Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

I have to announce that I have exercised the discretion conferred upon me by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have stated our objection to this measure both at Second Reading and in Committee. Our objection is based upon the delegation of powers in clause 1, which removes from the Secretary control over further delegation but leaves him with the responsibility, and it is based upon the impracticability of applying clauses 2 and 5, which place an onus on the persons consenting to occupation to notify details of all the residents so occupying their residences. We have made it clear that we do not believe that this is a practical or realistic provision in that landlords or their agents, or the caretakers or supervisors involved, will not be able to provide the information, and even were they able to provide it, there is not a complete population register to which that information could be applied. That we are correct in our argument is shown by the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that at present the provisions of sections 10(2) and (3) are suspended, and that in fact after we have passed this Bill, after this House has approved the Bill and it becomes law, he will continue to suspend these provisions for some time. In other words, our arguments are accepted; it is not practical to apply this provision at the present time. But the hon. the Deputy Minister believes that at some future time it will become practical and that he will then unsuspend the suspension of these provisions. So, what we are being asked to do is to pass a measure now which Parliament knows, at the time of passing it, is not an immediately practical proposition. We have suggested to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should hold this over, and that he should leave the sections suspended until such time as more satisfactory and realistic methods can be found to keep the population register up to date. We have not been satisfied that his department is in a position to handle the information which is being asked for by this extension of the onus on landlords.

We do not intend to hold a long debate on the matter at this stage. We have stated our objection. We have stated our views on the problems. Another speaker will deal in more detail with our objection to clause 1, which deals with the question of delegation. I believe that we have adequately made our case against clauses 2 and 5, regarding the onus placed upon landlords. Therefore my purpose now is merely to indicate that our opposition to the Bill remains and that we have not been satisfied by the replies received. We shall therefore vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill probably is the most innocent amending Bill which we have ever introduced here in respect of population registration and identity documents. In spite of this being so, it is strange that certain motives which do not exist at all, are nevertheless being read into this Bill.

It is a question of practicability.

Hon. members opposite indicated the problems attaching to the onus placed on the landlord to notify any changes of address. I want to concede that the provisions in this Bill are probably not a 100% solution to the problem with which we are going to be faced, and that is to develop an effective change of address system. But, Sir, hon. members opposite should at least be fair. They have the same problem as we have and as the Government of the day as such has and that is to develop an effective change of address system. We find today, in respect of voters’ rolls, that it is in fact the political parties’ biggest problem in launching an effective registration campaign to ensure that people consistently notify their changes of address. Only the other day the question was put to the hon. the Minister of the Interior whether there was a legal obligation on the voter to notify his change of address. The voter is in fact obliged to register, and if he does not do so, he is liable to a fine of R50. But hon. members know that few prosecutions are instituted because otherwise the courts would have no time to do anything other than prosecute people who have failed to register. I do believe, however, that we shall be able to introduce more effective measures in due course and I think that the Opposition will be able to make a practical contribution in the future by also suggesting methods which the hon. the Minister and his department may employ. For example, they may suggest that we should use the Receiver of Revenue to give us those addresses, or something of that nature, as a means of making the system of notification of any change of address effective. The whole success of the system of identity documents depends on the notification of changes of address.

The hon. member for Durban Point is concerned about the position that a certain Mr. Weldone, for example, may move in to a flat with his mistress and that the landlord will find out that they are people who have not been united in matrimony. But surely, Sir, the problem can be eliminated so easily, because the onus is in the first place on the voter or the lessee himself to notify the change of address, and if this person did not want it known that he was living with someone in that flat to whom he was not married, then surely it would be the easiest thing in the world for him to notify his change of address himself, and in answer to any inquiry by the landlord, he would simply say that he had already completed those documents. In this way he would eliminate all those problems for himself.

But the owner must inspect the document acknowledging receipt.

Sir, I do not know where the hon. member has read that. I have not read it in the Bill. I do not know where in the Bill he has read that the owner must inspect the document acknowledging receipt. If the landlord were to come and ask me whether I had complied with the provisions of the Act by notifying my change of address, then I need only answer “Yes”. There is no question of my having to prove that I have done so.

Sir, we have the same situation with respect to the delegation of powers which we discussed fully during the Second Reading debate. Hon. members opposite suspect all manner of hidden motives in connection with this delegation of powers. Surely, Sir, it is clear from the Bill that the delegation of powers only applies to section 15; in other words, it applies purely and simply to the reference books of the Bantu, and it is for purely administrative reasons that the Secretary for the Interior will delegate his powers to the head of the Bantu Reference Bureau. Surely hon. members opposite do not expect that he should be mentioned by name, because he may perhaps be transferred to another position at a later stage, and then another amendment would have to be effected in order to mention a new person by name as the person authorized to act for the Secretary for the Interior. It is a purely administrative arrangement without any ulterior motive of prejudicing any person as far as his classification is concerned.

Sir, the same goes for the clause containing the presumption with regard to the classification of Bantu. After all, it is clear that the Bantu himself applies for his reference book and that he indicates in his application to which ethnic group he belongs. Hon. members opposite tried to suggest that it was possible that a Coloured might be declared a Bantu and vice versa; in other words, that a classification prejudicial to the person concerned could be effected by means of this measure. Sir, it is just not possible and that is not the intention of this measure. I really cannot see how hon. members opposite can read that into the Bill.

Sir, I just want to return to the point raised by the hon. member for Durban Point in connection with the landlord who must inquire from the lessee whether he has notified his change of address. The position is that the landlord may in fact inspect the registered address. The hon. member is therefore correct in that connection. I beg his pardon; I was under the wrong impression.

