responsibility for them; he must make the decision. Is that correct? He does not lose his responsibility by delegating his power anyway.

No, he does not.

Sir, I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister could tell us what that amount is?

We buy from day to day. There is never a day when we do not buy land for the building of dams, for defence, for Bantu administration, and so on, and this can be done to an amount of R100 000, if it is all above board, and there is nothing they hesitate about. If somebody buys from the State, the amount is limited to R10 000 if it is sold out of hand. That is the position at the moment, but it can for instance be altered tomorrow morning.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that he understood the difficulty of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. My hon. friend does not have any difficulties; the difficulty lies with the Deputy Minister. I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District made out a very good case when he showed that the really important matters are those in respect of which the Minister may delegate. When it comes to matters of lesser importance, the Minister may not delegate his powers. Sir, what is the position of the Deputy Minister? We on this side of the House have been seeking an opportunity for a long time to raise this matter, and I think this may be the proper opportunity to do so. We talk here about the delegating of authority to a “senior” official. This amendment was moved by my hon. friend so as to have a discussion on this point. We know that the legal advisers find it difficult to find a definition for a “senior official”. We accept that, but that is not the point. The point is that we wanted to use this opportunity to get the assurance from the Deputy Minister which we have now had. As far as we here in Parliament are concerned, is the Deputy Minister the Minister for the purposes of this Bill? If he is not, can we include a provision in the Bill that the Minister may delegate his authority to the Deputy Minister? If we can do so, we shall be happy. The Deputy Minister is not a senior official, but we shall be happy if the powers are delegated to him, because we shall then have someone here in the House who is answerable for those administrative decisions taken by the Minister. He can delegate his authority to somebody else because he may be busy, with whatever he may be busy with, and he may want somebody else on the job.

I have heard that the Deputy Ministers are, shall we say, jacks of all trades. They are the people who rush around and keep the wheels turning in the departments. Let the Minister now delegate his authority to the Deputy Minister. Then we shall be happy, because we shall then have the opportunity, here in Parliament, when voting moneys, or when dealing with legislation, as we are now, where we can say to the Deputy Minister: “There sits the Minister. He has delegated his authority to you, and what do you have to say about this particular matter which has now arisen?”

But if the Minister and the Deputy Minister for the purpose of our legislation are one and the same person, then what exactly is the position of Deputy Ministers? There are numbers of them. What precisely is their function so far as the statutes are concerned? We have rules which deal with the right of a Deputy Minister to pilot a measure through the House in place of the Minister. Here we have a case in point today. The Deputy Minister is handling this particular measure; that is in terms of the rules and we have no objection to that. We understand it, because it is before us but, Sir, when it comes to legislation what is the legal position of the Deputy Minister? I do not remember any legislation in which the Deputy Minister appears. I know the rules where he appears, but I cannot think of any legislation where a Deputy Minister appears.

As this point has occurred from time to time in discussions, this may be the simple, straightforward opportunity for us to say to the Deputy Minister: “Let this Bill stand over. Go to the Minister and ask him to take the power in that particular clause to delegate his authority to the Deputy Minister,” and then we will be completely satisfied. Sir, I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should ask leave for this to stand over and that he should go back and discuss this matter with the Minister and point out the difficult position in which he finds himself —not the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. Sir, this is a straightforward debate and the Deputy Minister will accept our bona fides as we are accepting his. Let him go back to the Minister and say: “Here are these important matters and it is felt in very reliable and responsible quarters that these matters are of such importance that the delegation should be to the Deputy Minister,” and then the Deputy Minister can come back again to this House; there will be no waste of time, and we will then know that the Deputy Minister is the person to whom the Minister can delegate his authority. That, in terms of parliamentary procedure, stems to me to be right and we will be perfectly happy with it.

At the moment the Minister has the power to delegate certain of his powers to the Deputy Minister. If he wants to delegate his powers to buy land, he can delegate his powers to me. It is not necessary to provide for it in the Bill. We are arguing this question as to what is meant by “senior official”. Sir, I agree with the hon. member for South Coast that this is not a political issue. We are working with the money of the taxpayers, and the taxpayers are not divided into Nationalists or United Party supporters; all the people in South Africa are paying taxes, and that is why I want co-operation, and I am getting it. But I say that it is no use arguing about the powers of the Deputy Minister at this stage. I can ask the Minister to delegate his powers to me, and I think he will be prepared to do so.

*Sir, I think we are perhaps talking at cross purposes. All of us are concerned about the possibility of another mistake occurring later on.

We will be quite satisfied if it could be stated in that way.

I do not know whether it is going to be of any use delegating additional powers to the Deputy Minister. You may have 10 deputy ministers, but I say again that if somebody wants to find a loophole through which to “swindle” (verneuk) you, you are not going to stop him. Let us apply this in practice in this way. I may tell hon. members that the department is being criticized today, even by Opposition Members of Parliament, who say: “Why are you so over-sensitive when you have to value land?” What happens today when we have to value land, is that the matter is carefully investigated, down to the most minute detail. We are told that we are wasting time, but our reply to that is that we are going to see to it that we are not caught out again. We are on our guard now as far as this matter is concerned.

You have been caught out several times.

No, believe you me, we will definitely not be caught out again as we were in this particular case. I do not even want to mention which case this is here, for that only makes me feel bad.

Is that power of delegation, under which the Minister can delegate certain powers to you, a general power in the Statute?

He can delegate certain powers to the Deputy Minister.

Without specific reference thereto in the Statute?

Yes.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw the word “swindle” (verneuk) and substitute another word for it.

I withdraw it and substitute the words “taken in” for it.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the remarks made by the hon. member for South Coast and the assurance given by the hon. the Deputy Minister, I should like, with the approval of the Committee, to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

When the debate was interrupted I was dealing with the most important objection we on this side of the House have to the Bill. I added that this legislation has only been on the Statute Book for one year and it is already clear to some of us that the legislation is not welcomed by the agricultural land owners. Now as a result of the amendments the hon. the Minister is moving, the original Act is being made even more drastic. I refer particularly to clause 3 and to the powers the Minister is now going to obtain. According to our view of this clause it will mean that no farmer will be able to lease his farm unless he obtains the approval of the hon. the Minister. I believe this to mean that the hon. the Minister will be able to interfere with a farmer’s reasonable earnings from his land. Not only could circumstances be such that a farmer is compelled to lease such land from a financial point of view, but there may be no heir and he may then decide to lease portions of that land.

As we read this clause it means that the hon. the Minister will have the power to refuse a man permission to subdivide his land and lease certain parts of it. Of course this clause also goes much further, because it is going to interfere with one’s local authorities that may need certain agricultural land for the development of urban areas. With these powers he is obtaining here, the hon. the Minister can now prevent such a thing from taking place. Neither is it impossible for a farmer to discover a deposit of precious or base metals on his land. One could now ask whether the hon. the Minister could then prevent the leasing of a portion of that farm if in his discretion he thinks that land should rather be used for agricultural purposes. In terms of this legislation the Minister can also go a step further. He can now lay down conditions for the use of such land. The Minister could determine that because land cannot be used for agricultural purposes, that land must not be leased. We want the Minister to give us the answers to these question. According to his own circumscribed discretion he can restrict any further development if it is not agricultural development. We now want to know: Were all these relevant amendments the Minister is moving discussed with the S.A. Agricultural Union?

And what is more, were they discussed with the provincial authorities? Were they discussed with the Association of Municipalities and with their executive committee, those people charged with the laying out of towns and with local administration. We should like an assurance as to whether the hon. the Minister or his department was in touch with these people, particularly with a view to the amendment in clause 3. These days great delays are already being experienced in the planning of new residential areas. It is my considered opinion that as a result of the hon. the Minister’s amendment in clause 3, the delay in the planning of townships that may be situated on agricultural land will become even greater. As we see it, the object of this amendment is to get an even tighter hold of the agricultural land owner. No person will in reality become the owner of his land. We believe that this type of amendment the hon. the Minister is now coming forward with is the worst form of socialism.

What!