Sir, I think this is a fine piece of legislation we are passing here. We shall have to make further small adjustments to this measure, but we must create the necessary machinery for the department by means of which changes of address may be notified and recorded in the register, even though this cannot be done at present as all identity documents have not yet been issued, but already at this stage we must make provision for the necessary machinery to be at the disposal of the department.

Sir, the hon. member for Tygervallei started by saying that this was the most innocuous amendment which had yet been introduced to the Population Registration Act. Sir, I agree with him, but is it not a sad commentary on the other amendments which we have had when you look at the provisions contained in this Bill? As has been pointed out by my hon. friend, the member for Durban Point, we have opposed this measure throughout; and we will continue to oppose any measure which contains provisions of this kind. The hon. member for Tygervallei says that this Bill is innocuous; that the provisions of clause 1 are purely administrative and that they only refer to the Bantu Reference Bureau. Sir, if that is the case, why is it not written into the Bill? The hon. the Deputy Minister is an advocate and I have great respect for his learning and knowledge. But will he tell us in all seriousness when he answers this debate that this refers only to the Bantu Reference Bureau? Because that is not what the Bill says. I am sure that the learned gentleman will agree with me that what this says is that the Secretary for the Interior may now delegate any of his powers to a second party, who may then redelegate them to a third and a fourth party, if necessary, not only in respect of the Bantu Reference Bureau but in respect of all the powers which the Secretary has in terms of this Act. Nowhere in this Act is there any curtailment of this power to delegate on behalf of the Secretary, and as was so ably pointed out yesterday by the hon. member for Von Brandis, although the delegation passes, the control passes out of the hands of the Secretary for the Interior but the responsibility remains with him. This is one of the main reasons why we have opposed this measure. Unfortunately this is what the position is now going to be, that the Secretary for the Interior now loses control altogether, he can lose control altogether, of all the functions which he executes in terms of this legislation.

This innocuous measure also contains a provision which will have the effect of placing on another person the responsibility of the individual to notify his change of address. Sir, I want to say to the hon. member for Tygervallei that this Government has not the courage to apply to law; that is why we are faced with this position today. That is why this liability is being transferred today to somebody else, because this Government has not the courage to carry out the provisions of the law.

It is not a question of courage.

It is no good saying that it is not a question of courage. Why then have they not carried out the law? Because if there have been a few prosecuted for failure to notify change of address …

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

With respect, Sir, I am dealing with the question of the notification of change of address of a person as provided for in clause 2, where the responsibility is now transferred to the landlord.

No, the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Then let me say that this innocuous Bill makes the responsibility of the landlord even more difficult today because the provision was that he had to notify the Secretary for the Interior within 45 days. It is now being made more rigid. He now has to notify the Secretary within 28 days and if he fails to notify within that 28 days he faces the possibility of a charge being laid against him and a fine of R100. This is the point I was leading up to. What is the good of having this sort of provision in this Act. Will the Government have any more courage to act against the landlord than they have had to act against the individual himself. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Durban Point, has said that this cannot be applied, and I must agree with him. And then in this innocuous Bill we have before us, we have the provision in clause 6 making the provisions retrospective for 20 years. Sir, we are again being asked to throw a cloak of responsibility over the errors the Government has perpetrated during the last 20 years. I am glad that we have got to the stage now where we are validating identity documents which have been issued to the Bantu. In all innocence they have received these and have accepted them as valid documents but it appears now that they are not valid, and I am very glad now that we are validating these documents. However, I am very sad to think that they are now going to be faced with a presumption, the presumption that he is stuck with the ethnic group as specified in that document and determined I do not know how, because there is nothing in the Act to guide us as to how they determine the ethnic group of any Bantu. He is now stuck with it until he can prove the contrary. I believe that is too reprehensible. I am afraid that we are now tired of correcting the mistakes of this Government and we will therefore continue to oppose this measure.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has just told us that he accepts the retrospective nature of this clause. He has always been opposed to it, but now he says that he accepts it; now he sees it as being absolutely essential. The reference books have been issued, he says, and we must make the provisions concerned of retrospective effect. But when I, too, used that argument at the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage, he said he would fight that to the death. Now he says he accepts it. I am glad he has come to see the light.

He refers to section 10(1) of the Act and says the Government does not have the courage to use that section against people when they do not notify their change of address. But section 10(1) is identical to the clause contained in the Bill before this House at the moment. I have said it before, and now I repent it for the record and because hon. members are so insistent in this regard. The hon. member for Durban Point has given out that clause 2 is totally impractical. I told him yesterday and the day before yesterday that the reason why it was not being applied was that the identity documents had not been completed to such an extent that we could or wanted to apply it. That, however, does not render the clause impractical. Now the hon. member is holding it against us because we are taking all the necessary steps to round off the identity documents as far as any change of address is concerned. Now the hon. member is playing politics by saying that clause 2 is impractical but he knows in his heart that it is not impractical. The only thing is that it is not coming into operation now because there is not a sufficient number of identity documents as yet for it to be put into operation. It is a completely practical measure but it is being suspended pending the decision of the department at some time to put it into full operation. The hon. member for Durban Point knew that. He knows it, but he comes here and plays a little politics. But we forgive him for that, because he and his party need it desperately. I think I have now replied to all questions put to me.

Question put and the House divided:

AYES—79: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebush, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. L B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—31: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and J. O. N.

Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, in this clause we are amending a formula on which some discussion took place a year ago. Provision is now made for a certain formula to be followed by marriage officers who have been duly appointed in terms of the principal Act and by marriage officers who have not been so appointed but who are concerned with the marriage of people of various religious denominations and so forth. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with this formula which is now adopted whether the formula, when it is repeated, solemnizes the marriage or is it what follows thereafter, namely that the persons shall then give each other the right hand, that solemnizes the marriage? Is the marriage only solemnized when the one person’s right hand is placed into that of the other person? What happens to a man and a woman who have lost their right arms; what do they do then? The Bill stipulates that it must be the right hand; not á hand or any other kind of consideration. Does the formula not solemnize the marriage? Must the two right hands come together before the marriage is solemnized? I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister because I think it is material for a one-handed man or woman.

Let us now hear a ham-handed answer.

Mr. Chairman, this is a rather interesting question. I think the hon. member may have a point there. I should like to suggest that if the hon. members are prepared to let the Bill pass now, I shall go into the matter and, if necessary, bring in an amendment at a later stage. Does that satisfy the hon. member?

Yes, I am willing to accept that. I am quite prepared to let it go through. I have not discussed the matter with my colleagues and do not know whether the Whips have any objection. I should not think so. Most of them have two hands, anyway, and they have a hand on me all the time. But I am prepared to accept that the Deputy Minister will deal with the matter further in the Other Place.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate of this Bill, I promised the people who are married to the words “Boxing Day” that I would effect the necessary amendment, and consequently I move—

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but the hon. the Deputy Minister during the Second Reading stage said he would meet the objection that he accepted existed, namely that the English-speaking section of the community wanted to keep the words “Boxing Day”.

Why do you want to retain such a silly term, anyway?

I did not speak during the Second Reading stage at all. I am just telling hon. members what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. We are providing for public holidays which have a name for South Africans. I have never known a situation like this, where we are now to have a public holiday known by one name in the English text and a completely different name in the Afrikaans text. Are we now legislating separately for English-speaking people and for Afrikaans-speaking people? Sir, it is absurd! Either the hon. the Deputy Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, must accept the one or he must accept the other. But it is unprecedented to have the same holiday called by different names. What are we going to do? Is it possible that we will contemplate such a situation that we will have Kruger Day, that is on the 10th October—which incidentally is also my son’s birthday—called by the English-speaking people “Rhodes Day” or “John Cecil Rhodes Day”? Is this the sort of thing? What nonsense! Either the hon. the Deputy Minister can see it that we should keep Boxing Day or as he says we should not have Boxing Day. We say that we should keep Boxing Day and that we should keep the name “Boxing Day”.

I am giving it to you.

You are not giving me anything. It is there already. What he wants to do is to take it away. This is as I have said absolute nonsense and it could lead to all this sort of thing. Surely, we are legislating for South Africa. Let us come off this one and let the hon. the Deputy Minister make his gesture a proper gesture. Let him leave the day and call it what it is in the English text and what it is now in the Afrikaans text.

The hon. member sometimes amuses one. He poses as a learned man and I consequently accept him as a learned man. But the problem is that the hon. member did not read the Bill. Now he comes here and argues with me about the fact that we want to give them “Boxing Day”, and want to retain the name “Gesinsdag” for the same day. But if the hon. member had only taken the trouble to read the original Act, he would have found that in the English text the words “Boxing Day” were used, while in the Afrikaans text the words “Tweede Kersdag” were used.

I could see that.

Yes, but the hon. member said “it is unprecedented”. How could it be unprecedented if it was in the Act all the time? The hon. member really surprises me. I made a friendly gesture towards him and told him that if he was wedded to “Boxing Day” he could have “Boxing Day” back. Now that I am giving “Boxing Day” back to him, he wants my day as well. Now I want to ask the hon. member how he would translate “Boxing Day” into Afrikaans.

Boxing Day.

Do not be silly. “Boxing Day” is obviously English.

How would the hon. the Deputy Minister translate the word “veld” into English?

I am not here to act as a translation bureau. Now that hon. member states in all earnest that we should use the same words, but he does not tell us what the Afrikaans name for “Boxing Day” should be. Hon. members should not do that. All the hon. member had to do was to read the Act and he would have found the precedent which he was seeking.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not concede that the words that appear in the Afrikaans text at the moment …

It is what it was.

Yes. What appears in the Afrikaans text at the moment is “Tweede Kersdag”. Is that a translation of “Boxing Day”?

No.

Because there is no translation of Boxing Day. Is that not correct? So it is intended to describe the same thing as Boxing Day. But it is not intended to describe it as something else. What the hon. the Deputy Minister proposes here is to take two well-established names already in the Act, namely “Family Day” and “Boxing Day” … [Interjections.]

Order!

It is not an attempt to translate Boxing Day. This is my point. We already have the words “Family Day”—a translatable expression—in the text of the Bill. What I am objecting to is the principle of legislating for the English-speaking people in the English text and for the Afrikaans-speaking people in the Afrikaans text.

What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that?

It was that way.

We do not legislate in this House for English-speaking people or for Afrikaans-speaking people; we legislate in this House for the country. What I am asking is whether there is a translation for “Boxing Day” or not. [Interjections.] Well, I am just asking: Is there a translation in the Afrikaans language for “Boxing Day”?