There are many farmers living from hand to mouth. Any opportunity they may have had of making a living from their property on anything but an agricultural basis can now be denied them by this hon. Minister. The powers the Minister obtains in this legislation could entail a decrease in the value of the farmer’s property. Not only does the hon. the Minister control the subdivision of agricultural land, but he also becomes the one to determine agricultural land values. This is one of the foremost reasons why this amendment ought not to be passed. Everything will depend on the kindness of that hon. Minister, his successor or colleague. When a Minister becomes an autocrat there never will be any certainty of policy either. His views will apply for all circumstances. Nowhere need there be a specific set of rules. Not only does he place himself in an uncomfortable position as Minister, but he places the land owner in an unenviable position of doubt. This could all lead to a greater lack of confidence in the agricultural industry in this country.

Therefore we do not think the hon. the Minister has done the agricultural industry any favours with this amendment Bill. I want to come back to the point I made when the debate adjourned last time. A brand new clause is now being included here, a clause that was not initially foreseen. With the amendment the hon. gentleman will now also have authority over the use of the land. I refer particularly to clause 4, and to the penultimate clause that completely changes the long title of the Act. A year or two ago we thought the Minister only wanted authority over the question of the subdivision of agricultural land. Why is it now necessary for the Minister also to have the power to interfere in the use of agricultural land? We want the hon. the Minister to explain this to us. I heard his Second Reading speech very clearly and subsequently also read it very carefully. The hon. the Minister did not give an explanation. This is an altogether new principle. What is the motive of the Government and the Minister in wanting control over the purposes for which agricultural land can be used. Say, for example, I have a piece of land on which I want to erect a brickworks. Say it is good agricultural land. Or say I want to form a company to start such a brickworks because there is excellent gravel under the topsoil. When I have such an asset, which the Minister thinks is good agricultural land, but which I, for altogether different reasons, consider to be good soil for brickmaking, is it the intention that the hon. the Minister may say that I cannot fence off that land into say four, five or ten morgen divisions and start an industry for myself there? If it is the hon. the Minister’s intention to act even in such a case, I want to tell him that he is taking this Bill on the subdivision of agricultural land altogether too far. For example, say I have a piece of land near the city and I want to float a company and start a chicken farm there. In reality such a thing would be a form of industrialism. But because there are good fruit trees and vines on the land, that hon. Minister can tell me that he thinks I am acting incorrectly and that it is not in the interests of the agricultural industry that I do this. The Minister then says that I may not use it for that purpose. According to the provisions of clauses 3 and 4 we feel that these are powers the Minister could exercise in the course of time. We therefore believe that the Minister must not come forward with this amendment. In the circumstances, I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (a) confers further drastic powers on the Minister of Agriculture, which tray conflict with the individual rights of owners of agricultural land in respect of the use of such land;
2. (b) encroaches upon the powers of provincial councils in respect of the division of land; and
3. (c) excludes certain agricultural land in South-West Africa from the provisions thereof’.

Mr. Speaker, on a previous occasion the hon. member for Newton Park said that the farmer has very sound judgment. I agree with him, and that is also the reason why the Opposition has been sitting in those benches for 24 years. We could have expected the hon. member for Newton Park and the Opposition not to vote for this legislation. They were, indeed, opposed to the original Bill. Now that the hon. the Minister comes along to plug the loopholes in that Act, we can expect them to try to keep those loopholes open. But those loopholes are actually what the hon. members’ friends, the speculators, use for making money. Anyone who has a love for South Africa’s soil and who sees what is happening in the large cities and towns as far as the subdivision of land is concerned, will vote for this legislation. Because the Opposition’s strength lies not in the rural areas, but in the cities, they would like to accommodate the speculators in the cities and give them satisfaction. It costs the State a tremendous amount of money to try to consolidate land that has already been cut up into uneconomic units. The State also goes out of its way to help the farmer, who has a small piece of land and wants an additional small piece, to consolidate. What is the use of the State incurring expenses in consolidating land while, on the other hand, it allows that land to be cut up much more rapidly? Eventually it would cost the State much more to effect this. The cutting up of land around the large cities and towns is only a way of polluting the land, the water and everything in those surroundings. Hon. members read in the newspapers that there are people living on the Vaal River who had to demolish their houses because the land had been cut up so injudiciously.

That is the Rand Water Board’s land.

Yes, but it does not only happen there, it happens at many other places in the country. This is detrimental to the country and it costs the State a tremendous amount of money to rehabilitate those areas. If there is no legislation to prevent this continuing, what would be the use of correcting it at one spot while it is polluted to a worse degree at two other spots? The hon. member spoke of so-called uneconomic subdivision. The hon. member expects a rule to be laid down defining so many hundred or so many thousand morgen of land as an economic unit. It is in that connection that he spoke of “so-called uneconomic subdivision”. The hon. member is surely aware that at a place like De Dooms eight to ten morgen of land planted with vineyards can form an economic unit. In the sheep areas 5 000 morgen is sometimes not an economic unit. Each case will have to be treated on its own merits when it comes to the determination of economic units. Then the hon. member also comes along here and makes the ridiculous statement that the Minister will now tell the farmers what they may farm with on their own farms. The long title of the principal Act read as follows: To control the subdivision of agricultural land. Now clause 9 of the Bill inserts the following: To control the subdivision and, in connection therewith, the use of agricultural land. Only when agricultural land is subdivided will the Minister have any say. As far as the man who does not subdivide his farm is concerned, the Minister has no say about what he may do on his farm and what he may not do. As I read the legislation, the Minister’s authority when land is subdivided is specifically aimed at cases involving cities where there is good agricultural land and other land that is suitable for the development of residential areas. The hon. member asks whether they should hang in the air. When they want to subdivide land and make it available for those purposes, the Minister may say that the land, except perhaps for the ridges, is very suitable for housing and that it is therefore not necessary to use good agricultural land for that purpose. I shall tell the House why they also want that good agricultural land to be available for housing. The reason is that speculators who purchase that agricultural land would be able to develop it more cheaply than if there were ridges on that land. That is why the hon. member is so fond of advocating that it should also be possible to use agricultural land for that purpose.

Why do you not build a house on Table Mountain?

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member spoke about this same Bill on a previous occasion, he mentioned the example of 1 000 morgen of vineyards and 1 000 morgen of Port Jackson trees and said that the Minister would decide that the land on which the Port Jackson trees stood should be developed as an urban area and not the 1 000 morgen with the vineyards. Would the hon. member then like to see that 1 000 morgen with vineyards destroyed, while there are 1 000 morgen with Port Jackson trees available that can be utilized as well, if not better, for housing purposes? No, the Opposition has altogether lost touch with the farmers. If that is the attitude they are going to adopt in respect of legislation of this nature, they will drift even further away from the farmers. The hon. members who should be lodging pleas here on behalf of the farmers have not been able to win any more rural seats as it is. They had to move to the cities. If they adopt this attitude they will eventually all be representing urban constituencies.

Mr. Speaker, when one is dealing with legislation of this sort, it is necessary to be quite clear as to what we are talking about, particularly after listening to a speech such as we have heard from the hon. member for Ladybrand. After listening to a speech like that, one has the impression that that side of the House is intent on exercising control over everything that a man can do or cannot do with his land. Is that what the hon. member for Ladybrand is pleading for? This is the way in which he has put his case. If that is what they want, then they must tell the House quite clearly and they must tell the voters quite clearly that that is what they want. I am sure that if they did so, they would not have the support from their own people. It is all very well for the hon. member for Ladybrand to speak as he does, but if his farm is situated next to a city or to some development and he can sell his farm at a very good price, will he tell this House that he will refuse that good price simply because he has a good farm? Will he tell this House that he will not subdivide his farm in any way and get a good price for part of it because that part of his farm is good agricultural land? No, Mr. Speaker, these people talk with two voices. They make very fine general statements, but when it comes to practice, when it comes to their own properties, they are quite prepared to sell for the best price they can get. In fact, they run to the Minister and squeal if he prevents them from selling. I think the fact that we have before this House this amending Bill proves that we were right when the original legislation was introduced in 1970, when we said that this was not the way to deal with the problem which the hon. the Deputy Minister told us then he wanted to deal with, namely the uneconomic subdivision of good agricultural land. We have told him so at the time. He now comes with amending legislation. The curious thing about this matter is that it does not seem as if the hon. the Deputy Minister has studied his Bill very well. In introducing this legislation, he told the House that—

The hon. the Deputy Minister seems to overlook that this legislation introduces two entirely new principles, both of which are of considerable importance. One of these principles has been dealt with at considerable length by the hon. member for Newton Park, namely that the amendments introduced by this Bill now make it possible for the hon. the Minister, in granting permission to subdivide agricultural land, to define the use to which those subdivisions may be put. This is an entirely new principle. I submit to this House that it is a very important principle. It enables the hon. the Minister to direct how land, which is subdivided, shall be used. In other words, the owner who wishes to subdivide part of his land, and the person who wishes to acquire that subdivided portion are not free to decide to what agricultural use they shall put that subdivided land, but the hon. the Minister will now tell them to what use they must put the subdivision. We on this side of the House do not see any justification for this. The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head, but what I have said is perfectly correct. Clause 4, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Newton Park, quite clearly gives the power to the hon. the Minister, if he grants an application, to include “conditions as to the purpose for which or the manner in which the land in question may be used”. In other words, the purpose for which the subdivision may be used.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Are you satisfied with a subdivision which allows a man to have 10 000 cattle in a feed lot next to the Vaal River?

The hon. the Deputy Minister must please not ask ridiculous questions such as this. I will tell him why I think it a ridiculous question. He knows very well that one cannot have general rules as to the size of an economic unit. A piece of land, which is only a few morgen in extent, may be economic as a result of the situation of that land and the use to which it is put.

You are missing the point.

I am not missing the point at all. The hon. the Deputy Minister is trying to mislead the House by asking ridiculous questions. When this Bill was originally introduced into this House in 1970, we told the hon. the Deputy Minister that, if he were really concerned about the use to which agricultural land was being put and the way in which it was being subdivided, he was going about it the wrong way. No less a person than one of the senior State officials of this Government has virtually accepted that the proper way to deal with the situation is the way in which we have suggested, namely to prepare for the whole of South Africa proper regional guide plans showing the use to which the land within that region may be put and to break down that regional plan into area plans dealing with the expansion of cities. This recommendation of the Niemand Commission has been accepted by the Government and it is being put into effect. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself referred to these guide plan committees in introducing the Second Reading of this Bill. If the Government accepts that this is the proper way to go about things, why does the hon. the Deputy Minister then persist with this legislation? If he tells me that they must have powers until such time as these guide plans are put into effect, there may be something to be said for that. But then we would be arguing the matter on an entirely different basis. I would then still say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the way he is trying to deal with this problem is not the correct way. He is going to have to come to this House with more amendments if he persists and if the guide plans are not prepared speedily.

The other objection we have to this legislation—I am now dealing with broad principles before I deal with the clauses in detail—is that the Minister is not the proper person to deal with this problem. He cannot deal with the different situations which exist in different parts of the country. The provincial authorities have handled this matter very well in the past. The hon. the Deputy Minister won’t challenge me when I say that.

I hope you are not referring to the Natal Administration.

I challenge the hon. member to go back to his own constituency and to make that statement, because he knows very well that Natal has the very best planning authority in the country, a fact which has been conceded by the Niemand Commission, in the body known as the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission. I challenge him to dispute that. I challenge him to dispute that now.

I will.

Do you deny that?

Order! The hon. member must proceed with his speech.

I abide by your ruling, Sir. These bodies have been responsible for the proper co-ordinated development of the provinces. They are the best bodies to handle this. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will not accept my statement, perhaps he will give proper attention to what one of his own M.P.C.s in the Cape Province said. I am now referring to Mr. Conradie. I do not wish to quote at length from the speech, but I would urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to read it very carefully. It deals with all the problems we have heard about in this debate, and deals with them far more intelligently than we have had from members such as the hon. member for Ladybrand. I am referring to the speech delivered by Mr. Conradie to the Sentrale Karoo-Ontwikkelingsvereniging on the occasion of its 23rd annual congress. This speech was made on the 2nd October, 1969. The hon. the Deputy Minister nods his head; no doubt he knows about it. If he knows about it, then he will also know that one of the points stressed by Mr. Conradie was the fact that the provincial authorities should be permitted to deal with the co-ordinated development of land in their own provinces. The hon. the Deputy Minister will not deny that they are also in a position to protect agricultural land properly. He will not suggest that they are going to allow good agricultural land to be used, for example, for township development when other land is available. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that, with the expanding population that we have and are going to have in the years ahead, local authority areas must inevitably expand so that more housing can be provided for the population. Whether it is for the Coloureds, for the Indians or for the Bantu, more land will have to be given over to housing in the future. An often quoted figure in this House is that within the next 30 years we are going to have to build as many houses in this country as have been built in the last 300 years. One can only do this by giving over more land to housing than is available today. So inevitably some agricultural land will have to be acquired to extend the local authority areas, so that more housing can be provided.

Nobody is disputing that.

I am pleased to hear that, because judging by some of the speeches we heard when this Bill was before us in 1970, you would think that every piece of agricultural land was to be made sacrosanct from now on. I am very pleased that we have had this admission because at least there is some realism entering into the debate now. If we accept that local authority areas are going to have to expand and agricultural land or land which is today being used for agriculture, must tomorrow be given over for townships development, the real problem is how this should be properly tackled. Until such time as there is a regional plan to indicate the direction of expansion in which the local authorities may go without damaging good agricultural land which cannot be replaced elsewhere, we are running around in the dark.

Having dealt with the question of a regional plan and of breaking that plan into area plans, I come back to the point I made earlier. The local authority must then handle the position, not the Deputy Minister because the Deputy Minister does not look at the position from the broad point of view. We cannot look at the future expansion of a province or of South Africa purely from the point of view of the future of agriculture. This whole matter is interrelated. One must obviously have regard to the future of agriculture, but one must also have regard to the future of industry and of the towns. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that more and more of the farmers are coming off the land and going to the cities.

He is encouraging them.

He in fact encourages it, I am told. Until such time as the Government stops looking at the problem piecemeal and without relating it to the whole, we are never going to have a satisfactory development plan for the various parts of South Africa, a proper development plan within each province. I think that is all I want to say in regard to general remarks.

Now I want to come to the specific clauses. I said earlier on that I wondered to what extent the hon. the Deputy Minister had really studied this Bill. I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that there are two new principles, the first one relating to the new power given to the Minister to control the use to which a subdivided piece of agricultural land may be put on granting an application for subdivision. The other new principle is in clause 3 (f). The position as it exists today is that a local authority may expand its area of jurisdiction by acquiring an entire farm. There is nothing to stop that from happening in terms of the Act as it stands at the present time. In terms of clause 3 (f), the hon. the Minister is now taking the power to prevent a local authority from even acquiring an entire farm without his permission. It has nothing to do with subdivision at all. Surely that is another important new principle which we find for the first time in this amending legislation. I would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister what such a clause is doing in an Act which has to do with subdivision. This has nothing whatsoever to do with subdivision. It is now preventing an owner from disposing of his entire farm—not a subdivision—to a local authority without the Minister’s permission.

Sir, I want to deal with some clauses to which we object specifically, and I want to say that in justifying these amendments, the hon. the Minister has given very few convincing reasons as to the need for some of these amendments, and I hope that later in this debate, in the Committee Stage or in his reply to the Second Reading debate, he will be more specific and that he will justify some of the general remarks that he has made. Firstly, I want to deal with clause 1, paragraph (f). Paragraph (f) as it stands at present excludes from the definition of “agricultural land” land zoned for any particular purpose under a town-planning scheme which is in force in terms of any law. This has been changed to read—

In motivating this, the hon. the Deputy Minister tells us that he is introducing this amendment because—

We would like to know what object is not being achieved. Then he goes on to say that he is now taking a power which will enable him, in consultation with local authorities, to exclude land which is not within a local authority area, but which may be adjoining it, from the definition of “agricultural land”. Sir, in my opinion that is a very good thing to do. It is a good thing that the hon. the Deputy Minister should, in consultation with the local authorities, consider excluding land, which may be suitable for future township development, from the definition of “agricultural land”. But why does he wish to amend this clause? Because the clause as it stands at the moment excludes land zoned for any particular purpose under a town planning scheme. As the hon. the Deputy Minister points out, such land is invariably land which is either within a local authority area, or a local authority may acquire and include it within its area of jurisdiction.