Mr. Chairman, I must agree with the hon. member for Durban North that we are rather stretching things to an absurdity. I believe that the name “Boxing Day”, as I pointed out yesterday, has a certain connotation for the English-speaking section of this country. I concede that it will be a very difficult matter to translate this into Afrikaans. That is why the commission in their wisdom recommended in 1955 that this should be known in Afrikaans as “Tweede Kersdag”. Since then it has always been known as “Tweede Kersdag”. However, it has just been suggested by one of my friends on my left that we should suggest to the Minister that he accept Boxing Day in English and let us translate that into “Doosdag” in Afrikaans. I hand that over to the hon. the Deputy Minister for his consideration. He can answer that for himself. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has only come part of the way towards meeting our objections in respect of this clause. I must also point out to him that there is a subsection (b) in which it is proposed to delete paragraph (c) from section 1 of the Act. I want to explain to hon. members what that is exactly so that they know what it is that they are moving to delete. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give me a chance to follow the hon. member’s speech. At the moment I am finding it very difficult.

The days mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act shall be public holidays and whenever Van Riebeeck Day falls on Good Friday, Easter Sunday or Easter Monday, the Saturday immediately following Good Friday shall be a public holiday. We made it quite clear during the Second Reading debate on this Bill that we were opposed to the elimination of two public holidays in one year, namely, as has been suggested by the hon. the Deputy Minister, Van Riebeeck Day and Family Day. This is anathema to us. I feel that, in order to be logical, we must move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister let the hon. member for Durban North off very lightly. Every time he gets up in this House, he embarrasses himself by not using the word used by the previous hon. speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot, with all the goodwill in the world, understand how the hon. member for Durban North reasons, just as I could not understand him at the time when he explained their federal policy here. There was a very clear distinction in the existing Act in which “Boxing Day” was referred to in the English text and “Tweede Kersdag” in the Afrikaans. I cannot recall that I, when I read the debates on the public holidays legislation, found that the intention there was to have “Tweede Kersdag” as the equivalent of “Boxing Day”. I think that what the legislators took into account at the time, was that the English-speaking world, especially since the beginning of this century, had come to regard the day after Christmas as “Boxing Day”. If hon. members look into the history of public holidays, they will see that English-speaking people in the old colony of Natal and in the old Cape Colony did not regard Boxing Day as a public holiday. That is how I interpret the history of this day. It is actually something which was introduced after the conquest of the two republics, the Republic of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal Republic. I think we may be reasonably sure that the Legislature, when it referred to Boxing Day, were thus indicating that the English-speaking people in this country referred to “Tweede Kersdag” as Boxing Day, as a result of the historical significance attached to it. That, too, is how the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District explained it to us yesterday. With regard to the Afrikaans-speaking world, as in the part of the world I come from, we spoke of the day after Christmas as “Tweede Kersdag”. Actually, this is also something which was introduced after the beginning of this century. Therefore I want to say that the hon. member for Durban North is as far off the mark as it is possible to be. I cannot see or understand how, according to his reasoning, we want to introduce a word into this legislation and in that way drive the two groups apart. All we want to do with this is give recognition to those among our English-speaking people who would rather see the day as Boxing Day. Now we are giving them the opportunity of seeing it in this manner. As regards the Afrikaans-speaking world, we want to change “Tweede Kersdag” to “Gesinsdag”. As regards the Afrikaans-speaking community, no evil intentions will be seen in it if we want to confirm and emphasize family life on Boxing Day. I think we can dispose of this matter peacefully by accepting that the people who want to regard “Tweede Kersdag” as Boxing Day, a day on which to open their “Boxes” or their presents, can retain it as such, but as regards the Afrikaans-speaking world, we accept that these people want to concentrate their emphasis on the family as such.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendments of this side of the House, but I am not prepared to accept the amendment of that side of the House, namely to delete subsection (b). The other suggested translation that the hon. member came with for Boxing Day was made in a jocular fashion and I presume that I do not have to react to any frivolous inanities. In any event he does not want me to take him seriously. Therefore I shall just leave it at that.

Amendments proposed by the Deputy Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Question put: That paragraph (b) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—75: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, R. F.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Muller, H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A, P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—30: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright. C. J. S.; Webber. W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. W. T. Webber dropped.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate yesterday we made it quite clear on this side of the House that we were opposed to the deletion of two of our public holidays from our calendar of public holidays. I am sure that at that stage the hon. the Deputy Minister rather had the feeling that it was only the Opposition that was opposing this provision, but I am sure that by now his mind has been disabused of any idea he might have had that he had the full support of all the people in South Africa for this measure. Because I know, Sir, that he has received many telegrams, telephone calls and letters of complaint and objection to this. He has received telegrams on behalf of thousands of workers—hundreds of thousands of workers, in fact—throughout the Republic.

Where do you get that from?

Has the hon. the Minister not received …

You have made a statement of fact.

Yes, I have made a statement of fact, and I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister now whether he has not received such telegrams of objection?

Only from the Saps.

Has the hon. the Deputy Minister not received a telegram from Tucsa objecting on behalf of all the members of Tucsa?

No.

Order! We are not dealing with telegrams now; we are dealing with clause 2.

Sir, I submit that the telegrams to which I refer deal with clause 2, and they raise the same objections which we are raising from this side of the House to the provisions of clause 2, in terms of which the hon. the Deputy Minister hopes to do away with two of the public holidays of South Africa. Sir, I do not know that it is necessary in this climate to go very much further with this point; I do not believe that it is necessary to waste the time of this Committee any more. The Deputy Minister knows our objections; he knows the objections of the trade union organizations in this country, because I do not believe that he can deny that he has had telegrams. He has had telegrams from organized labour which do object to this clause.

You must not put the term “organized labour” in my mouth. I did not say that.