I come now to clause 3 (f). I have already dealt with that to some extent. We would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to motivate this. He tells us that he is introducing this—

of Agricultural Technical Services to obtain control in order to ensure that any extension will not take up only the best agricultural land.

Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister does not suggest that local authorities, which are all subject to the control of the provincial authorities, expand their areas of jurisdiction beyond what is necessary to cope with the normal expansion that they expect in the future.

Not in the Transvaal.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister suggest that in Natal, for example, local authorities expand their boundaries beyond what is necessary to cope with future expansion?

We have only had experience of this in the Transvaal.

Sir, let me put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister positively. I do not believe that local authorities, possibly with few exceptions, who are responsible to their ratepayers and who, as I have said, are subject to the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities, will expand their boundaries more than is necessary. In other words, they are not going to take in more land than they anticipate they will require in the future, so I do not believe that the Deputy Minister ought to interfere. If the provincial authorities consider that a local authority is justified in expanding its boundaries to take in further land, why should the hon. the Deputy Minister step in? In what way does the hon. the Deputy Minister know better than the provincial authority whether a local authority ought or ought not to expand its boundaries? If the hon. the Deputy Minister says that there is a danger that they will take good agricultural land in preference to agricultural land which is not so good, surely this is also a nonsensical argument, because the provincial authorities would naturally take this into account in determining whether to give permission to the local authority to expand or not, and in any event, Sir, I come back to my original argument: Until such time as you have a proper regional plan, how does anyone know where he stands if the Deputy Minister is going to be in a position to say, “You cannot take this farm to expand a local authority, but you can take this farm”? It is not in the interests of the local authority and it is certainly not in the interest of the farmers, because there can be a great deal of prejudice if the hon. the Minister prevents some and not others.

But if they include an adjoining farm, then they tax it. We do not differ at all.

Sir, I would suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he ought to indicate to the House whether the Government is really serious about proceeding to establish central guide plan committees throughout the country. Of course if they are not then he had better speak to the hon. the Minister of Community Development who issued a statement only about three weeks ago saying that this was one of the recommendations of the Niemand Commission which the Government accepts. Now, if that is accepted, I think the Deputy Minister ought to tell this House exactly what part this legislation is going to play when these central guide plan committees are going to be established and whether it is the Government’s intention to maintain this legislation on the Statute Book, even after these guide plans are in existence, and if he is going to maintain the powers which he is now taking in his hands. If that is so then the Government might as well stop wasting the time of everybody concerned in trying to form these guide plans. All these people who are spending quite a lot of time, not only State officials but private persons as well, in working out these guide plans had better know their position straight away. The hon. the Deputy Minister and his Government will find that they will wash their hands of the whole thing and let the Government go on making a mess of the thing as it has done for years.

The hon. member for Musgrave must forgive me. I shall come back to him in a moment. But I want to react first to a shocking remark made here by the hon. member for Newton Park, when he said that this legislation and the preceding legislation amounted to the worst form of socialism.

I said this amendment which the Minister is introducing now.

Very well. You are saying that this Act is the worst form of socialism.

The particular clause to which I referred.

Very well; I agree with you. I want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park at once that we on this side are very pleased with him as the agricultural leader on that side, for as long as he continues to make such stupid remarks and to come forward with as many confusing legal interpretations as he did, we are perfectly happy about the fact that they are not a factor in politics as far as the interests of farmers are concerned. Once again the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for Musgrave have made a big fuss about the fact that we are introducing a new principle here, i.e. the changed use of land. I want to tell the hon. Opposition that in the early forties we had a rarity in the Free State, namely a U.P. Administrator. When gold was discovered on the Free State goldfields, he and the National Executive Committee recommended that control be exercised over the use of land. The U.P. Government of that time accepted that recommendation, and when the Natural Resources Development Act was introduced in 1947, Mr. S. F. Waterson, the then Minister of Economic Development, had the following to say (Hansard, Vol. 61, col. 5279)—

This is what he said in introducing the Natural Resources Development Act. He piloted through clause 15 of that Bill, which prohibited the subdivision of land and a change in the use of land in controlled areas without the consent of the Minister. As we know, that first controlled area was the Free State goldfields. But as the country developed, that controlled area became bigger and bigger in extent. In other words, the people who quite rightly introduced control over the use of land in this country, are the predecessors of the Opposition. Now they are making a mockery of the work of their own predecessors by using such unbridled language in regard to this legislation which is before us today.

The hon. member for Musgrave also referred to the wide powers now being granted to a Minister. I have just read out to you, Sir, that in 1947 the United Party introduced that very principle by granting unheard of powers to a Minister, in this case it happened to be another Minister, but the principle remains 100 per cent the same. Furthermore, I want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave that he should not take it amiss of me if I make the insinuation here today that he was only speaking on behalf of township developers and their interests. It is true, and I admitted it here by way of interjection, that in the future more agricultural land will have to be surrendered for township development. But then it should be done in a planned manner and then the department which has control over agricultural land, should at least have the control over the type of agricultural land they are prepared to surrender. Sir, if I had to award a symbol or a badge to the debaters on agriculture on that side of the House, I would give them a badge depicting a donkey with a wooden plough. As regards their ideas on the subdivision and the consolidation of land, they are quite archaic. At a time when the entire modern Western world exercises the strictest control over and prohibits the subdivision of agricultural land in order to promote consolidation in that way, they are saying, as the hon. member for Newton Park did, that we are engaged in the worst form of socialism.

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I welcome this legislation because we must come into line with the Western world. As far as the consolidation of land is concerned, one can only come into line with the Western world if one repairs all the leaks in the bucket. One cannot fill the bucket if it has leaks, and that is precisely what the hon. Opposition envisages. They want loopholes and they want leaks so that we may not, like other modern countries, proceed with the consolidation of uneconomic units. I want to say in passing that the hon. member for Newton Park wanted to kick up another terrible row by wanting to know what an economic unit was. Since 1947 we have, under the Natural Resources Act, been dealing with this legislation in controlled areas. I myself have been living under this Act as a farmer and as an attorney right from the start, ever since 1947, when this legislation was promulgated. This is a matter about which one can argue theoretically, but in practice it has always worked out the way it does now. We should not have a hundred-and-one objections, and we should not refuse to follow modern trends.

In conclusion I should like to mention two other loopholes, which I feel should be attended to. I am sure that at the moment it is not possible for the hon. the Minister to attend to this particular objection of mine. It is a major issue and many other problems are involved. It is the question of land which belongs to a company and the use of such land by shareholders. That is an aspect which will have to receive more attention in future. However, I want to come back specifically to clause 3 (d) of the legislation, which provides that no lease in respect of a portion of agricultural land may be registered in a deeds registry unless the Minister had consented in writing to the registration concerned. This clause, clause 3 (d), specifically refers to the type of lease for which provision is made in the General Law Amendment Act of 1956, Act No. 50 of 1956. This Act lays down what the requirements are for validating a long-term lease in respect of third parties, and requires such a contract to be registered in notarial form in a deeds registry. In addition this particular Law Amendment Act provides specifically what leases are to be registered in this manner. To be specific, these are leases where the term of lease is 10 years or longer and where the term of lease is the natural life of the lessee or any other person, or where the term of lease may be extended indefinitely by the lessee for periods which together with the first period of the lease amount in all to not less than ten years. I repeat, this type of long-term lease should only be registered if one wants it to be valid against third parties. This is not necessary between lessor and lessee. Between them an unregistered lease is valid too. Subsequent to that there were other court rulings which provided that certain other persons were not third parties either. Heirs, for instance, were not regarded as third parties. Against them, as I have already said, an unregistered long-term lease is valid too. My question to the hon. the Deputy Minister was: Does clause 3 (d) envisage that a portion of a unit of farm land, to which a title deed exists, may not be leased for a long period without the Minister’s consent? If the answer is in the affirmative, the provision is not comprehensive enough. I have already indicated that such a lease can be valid between certain parties without registration. However, if the clause only seeks to prohibit a negotiable right without the consent of the Minister, the provision concerned is comprehensive enough, for registration establishes the negotiable right in long-term leases of this type. If the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he only wants to stop a negotiable right if it is not done with consent, I nevertheless want to ask him whether it would not be desirable to make the long-term lease in its entirety subject to approval before it is registered or even after it has been registered. That will not be a controllable matter. I want to grant that. Where registration does not take place, it is impossible for the Minister to know where a lease has been entered into, because it is not registered. However, if the General Law Amendment Act were amended, and if it were provided that such a lease between lessor and lessee would not be valid in respect of agricultural land, irrespective of whether it is registered without the Minister’s approval, it would be possible to exercise control over long-term leases of this nature. The reason why I mention this is that, because a lease is valid between the parties without registration, it is possible that a lessor may lease five different uneconomic portions of his farm to five different young people for, say, 50 years or longer. That would be quite legal as long as they are the only people involved. In that manner they would, to my mind, defeat the purpose for which section 3 (d) will have been placed on the Statute Book. I realize that this may mean amendments to the General Law Amendment Act, but I would appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister would give his attention to this matter and react to it at a later stage by effecting an amendment, if necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I resent very much indeed the insinuation which the hon. member for Kroonstad made against the hon. member for Musgrave by saying that the hon. member for Musgrave was speaking merely in the interests of land developers. I want to ask that hon. member to get the Hansard of the hon. member for Musgrave and to show me where in that speech that he made did he say anything that could be construed to be to the advantage of people who want to develop ground. That is a totally wrong insinuation to make; it is totally false and totally unjustified. I think the hon. member ought to know better. He should not come to this House with that kind of thing.