Has he had telegrams from organized labour?

No.

Then, Sir, I think we must refer to a report to the effect that Tucsa has asked all trade unions to send telegrams to the Minister of the Interior protesting against the Government’s arbitrary action. They are using the same term that I used yesterday when I opposed this measure and pointed out that here we had the Government taking unilateral arbitrary action, on their own, without having referred the matter to anybody in this country. I believe that no organizations, and particularly no organizations representing the people who are going to be affected, the workers, were consulted at all by this Government. They have decided this on their own and against the unanimous decision of a commission which was appointed by this Government to go into this matter in 1949. Sir, I do not think I can go any further in my opposition than to state that we are implacably opposed to this and that we will vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will take time to reflect upon this Bill and on clause 2 in particular. We have reached a point of absurdity in this argument. The amendment now proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister reduces this Bill to an absurdity. Sir, there are contradictions and ridiculous translations which really make the Bill a laughing-stock. If the purpose of clause 2 is in fact to improve the productivity of this country, then I would suggest that the hon. the Minister should have a look at some other Acts and bring about amendments to those Acts; I suggest that in that way he will better enhance the productivity of this country than by merely doing away with a public holiday. Sir, productivity depends on many factors other than the number of days worked. I believe that the omission of a day’s holiday in clause 2 is not a serious gesture towards increasing productivity in this country. I believe that clause 2 has as an effect only the furthering of a state of confusion in regard to our public holidays. It disregards recommendations made by a commission which investigated the matter very thoroughly. I believe it shows insufficient reflection on the implications. I do not believe that the justification for the clause is adequate. I believe the Minister should take it back and have another look at it, and if his true purpose is to increase productivity, he should go to some other Bill and leave this Bill, and clause 2 in particular, as it is.

Sir, it could hardly be said that any additional arguments have been raised, but I would just like to say to hon. members opposite that they should not come to this House and tell us in all earnest that we ought to curb inflation and increase production and then engage in a little politicking by opposing the disappearance of Van Riebeeck Day as a public holiday. The matter has been investigated very thoroughly. There was a thorough investigation of the financial aspect, the work aspect and every other aspect, before the Government decided to abolish these two holidays as public holidays. Sir, this does not in any way mean that Van Riebeeck Day on the 6th of April will disappear from our national way of life. It does not mean that at all. I personally went to the trouble of finding out whether any festivals were ever arranged in the course of the day in places other than Cape Town. My survey indicated that they were minimal. There were a few, such as that of the South African/Netherlands Labour Community, as I said yesterday. There were a few places where festivals were arranged, but they were absolutely minimal. Now this holiday falls very close to Good Friday and Easter Monday and throughout the evidence indicates that the religious holiday is, as it were, coupled to a holiday on which people do not hold a festival. People go on holiday at that time and what really happens is that they lose that religious period, the two days which are religious days. All that we would like to see, and I say it as a person with a deep feeling of piety for Van Riebeeck Day, is that Van Riebeeck Day should remain a working day to enable us to apply ourselves to our work as we should and build up South Africa and then we subsequently make use of it and it links up with our religious days and we can hold a festival of thanksgiving, for example in the evening in the churches where we can then hold church services throughout the country. Let the cultural organizations give us a real spiritual holiday on 6th April, but let the people work because to work is to save South Africa. That is the position. It is all well and good to ask me why we did not take other holidays. What is there? There is 31st May, Republic Day. Should we have chosen that? There is 10th October, Kruger Day. Should we have chosen that? There is the Day of the Covenant. There is Settlers’ Day. Does the English-speaking section say we should have chosen that? There is Christmas Day and there is Family Day, or Boxing Day. Should we take that? What should we take? Those were the only two. We know that the whole nation feels very sentimental about Republic Day, but we have too many holidays. Everyone agrees with that in principle. Other hon. members in the House have said that they agree in principle that we have too many holidays. We have just about the most holidays in the world. We are foremost among all the countries in the world as far as holidays are concerned. Only Rhodesia is in the same position as we are. Other countries have many festival days, but they are not public holidays. Van Riebeeck Day is not disappearing from the calendar, it is not disappearing from the hearts of our people; it is not disappearing as a day of celebration. It is only disappearing as a public holiday. The workers give their labour and for that they are paid. That is all that it amounts to. I cannot see how people can object to this.

Mr. Chairman, the very nature of the arguments of the hon. the Deputy Minister shows how specious and superficial his motivations are. The amendment in terms of this clause has nothing to do with religion. He is trying to make a case that if these holidays disappear …

But your side and not my side brought the religious aspect into the argument.

… people will still gather in quiet little religious groups to pray together and in this way the sanctity of these holidays can be preserved. This is a total irrelevance. Van Riebeeck Day is, in fact, a national celebration; it is not a religious holiday of any kind. If people wish to get together to play games, what is wrong with that? The hon. the Deputy Minister makes a case that Van Riebeeck Day is not worth maintaining because people do not gather together in groups to carry out observances of some kind. This argument has nothing to do with the case. Certain holidays have been planned with productivity in mind. Holidays are as much a part of productivity as are working days and the hon. the Deputy Minister is quite wrong in suggesting that by striking out two holidays, as clause 2 proposes, he will necessarily increase the productivity of the country. The productivity of the country depends on a whole range of factors, most of which do not arise in this Bill. I am saying to the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he tries to justify what he proposes in clause 2 on either religious grounds or on grounds of productivity, it is total nonsense and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the case. If he really has either a religious motive or a patriotic motive or the motive of productivity in mind, he can draft other Bills to achieve those objects, but these arguments in connection with this Bill are a total irrelevance and I believe are a retrograde step. I believe it will find no favour with the people of this country and we therefore oppose this proposed amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise here in amazement at the United Party. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District challenged me yesterday about the fact that Jan Van Riebeeck had made a promise that this day would be commemorated. Am I right when I say that? I then asked the hon. member whether he had read Van Riebeek’s Diary.