One learned gentleman to another.

Yes, as one learned gentleman to another, I think it is unworthy of him. I really do.

The hon. member mentioned the Natural Resources Development Act of 1947. However, nowhere in that Act as passed by the United Party was the Government of the day given powers similar to those which are being given to the Minister. The Act provided for a council. There was a council which would advise the Minister. The Minister was the Minister of Economic Development, and not the Minister of Agriculture. You can see some of these things …

Look at the principle in section 15.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that I must look at the principle. The council was empowered to do certain things. I think it is worth while dwelling on those for a minute. The council could prepare schemes for the exploitation, development or use of resources in any such area. It could declare controlled areas; it could facilitate or guide the carrying out of such schemes, that is, … to assist and advise statutory authorities vested with any powers or functions in connection with or affecting the subdivision or use of land in any controlled area …”

May I ask the hon. member a question?

May I just finish what I am saying? The Act as passed by the United Party in 1947 made provision for all that this hon. Minister has been trying to do in the Act which was passed in 1970. There was provision there for controlled areas to be developed. This is precisely what we on this side of the House have been asking for. There is one other provision I wish to quote—

I believe that the fact that this legislation resides under the Minister of Agriculture, is totally wrong. The emphasis has been placed on the wrong Minister and wrong department altogether. I believe that the department and the Government have had their power, under this Act, the ability to declare controlled areas and to control the subdivision of ground, if they had seen fit to use it in the way which was proposed by this side of the House, namely by zoning certain areas for certain means of development. The hon. member may now ask his question.

Does the hon. member deny that section 15 of the Natural Resources Act provide that the Minister of Economic Affairs must grant permission for the subdivision of land and for a change in the manner in which it is used?

Section 15 refers quite clearly to “A restriction upon subdivision and use of land in controlled areas.” What has happened through this Act of the hon. the Minister, is that the whole of South Africa has been declared a controlled area. Every piece of land, for whatever purpose it may be used, has been declared a controlled area. This is where the legislation is wrong. What has happened is that there has been a virtual embargo placed on the subdivision of ground for many different purposes. The whole question is being viewed from one viewpoint alone, namely that of agricultural ground.

I want to say that I was very disappointed indeed when the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced the Second Reading of this Bill. I have had some problems with his department and he knows about them. When he came with this amendment, I thought it was going to sort out some of the problems I have had, because the legislation deals with ground which is not today agricultural ground in any sense of the word other than in the purely technical definition which is contained in the original Act of 1970. This definition includes ground which cannot in any way be used as agricultural ground. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain what will happen in the case of areas of land which were legally subdivided, broken up and sold in various small portions to various people, and are now roundabout the peripheries of certain of our urban areas. How does the hon. the Deputy Minister intend to use the Act? Will he tell me that he is going to consolidate all those areas back into farms? If he is not going to do so, what is the purpose of this Act, giving him control of those pieces of ground with regard to the use of agricultural land? I can see absolutely no purpose for this at all. Later on I wish to quote just two examples to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to the House in this regard. I want to ask him to tell me why his department has refused to give permission for that ground to be subdivided further than it has already been subdivided.

I want to say that I associate myself very strongly indeed, as I said at the Second Reading of the original Act, with the idea of a regional plan. In every area a zone must be set aside where the subdivision of ground for residential purposes must be facilitated. We are facing a tremendous housing shortage. All that has happened in terms of this Act is that the subdivision of ground has been made much more difficult, because there seems to have arisen—certainly in my province—a misunderstanding or a Contretemps between the hon. the Minister’s department and the Provincial Administration. On several occasions the hon. the Deputy Minister said to me that my problems were caused by the Provincial Administration, but I have taken the trouble of going to the Provincial Administration and tried to find out where the problem lies. I get the reply from them that it comes from the hon. the Minster’s department.

I have the correspondence here.

I was told this by the Provincial Administration itself. They told me that they cannot establish from this hon. Deputy Minister and his department what kind of policy they wish to be carried out in the province of Natal.

They refused in Natal.

Of course, because they do not know what the hon. the Deputy Minister is trying to achieve. They have not yet achieved any kind of understanding and they do not know what he is getting at, because they get a blanket refusal in every case.

I now want to come back to the two points I want to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister. The question is made here that we must not allow good agricultural land round about our urban areas to be subdivided and that we must look for the more difficult ground which is not such good agricultural ground. But let me ask the hon. the Minister of Planning a question. In Pietermaritzburg we have a specific case in point, where there are two areas which are to be allocated for Coloured areas. One of them is adjacent to the present Coloured area, but it is very difficult ground to exploit. The other area is some miles away from the present existing Coloured area, and is easier ground to develop. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister now going to place an embargo on the Minister of Coloured Affairs and the Minister of Planning to allocate the better area for Coloured housing? How does he resolve these problems? If we are going to put up the cost of building by anything up to 25 per cent or 30 per cent merely because we are not going to take ground which is better agricultural land and force building development to go to the more difficult ground, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has a lot to answer. I do not think it is going to work in that way. I think one is going to find that the pressure is going to be to allow the easiest and cheaper type of ground to be used for housing within certain limits. I think it should be the job of the Minister and his department and the other departments involved in regional planning to determine where these areas are in which development can take place. The hon. the Deputy Minister asked whether we would be content to have 4 000 cattle on ten morgen of land next to the Vaal River, but I want to point out that we passed an amendment to the Water Act last year giving the Minister of Water Affairs specific powers to deal with a case like that, of anybody polluting the Vaal River. It is in the Water Act and any member who sat on the Select Committee will know that that specific problem was raised last year and that provision was made for it in the Water Act. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should better delegate his powers to the Minister of Water Affairs who will fix it up for him.

When he introduced his legislation the hon. the Deputy Minister gave us no kind of a background as to the problems which have arisen in regard to the implementation of the Act at all. We have had a whole year in which the Act has been in operation. I had some problems with it myself and I hoped that we were going to get a review from the hon. the Deputy Minister when introducing this legislation. I hoped that he would tell us that in trying to apply the Act there were certain problems which had arisen. All we got was a very short and bald statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister, however, dealing with certain specific amendments without giving any kind of a review at all. I think when he replies to this debate he owes it to the House to give us some kind of an oversight of what is happening in South Africa, and how the applications are coming in, of how they are being refused or accepted and so on.

I am going to tell the truth and the hon. member is going to be hurt.

If I am wrong I am quite prepared to accept it. You must tell me where I am wrong and I will be quite prepared to accept it. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what his intentions are in regard to certain areas, and I will give him a specific example. I have already written to him in regard to the farm called Woodburn. Is that the letter the hon. the Deputy Minister has with him now?

Yes.

Let me sketch the background of this case. This ground has already been subdivided and cut up into smaller areas.

We wanted to help you but the Natal provincial authorities said no. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will assure me that he will give his consent when he replies to me, I think I can go and talk to the Natal Provincial Administration about their refusal. But let me give the hon. the Deputy Minister and the House the background.

Did he not give you his consent?

Yes, I welcome his consent. If he wants to help me, I can take it that he will give me his consent if I can arrange it with the Natal Provincial Administration.

But they said, “Please do not give your consent.”

They might change their minds when I get a chance to talk to them. Here we have a small portion of ground of 27 acres, which lies between the Health Committee area of Merrivale and the local Health Commission area of Cedara. It will never be a farm. It can never again be a farm in the sense of the word that the hon. the Deputy Minister and I understand the term “farm”. It is a smallholding and it can be nothing else. An application was made to cut off four acres and it has been refused. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is serious and he intends to apply this Act for the consolidation of those areas, I can understand that there might be a problem. But if that is not his intention, surely it is in the interests of the country and it is the duty of the Deputy Minister to understand why the applications have been refused. There must be some co-ordination between the Deputy Minister’s Department and the Natal Provincial Administration. One simply cannot place a total embargo on the subdivision of land. I welcome anything the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell me about it. If we can come back to the matter on a later date, I understand I have his full sympathy and support.

Mr. Speaker, mentioned in the Second Reading debate on the original Bill that my constituency is not only one of the best agricultural constituencies in the country, but that it is also a resort area. I come back to the point I made. The Deputy Minister took me to task for using the phrase “holiday home”, but there is more and more pressure in my constituency by people who wish to buy small plots of ground where they can go for a weekend, something like a holiday home, a cottage or something similar, something which is vital in terms of the pressures of modern urban living. Again I return to the request that I made, that there should be a zone, that the Deputy Minister should take the power within his department to zone a certain area in consultation with the provincial authorities, who are the people who deal with and understand these matters. He nods his head. I think that we are really making some kind of progress, but certainly it does not appear to me from the terms of the legislation the hon. the Deputy Minister has introduced here that this is going to be his serious intention. I would like to reiterate that in Natal, where we have a very close provincial control through the Town and Regional Planning Commission, it is impossible to have, what I regard as a blanket embargo. There has to be some kind of movement on the part of the department. Let us say once again that this side of the House is totally in agreement with the prevention of uneconomic subdivision of farms. Nobody wants to load the State with the responsibility of having to consolidate farms which are uneconomical, but so many of our problems in Natal relate to the small areas round about the local authorities. I think that this legislation has done absolutely nothing to help the problems that I have had, and I associate myself with the amendment of the hon. member for Newton Park.

I really find it difficult to reconcile with one another to various standpoints put forward by hon. members opposite. Let us just take a look at the last observation made by the hon. member for Mooi River. He said that in principle his side of the House was in favour of the idea that agricultural land should not be subdivided into uneconomic units.

Yes.

He says “yes”. But let us compare this now with the attitude adopted by the main speaker opposite on this very same topic. He accused the Deputy Minister by saying that there was no such thing as a definable uneconomic unit. In fact, he said it was a “so-called” uneconomic unit.

Your own commission of inquiry could not find it.

But that is nevertheless the fact of the matter. Now I find the problem that the hon. members for Mooi River and Musgrave are apparently pleading for guide plans to be drawn up before the principle of the legislation is to be accepted. But the hon. member for Newton Park is, in the first instance the champion of the individual rights of farmers. Secondly, he has become the champion of the powers of the Provincial Administrations.

I think you are battling.

No, it is that hon. member’s privilege to battle. But let us consider what the hon. member for Musgrave said. He said that this draft legislation was introducing a totally new principle into our legislation, namely, that the use of land—not only the subdivision of land, but also the use of land—would now be controlled.

No, the use of subdivided land.

Very well, he says the use of subdivided land, but is that correct? I want to refer the hon. member to Act No. 10 of 1944, and I just want to refer him to section 1 of it. Incidentally, he is reasonably young and I just want to remind him that his party governed this country in 1944.

Where were you at the time?

I was studying, which that hon. member has never done. Sir, what is the principle contained in section 1 of Act No. 10 of 1944? It is to delegate to Provincial Administrations two distinguishable powers; the one is for controlling the subdivision of land into units smaller than 25 morgen in extent. But what is the second principle contained in the same Act? It is, namely, also to regulate and control the use of such subdivided land. I want to ask hon. members on that side whether the principle of control in respect of subdivision and in respect of use is therefore only correct when hon. members opposite ask for it, and not when hon. members on this side ask for it?

But I want to take the matter further. The hon. member for Newton Park asked the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he had consulted organized agriculture and the Provincial Administrations.

Of course.

Of course he consulted them. But, Sir, let us take it a little further. I want to ask the hon. member for Newton Park whether he consulted organized agriculture? Did he consult organized agriculture originally, when the principle of the original Act was under discussion? Of course not. The hon. member is so out of touch with organized agriculture that I want to make the statement here that he cannot even pretend to be speaking on their behalf. What are the facts? When last did the hon. member attend an agricultural congress?

He has never been to one.

I think he has never been to one. Sir, what is the standpoint of organized agriculture on the principle of this legislation? The standpoint of organized agriculture on the principle of this legislation is not negative, but one of support; it welcomes this principle. When the hon. member initially opposed the legislation, he spoke at length about the stream of protest allegedly raised by the farmers against the implementation of this legislation, and where is that protest? But, Sir, I want to go further than that. The hon. member is also the patron of provincial powers. He said that this legislation interfered with the powers of the provinces. I want to suggest that he has not read this Bill, for the fact of the matter is that in principle this legislation grants the provinces powers of control which they do not have today. Sir, let us just consider the whole question of provincial powers. When I listen to hon. members opposite, it rather seems to me as though the Government and the Provincial Administrations and even the local authorities, are three institutions which are in continual conflict with one another and that they are not levels of effective administration. Sir, what is the test that has to be applied in order to determine whether a particular power is vested in some or other level that exists in our political structure? After all, we are not living in a static economy. Surely, the norm should not be that because a particular power has been granted to some level or other on a particular occasion, it is a situation to which permanence should be given. This is the test: Which of these levels of administration can in a given set of circumstances render the most effective service? Surely that is the norm. In a country like ours, with these various levels of administration, it is important for us to realize that from time to time interaction will take place in respect of the powers of these various levels, but always with the aim of effective management and administration as the decisive factor. Therefore I consider it to be wrong that, in respect of effective administration, we should continually try to play off certain levels of government against one another, whereas their function should actually be to put us in a better position to govern our country. But I want to go further. I say that there are certain criteria that should be followed in respect of administration. The hon. members for Musgrove and Mooi River do not agree with the hon. member for Newton Park, for these hon. members, if I understood them correctly—they may correct me-—adopted the attitude that, in the first instance, there were good grounds for the control of subdivision and the use of land, but that prior to legislation to this effect being introduced, the necessary guide plans should be drawn up. In other words, in princple the hon. members for Mooi River and Musgrave are not against the principle of this legislation, but they have certain objections in respect of the implementation of this legislation.

You are wrong.

He says that he also objects to the principle. Sir, he can only have one of two objections to the principle of this Bill, for the Bill only has two principles; the one is the question of control over the subdivision of land, and the second is the question of control over the use of land. These are the only two principles contained in this Bill. I ask hon. members: If they object to the principle of this Bill, in what respect has the position changed since they adopted the principle of control over subdivision and control over use in 1944?

They have changed their minds now.

Did they only change their minds because they happen to be sitting on that side? [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Mooi River is free to sit and make noises over there, but I challenge him to dispute that their party, when they governed, adopted in principle the two principles contained in both this Bill and the principal Act.

That was only an interim stage.

As my hon. colleague has said, that was probably an interim stage only. Surely hon. members opposite are aware of that, and if they are not, they should ask the hon. member for Green Point, for he was a member of the Executive Committee …

I did not say anything.