He has only heard about it.

He then said that he had not yet read it, but that he had heard about it. I take it that he heard correctly as to what is stated in the Diary, or does he not know? He argued here that we should commemorate this day as Van Riebeeck said we should. The hon. member for Von Brandis, however, is now talking against his side of the House because he asks: What has religion to do with it? I have Van Riebeeck’s promise or vow and it reads as follows (translation)—

But then it is a promise.

Good, let it be a promise, but it is to “the honour of God”, and is that not religious? However, the hon. member asked what religion had to do with it. I reacted to the hon. member’s argument and said that this day had not retained its religious character to a sufficient extent.

May I ask a question?

No, I am busy and the hon. member has had his opportunity. I said that I was rising in amazement because here the two hon. members are now, completely at a loss. They belong to the same party but one of them says that it has nothing to do with religion and the other says that he challenges me because I am taking away a religious day. I say that all that we are doing is asking the people of South Africa to work on that day and then to celebrate it as a religious festival. I do not want to throw Van Riebeeck Day to the winds. I am the last person who wants to do that. I want it to retain its religious character, its spirit of thanksgiving. But I may also say that I perused Van Riebeeck’s Diary. He wrote this passage in the second year. I do not want to read it out because my Middle Dutch is not so good. He made no subsequent mention of it at all in his Diary, neither as a day of festival nor as a nonworking day. Apparently the people worked and even Jan Van Riebeeck himself in time forgot about what he had written there. But whether he did so or not, we, his successors, can still read it, and as far as I am concerned, I should like to retain the religious aspect of such a day. I do not think of in terms of a sabbath day. I should just have liked us to meet together in gratitude that the founding of the nation in South Africa occurred on 6th April. Once again I ask the workers of South Africa: Apply your labour in order to save this country, whose population was established in this way.

Mr. Chairman,…

Before I call upon the hon. member for Maitland to speak, I just want to say that hon. members are in fact fighting the Second Reading debate all over again. The principle of the Bill, viz. the abolition of certain public holidays, was accepted at the Second Reading. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister has begun to raise the matter again, and I allowed the hon. member for Von Brandis to reply only to those arguments. But I must point out to hon. members now that I cannot continue to allow any further discussion by them of the principle as such.

I wonder if you would allow me to reply to the arguments of the hon. the Deputy Minister?

Provided the hon. member does not go too far, I shall allow him to do so.

No, Sir, I shall stay within the limits of his speech. His argument consisted of two parts. In the first place he wants to do away with Van Riebeeck Day so as to increase the productivity of the people. His second argument was that Van Riebeeck Day has never really been celebrated as a national day. It has only been celebrated locally, and it is precisely for that reason that it should be done away with. We have already told the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he thinks he is increasing the productivity of the people by doing away with Van Riebeeck Day, then he has no understanding of productivity in the economic sense whatsoever. The hon. member for Von Brandis indicate very clearly that it was precisely with a view to increased productivity that those holidays were established. But if the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to increase productivity, he should not tamper with a few holidays—he should rather consider the whole policy of the Nationalist Party as established …

Order! The hon. member is now going too far.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then I shall leave it at that. The hon. the Deputy Minister has been proved wrong on that score.

His second argument is that, because Van Riebeeck Day is allegedly not celebrated generally, we should rather do away with it. It was only yesterday that the hon. the Deputy Minister told us that we should do away with Family Day because the people do not really regard it as a family day. He said this yesterday. But what is he doing now? He is simply changing the date of Family Day. Why does he not simply do away with it, if it is not being used? Quite obviously his logic breaks down. There is no logic in his statement. No, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister has stared himself blind at the word productivity, and as a result of that he is trying to do something concerning which he has not consulted anyone in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by quoting from two talks held by Prof. Marius Swart and broadcast on the Afrikaans service of Radio South Africa. He said (translation)—

†This is what Prof. Marius Swart says. But what does the hon. the Deputy Minister say? He says that you must only have a holiday if there are festivities or religious services, feasts or celebrations. This just emphasizes the difference between the thinking of that side of the House and this side of the House. We agree fully with Prof. Marius Swart in this instance.

*But the professor went even further and mentioned Settlers’ Day and Van Riebeeck Day. He had the following to say about the latter (translation)—

†Once again, we agree wholly with the learned professor. It is not essential that we should only have holidays when we will have festivities, religious services and a great “bohaai”. As was pointed out by my hon. friend for Von Brandis, holidays are there for the people to recuperate. When the hon. the Deputy Minister asks what other days can we take, the answer from this side of the House is quite clear: No day. We believe that the people are entitled to the holidays that they get today. There is one important point on which we did not get an answer from the hon. the Deputy Minister at all. It concerns the fact that these holidays are used by organized labour in negotiating with employers. They use it as a bargaining point. Many of them have gained concessions either in the form of obtaining these days as paid holidays or of being paid double pay if they work on these days. What does the hon. the Deputy Minister intend doing about that? He said that if there is an agreement the agreement holds. That is correct. But he knows that those agreements are for limited periods.

They have not thought it out at all.