I am so sorry that the hon. member did not say anything, for if he had said something, he would perhaps have made an intelligent contribution to this debate. Sir, surely there is a continual change in the powers of local authorities in relation to the Provincial Administration and vice versa, and between the Government and the Provincial Administrations and vice versa. The impression I gain is that hon. members on that side are of the opinion that this Parliament ought to have no powers, and I want to tell them that in our structure any Provincial Administration and any local authority derives its authority and powers from this Parliament—and the sooner hon. members realize this, the better—and that when an interchange of the functions of local authorities and Provincial Administrations takes place, the norm that has to be applied, is the norm of effective administration and government. But I want to take it further. Let us see whether this Bill improves the existing position in respect of control, and let us see whether it does not grant more powers to the provincial councils. Let us see, Sir, whether there is any merit in the accuzation that some provincial powers are being taken away without any compensating factor contained in the Bill itself. Secondly, let us see whether this Bill contains deficiencies, for the hon. the Deputy Minister is obviously introducing amendments for the very purpose of ensuring the better and more effective administration of the principal Act and, by those means, drawing the Administrations into the administration of this Act, or into the principle of this Act, where he himself can exercise the control for the purposes of the work of his department.

The first deficiency that exists in the Act, is obviously the following, namely that the scope of the existing Act is so wide that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has to consider applications which do not really come within the framework of its objectives, which the hon. the Minister seeks to achieve by way of this Act; in other words, in the definition of agricultural land, the Act now includes land which ought not to be tested against the norm of agricultural and economic standards.

We said that in 1970.

Yes, perhaps the hon. member was not here, but when the Minister wanted to allow him that point, he quarrelled about that as well. I want to repeat. What deficiency exists at the moment? The deficiency exists that, because the scope of the Act is too wide, there are applications which, with the acceptance of the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister, improve that deficiency. Then we find a second deficiency, i.e. the fact that farms can be withdrawn from the provisions of the Act through steps taken by local authorities by, for instance, applying in the first place for the extension of its area of jurisdiction, so as to bring into that new area of jurisdiction land which is invaluable from an agricultural point of view. That is the deficiency that exists. I just want to point that out. The hon. member for Newton Park is the Cape leader of this party, and as such he will be aware that there are several divisional councils in the Cape to which the provisions of the planning chapter of the Townships Ordinance are applicable, such as Cape Town itself, Stellenbosch, Paarl and Knysna. The result is that in these areas a farmer can subdivide his farm into units larger than 25 morgen in extent, without any controlling authority over him. That is why there is a deficiency, and I think that what we should do now, is to identify these deficiencies, and once we have identified them, we should judge the remedies the Minister wants to apply in order to supply these deficiencies.

A third deficiency that exists, is that within the areas of some of these urban local authorities, some of the most valuable agricultural land is in fact to be found, such as here in Paarl and in the area of the municipalities along the Orange River. In Paarl pressure is continually being brought to bear on the Cape Administration by owners for good agricultural land to be subdivided. Now the hon. member for Durban Musgrave has quoted Mr. Conradie, the M.E.C., but why does he not quote another speech of his in which he made a moving plea for powers to curb the subdivision of agricultural land within urban local areas, a power which they do not have? I shall tell you why.

That is not what he said.

What about Act 10 …

My complaint against hon. members on the other side is that in trying to find motivation for standpoints, they are not prepared to give the complete standpoint of people, but only to quote that portion of the standpoints in question which happens to substantiate their own views. I think the hon. members owe their own responsibility as members of this House a great deal more than the price they are paying now. What does the legislation do after the deficiencies have been identified? A new definition, the new paragraph (m) of the existing definition, will enable the Minister to exempt, in accordance with a guide plan, if you wish—the Act does not exclude the drawing of a guide plan—those areas, i.e. land, which really has no agricultural value and which should not really come within the provisions of the norms of this Act. That is the first matter I want to mention, but the second one is that the result will be that any subdivision in these areas will be controlled by the provinces in terms of legislation controlling subdivision for purposes other than agriculture. In other words, this provision not only eliminates this deficiency, but also grants the province additional powers for resting the land exempted in terms of this provision against the requirements it wishes to lay down in terms of its own legislation for township and other development in its area. But what do we hear? All we hear is a repetition of the old outcry that provincial powers are being eroded.

What are your views on clause 3 (d)?

I shall come to that in a moment. It is also true that rural areas in which planning schemes exist, such as around our major cities, which have up to now been excluded from the provisions of this legislation, are now included again. I want to repeat that from the nature of the case the hon. the Minister has, in respect of the department he handles, certain requirements he has to meet. It goes without saying that the Administration and local authorities have certain functions which they have to carry out. After all, there is consultation between the various bodies which, within their departments, have various targets. Surely, a continual process of evaluation takes place between the hon. the Minister’s department, the Administration and the local authorities, once again with a view to the evaluation of what is of the greatest importance in a given set of circumstances and in a given area, namely the agricultural aspect or the township-development aspect. What hon. members are doing now, is to play off these levels of government against each other all the time. I think it is a public disgrace.

He will determine who makes money out of it.

The hon. member says he will determine who makes the money. I want to ask the hon. member …

No, the Minister will determine.

I want to ask the hon. member whether, in respect of town-planning schemes and zonings, the Administrator, too, does not at the moment determine what rights of use there may be within a municipal area. Does he not do so at the moment?

What about the local authorities?

I am referring to the local authorities; the Administrator determines the rights of land use.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member.

No, I do not wish to reply to questions now. The fact of the matter is that if the right of land use is changed, the local authority may make a recommendation to the Administrator. Determining the right of land use is not the only thing the Administrator can do; he can go much further than that. If he rezones land in a municipal area for a purpose other than the one for which it is zoned at the moment, he can say that the owner has to pay over to the local authority, a part of the appreciation, if there is any. The point I want to make is that the principle of control over land use has, after all, been embodied in our legislation, and also in our provincial legislation, for a long time.

Yes, in local authorities as well.

Yes, in local authorities as well. Let us consider this Bill further. In terms of clause 7 the Minister will be able to delegate powers not only to his own officials, but also to officials of provincial administrations. This is a further extension of those people’s powers in regard to the spheres and facets in regard to which they can judge and which come within the scope of their powers. The amendment effected in terms of clause 10 will add to the provinces’ powers to control the subdivision of land into portions even larger than 25 morgen in extent in areas exempted by the Minister for the provisions of the legislation. It is a further extension of the powers of the provinces. I want to summarize by saying that hon. members may argue as they please, but in fact remains that the whole principle of control over the subdivision of land in rural areas and urban areas, is a principle that has already been adopted. The principle of control over the use of land in rural areas and in municipal areas, is a principle that has already been adopted. Those hon. members are quite prepared to pose here as the champions of the individual rights of the people who are under discussion here, namely the farmers. Do hon. members now want to elevate the individual rights to a position superior to that of the common interest? I have here with me the observations made initially by the hon. member for Newton Park. Do hon. members want there to be no restrictions whatever on farmers in respect of the use of their land? I want hon. members to tell us what their reply is—yes or no.

There are many powers which one already has.

But of course. Surely that is the point. Surely the hon. member has already accepted the principle in the Soil Conservation legislation, which seeks to protect the soil. In fact, that Act was passed in 1946. But am I now to say that when his party passed that Act in 1946, it eroded the rights of the individual, or am I to say that hon. members, when they passed that Act, carried out their responsibility, namely that of protecting the soil in our country. Now I come to the second point I want to make. Does the hon. member agree that we are a relatively poor agricultural country, and that it is the responsibility of the Government to prevent, in cases where these interests are of primary importance, after a process of evaluation, valuable agricultural land from becoming uneconomic for agricultural purposes? Does he agree with that?

No, he will not reply.

He is as silent as the grave.

I am of the opinion that there is one deficiency which is not being eliminated by the legislation before the House at the moment. In this draft legislation the Minister did not make any provision for this particular deficiency, and that is that there is also agricultural land situated in urban local authorities over which the Minister cannot exercise any control at the moment. Therefore I am giving notice now of my intention to move the following amendment at the Committee Stage, namely that the following words be added at the end of line 35, page 3: “But with the exception of any such land which the Minister, after consultation with the Executive Committee concerned and by notice in the Gazette, declares to be agricultural land for the purposes of this Act.” That will enable the Minister to comply with the pleas addressed to him from time to time, namely that he should not prevent and block the subdivision of land per se, but should try to prevent the subdivision of land, tested against a specific norm. I know what hon. members are going to do with this amendment I want to move. They will say that there is already a shortage of building premises, and that the Government is now going to restrict the subdivision of land to an even greater extent. But the essence of this amendment which I want to move, is that this step should be taken in consultation with the Provincial Administration, and when the Administration advises the Minister in this particular regard, he will have to express an opinion in respect of the need and the necessity for township development in that vicinity or in respect of the farm itself. Then the process of evaluation is going to take place in order to determine what interests are to be the decisive ones in this specific set of circumstances. That is why I am giving notice of my intention to move such an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for False Bay claims that the principle of control over agricultural land has long been contained in the Act. We admit that there are certain provisions dealing with this in the provincial ordinances and in certain laws of the country. The hon. member referred to Act No. 10 of 1944, in which the area of 25 morgen or 50 acres is mentioned. Those provisions, however, are not at all the same as those in the present legislation.

But I want to go further. There have always been the different levels of government on which the hon. member has so beautifully elaborated here, namely the local government, the provincial government and the ministry right at the top. But how does the present legislation work, for example, the previous Act piloted through this House in 1970? Before land can be subdivided one first has to go to the top and ask for permission from the ministry. No surveying or anything of that nature can be done before one has asked for permission from the people at the top. In the past, with the levels of government, one could go to the Administration if the local authority were to reject it. There was a right of appeal to the Administrator. To whom can one go once the hon. the Minister has rejected it? It is an impossible matter.

What if the Administrator were to reject it?

I know of cases in my constituency and the hon. the Minister knows of cases where there was no right of appeal at all, because this matter does not work from the lowest level to the top one, but from the top level down to the lowest one. In other words, this is not a Bill which helps the people to get to the top level, it is a Bill which actually bears down on the people and stifles them, as my hon. bench-fellow said the other day. [Interjections.]

If one compares the long titles of the Act and of this Bill, one sees that the long title of the Act which was before the House in 1970 was only “to control the subdivision of agricultural land”. If one looks at the long title of this Bill, however, one sees that this Bill is introduced—

We agree with the extensions of provincial powers, but if one looks at the amendment in paragraph (f) of the definition of “agricultural land”, and at the amendment in clause 1 (b), one wonders whether it is in fact going to extend the powers of the provincial councils. We know it reads as if it were an extension, but the way I know public life it seems to me that it is only going to handicap the local authority and the provincial council with red tape. I am glad to hear that the hon. member for False Bay is going to move a further amendment to clause 1. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to classify it further, because we on this side are also going to move amendments to that clause, as it is very vaguely put. If it is indeed an extension of the powers of the provincial councils, we cannot see that it is going to be easy to apply.

I now come to the amendment of section 3 of the main Act which is introduced by clause 3. The proposed new paragraph (e) reads—

That paragraph is going to cause a lot of trouble in certain parts of South Africa, and particularly in the coastal areas. Along the short stretch of coast which I know in the Eastern Cape from, say, the Bushman’s River up to the Fish River, there are several places where there are no surveyed plots—in some cases it is Government land and in other cases a private farm—where people do have movable property, a cottage. This includes places such as Gasooka, Kleinemonde, Riet River, Old Woman’s River and Fish River Mouth. They are controlled by divisional councils and one cannot erect a permanent structure there. These places have been there for years, however, There are places such as these here in the Western Cape as well. Farmers are not the only people to go there. That cottage, and the right to stay on that land, is sold by one family to another. When one looks at this clause of the Bill one sees that they will no longer be able to sell those places. People sometimes buy those beach cottages when their children are still young. When their children have grown up they sell them to someone else.

If it has already been subdivided it is not affected.

But it has not been subdivided. That is where the problem lies. That land has never been surveyed by a surveyor.

Then it cannot be sold.

Those cottages are being sold one after another.

Transfer cannot be given.

When reading this Bill, however, I can see that there is going to be trouble. They do in fact obtain some sort of title to that house, namely the right to stay on that land. The land, however, has not been subdivided.

But Chat is not in this Bill.

If you had kept quiet now, there would not have been any trouble.

No, but it will be interesting to know what will happen.

†Clause 3 of the Bill deals with the substitution of section 3 of the Act. The new section 3 (f) is an interesting amendment. It would now appear that a local authority, whereas it could buy ground under the Act as it stood and could extend its boundaries, except ground that was subdivided, may, in terms of this amendment, not even buy a full unit, an undivided piece of ground, without the permission of the Minister. We were talking about the planes of the government earlier on. Surely the local authority must know what its requirements are. Surely it should be able to specify that a certain piece of ground fits in with any urban development scheme. Surely it should be able, in conjunction with the townships board of its province, and with the executive committee, to decide for itself whether it must acquire land or not. Now, even if it needs a piece of undivided additional land, it has to get the permission of the Minister. I think something should be done in regard to this. I feel that one should not over-restrict the subdivision of ground in urban areas. I believe that this Minister, instead of bringing this restrictive legislation, should allow the townships board and the planning boards of the provinces to plan for their large urban areas. If we are going to over-restrict them, we are going to increase the cost of building land, which is already very expensive. By over-restricting and limiting the supply of building land in our urban areas, we can only add to the cost of those plots, and add to the inflation from which this country is already suffering. I suggest that we look at this legislation very carefully before we pass it, with the idea of not creating an artificial shortage. I might mention that the tendency of inflated valuations of land in our urban areas, and also in our holiday resort areas, has multiplied by an enormous amount. It will multiply more if this legislation is passed. Since the ordinances controlling further development of holiday resorts on the Cape coast were introduced some years ago, valuations went up enormously. I want to mention the example of a plot 50 feet by 100 feet in the Eastern Cape, at a place called Boesmansrivier. In 1966 the valuation of this plot was R150, but today is valued at R2 500. This is a dangerous thing that is happening. I believe that if we are going to over-restrict, we are going to put these prices up even further. People are not going to be able to afford the burden. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to leave these powers to the provinces and to forget about this Bill entirely. I also appeal to him to accept our amendment.

The hon. member for Newton Park mentioned the possibility of ground being purchased for a brickfield and being affected by this Act. Well, I know of a case about which I did not go to the Minister, because I knew that there would be trouble; so I recommended a 99 year lease. Thank Heavens, I got through in time. But the cost of building material is another thing the man in the street has to contribute to today. The price of bricks is exceptionally high. There is not much brick ground available in certain parts of the country. In some places today bricks are R60 per 1 000. If one is going to push up the price further by restricting the amount of ground available for the purpose, it is just going to aggravate the position.

Clause 4, as has been mentioned by the speakers on this side of the House, introduces an amazing new principle and a new power. It in fact gives the Minister the power to determine how a farmer may farm. I feel that this is going a little bit too far, because the Minister already has power to exclude and control the bad and inefficient farmer under the Soil Conservation Act. Why must we have another clause in this Bill which gives him the power to say exactly what has to be done and how the ground may be used? The clause reads—

That is very strong wording. If this clause is necessary, we would very much like to know from the Deputy Minister why and whether he is going to delegate this new power to anyone as the hon. member for South Coast asks so wisely; because this is a power which could not lightly be delegated to anybody. I feel that the power to control is already laid down by the Soil Conservation Act. If someone is contravening the Soil Conservation Act, if somebody is upsetting his farming operations by inefficient farming and bad use of land, the Minister may exercize that control; but clause 4 contains an entirely new principle, something we do not like at all.

Then it is difficult to understand sometimes how these cases are decided. I had a case in my constituency which unfortunately I heard about too late. It was a case of certain sections of the old Clarkes party grant of plots of the 1820s. There were four separate surveyed plots but a farmer had bought them up before. Three of them were adjacent to each other on one side of the road, and the other section of 50 morgen was on the other side of the road. Now the owner offered to give the 50 morgen to one of his neighbours, whose farm did not exactly join it, but it was half a mile away. This 50 morgen would have made this man’s farm economic. It had water on it.

It can be consolidated.

I will give the hon. the Deputy Minister the details of the case later, but I will tell him now why I never approached him about it. It was turned down by the secretary of the board, and the seller then sold to someone else who bought the lot. It was definitely turned down. I heard about it far too late. But the ground was offered for nothing; it was offered as a gift to a young farmer who was battling on a small farm, and it was turned down. It is too late for us to do anything about that now; but this is what happens under this Act. I believe that one has to take a look at this whole question again, and come forward with something entirely different, introducing a different principle, where there can be a local board to decide these matters. Local conditions are far more important to local people. It is impossible, as I have said during the Second Reading debate of the original legislation, to decide from Pretoria what must go on in Pofadder for instance.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.