They have not thought this thing out. I agree with the hon. member. This is a half-baked measure which has come before us. They have not thought this thing through. These industrial council agreements are going to expire soon. They are not for indefinite periods. And what is the situation going to be then? Everyone of the workers in this country is going to be prejudiced by the unilateral action of that side of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—79: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—30: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fourie, A.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, before I explain the objectives and the provisions of the Bill I should like to indicate that the hon. member for South Coast had discussions with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in connection with certain objections the hon. member had in connection with the Bill. The hon. the Minister saw fit to accommodate his objections, and in the Committee Stage I will move the amendments that are printed in the name of the hon. the Minister.

*The legislation being considered now seeks to incorporate in one Act and to consolidate, in respect of the Republic and also of South-West Africa, the provisions relating to the control over and protection of sea birds, seals and islands on which the waste products of sea birds and seals are to be found, to rephrase certain outdated provisions contained in the existing legislation, and to introduce certain new provisions which will meet the circumstances existing at present. The necessity for this process has arisen from the following considerations—(a), as far as the Republic is concerned, the functions of control in respect of guano islands, sea birds and seals are still being exercised at present in terms of an old proclamation, namely Proclamation No. 158 of 1936, which was promulgated in terms of the Fish Protection Act, 1893; and (b), as far as South-West Africa is concerned, these functions of control are exercised in terms of the Sealing and Fisheries Ordinance, 1949, of South-West Africa, which in turn were assigned to the Minister of Economic Affairs under the provisions of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969.

In essence this Bill contains a consolidation of existing provisions and of the measures to which I have just referred so as to enable the Minister to implement effectively the following functions of control—

1. (a) to exercise control in regard to the protection of sea birds and seals present within the territorial waters along the coast of the Republic up to the high-water mark;
2. (b) to exercise control over the islands mentioned in the Schedules to the Bill and to add to the Schedule to the Act other possible islands, should the necessity for doing so arise;
3. (c) to be able to grant permission on such conditions as may be acceptable to and laid down by the Minister for the capture and killing of sea birds in cases where these may be required for scientific purposes or for public institutions, such as museums, or as an act required to be performed under other legislation;
4. (d) to cause seals to be captured and killed in cases where owing to the natural increase of the seal herds this is considered to be necessary in order to prevent herds from assuming such numerical dimensions that this may, firstly, prejudice the fishing industry and, secondly, disturb the ecological balance in the area concerned; and
5. (e) to cause, by or without the agency of the State Tender Board, products of sea birds or seals to be gathered and, whether such gathering is done by the Department of Industries itself or by a public tender board, to be disposed of in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

†However, as hon. members may have observed, the Bill also contains a number of provisions which may be considered new provisions and which are mainly required to provide for changed circumstances or to facilitate the administration of the Act itself. I furnish the following information regarding these new or amended provisions—

1. (a) the liability of the State, the Minister and that of the Public State officials is limited (except in the case of a wilful act or omission by any such person) in connection with claims for loss or damage resulting from injury, death or loss of property sustained by a holder of a permit when using the transport, bus or other facilities of the Department of Industries on or en route to any island. This clause will also do away with the rather cumbersome procedure of requiring permit holders to furnish the department with indemnities, which has caused considerable administrative problems in the past;
2. (b) the Minister is given the authority to delegate any of his powers of control and protection incorporated in the Bill in respect of a specific area—for example in the case of a game reserve along the coast or coastal park under control of a provincial administration—or in respect of a specified species of sea bird or seal to an authority such as the provincial administration, and furthermore may by notice in the Gazette declare that the provisions of the Bill shall not apply in any area defined in that notice which has been declared a national park in terms of the National Parks Act, 1962, and which may abut on or include any portion of the coast and sea.
3. (c) officials of the Department of Industries are given the authority to—
   1. (i) order the commander of a boat or vessel used in committing an offence in terms of this Bill to stop his vessel and furnish the full name and address of any member of his crew (clause 10(b)(ii));
   2. (ii) seize anything by means of which an offence has been committed under this Bill (clause 10(b)(iii));
   3. (iii) without a warrant, arrest any person who has committed an offence on an island in terms of this Bill (clause 10(b)(iv)).

This is where the amendments which the hon. member for South Coast indicated he wanted will be introduced.

*Mr. Speaker, in addition to the foregoing it is also being provided, inter alia, that the provisions of this Bill will apply to South African citizens in Antarctica and on Marion and the Prince Edward Islands, and that the implementation of the provisions of this Bill in these areas will be effected by the Minister of Transport and his Department of Transport, under whose control these areas fall. Clauses 1, 2(l)(a), 16(c) and Schedule 2 refer in this regard.

South Africa is a member of the International Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, and in order to meet its commitments as far as the protection of the Antarctic seal herds is concerned, the provisions of the Bill are applicable to such South Africans as may find themselves there.

Furthermore it is being provided that—

1. (i) an existing concession, permit or licence for the utilization of seals or the products of seals and sea birds which will be in force prior to the commencement of this Bill, shall be deemed to be an appropriate permit issued under this legislation (clause 15(2));
2. (ii) offences under and contraventions of the provisions of this Bill shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R200 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or to both (clause 12);
3. (iii) for the purposes of evidence it shall be deemed that, if any boat has been used in connection with the commission of any offence under this Bill, any person on board such a boat shall be guilty of the offence unless he can prove that he did not take part in or could not have prevented the commission of the offence (clause 13(2));
4. (iv) if any person is charged with having committed any offence under this Bill and it is proved that he performed such act, he shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have performed such act wilfully; and
5. (v) the provisions of this Bill shall not derogate from the provisions of any ordinance by a provincial administration or the Administration of South-West Africa in so far as they relate to sea birds or the products of sea birds.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill also makes provision for a number of less important and self-evident consequential provisions, such as authorization to the Minister in regard to the issuing of permits and making of regulations, which are necessary for the efficacious administration of this Bill. However, the provisions I have just referred to, constitute the most important principles contained in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first Bill introduced by the Deputy Minister in this House, may I wish him luck with his future legislation and express the hope that it will be as non-controversial as I hope this measure is. He has taken over from the Minister at very short notice, and I think we can congratulate him as far as he has gone; up to this point I think the House is with him. Let us hope that it may continue like that. He will deal with some stranger birds in his political life hereafter than those that are given Latin names in the Bill which is before us today.

Mr. Speaker, to come to the Bill then, it has come about at a time when a good deal of interest has been aroused in many particular circles in our society. Over the last so many years, for example, we have had many representations by people associated with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other folk who have seen, in the destruction of seals for the purpose of acquiring their skins, great cruelty and something which they felt should be limited. They have felt that their principles of humanity have been affronted and so forth, and, as I say, they have made representations over some years. But I think we have got to be very practical in our view of these questions and we must realize that in our sea-life we have got a valuable source of revenue for our country. If it is properly harvested it can be capable of returning to us an annual harvest in the way of income, not only from the seals but from the sea birds as well, from the penguins through their eggs, etc. This Bill does not specifically deal with guano, but guano is also one of the by-products and it is all part of what I might call the harvest of the sea which we gather here. The State in this matter will find itself having to balance the calls for the need to gather in the maximum sea-harvest with the need to preserve the factors which provide that harvest, so that there will be an annual take-off year after year, and at the same time within the limits set by humane considerations, in any aspect dealing with the question of the taking of life such as that of the young seals.

Sir, in connection with the slaughtering of the young seals—let us come down to earth and use the ordinary every-day words—it has been felt that the methods adopted in the past by the folk who had tendered and successfully contracted by the taking of the sealskins, were not humane; that they were not those which caused the least pain and suffering to the animals which had to be slaughtered for the purpose of taking their skins. Various suggestions were made to me personally over the last two years, many of them ranging from the suggestion that no seals should be killed at all, to the rather wild suggestion that the way to prevent having to kill seals every year was to kill them together in one year and that thereafter there would be no need to slaughter any more pups because there would not be any pups to slaughter. Mr. Speaker, it is not quite as funny as it might have sounded, because I remember that some years ago in the Other Place the late Senator Pettersen came with the proposal that all the seals round our coasts should be exterminated, and that arose from the fact that the fishermen had complained from time to time—and I think quite legitimately—that their nets had suffered considerable damage and that they had suffered financial loss, running into very big sums, as a result of their nets being torn by seals in pursuit of the fish. Indeed, Sir, I am sufficiently reliably informed—I believe it is true—that the seals on occasion have learned to follow the fishermen’s boats and only to go for the fish when they are actually enclosed in the fishermen’s nets. This does not surprise me because I have seen it in connection with another aspect of game conservation altogether, where certain game destruction had to be undertaken and where, when the people went out for the purpose of that destruction, the hyenas trotted behind the vehicles until the game that had to be destroyed was shot, and then when the rangers moved off, the hyenas ate the carcasses which had been so destroyed. It became recognized; it was taken as commonplace. The hyenas followed the rangers’ vehicles for that purpose. Now, if seals have learnt to follow the net I can understand that they can do a great deal of damage. So we get the authorities being pressed hard by the fishermen to destroy all the seals to protect their nets. You get the SPCA and other folk saying we should not kill these creatures, or if we do, it should be done in the most humane manner possible. The Bill provides that the Minister shall make regulations wherein the conditions will be laid down for the destruction of the seals. There is nothing in the Bill which details precisely what has to be done. The Minister will make regulations, and I have no doubt that when the time comes he will make regulations which in the light of all the evidence he has been able to gather, will provide that there shall be as little suffering and cruelty as possible in the taking of life, whether of seals or any other form of life. The matter is now left in the hands of the Minister and I think that probably is the best way of dealing with the difficulty. The yearly take-off will of course be a matter for adjustment from time to time and the successful tenderer will have to comply with those provisions, and the same applies to the protection of the other creatures like penguins, etc., all of which are now being protected by being brought under the aegis of the Minister.

But there is a provision in the Bill here which may have to be looked at again later. That is the provision which makes it possible for anyone on one of the islands named in the Schedule, if it is alleged or it is thought that he is guilty of doing something which is in conflict with the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, and the regulations, to be summarily dealt with there on the island, as the result of something he is alleged to be guilty of on that island. As the Bill is now before us, it cannot be alleged that he was guilty of doing something on Seal Island and then he gets dealt with in Adderley Street in Cape Town. He is dealt with on the island in respect of a matter which happened on the island. That may have to be looked at again hereafter. I can quite foresee the possibility that hereafter there may be actions in conflict with the provisions of the Act or the regulations carried out on the island where the people escape from the island very quickly. We have had to deal with that sort of thing in Natal in the case of the Natal Parks Board. With very high powered motor-boats and that sort of thing at their disposal, you may not be able to get alleged malefactors on the island itself. However, I merely mention that in passing.

I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his promise that at the appropriate time he will move the amendments standing on the Order Paper, amendments which were the subject of discussion between the hon. the Minister and myself. It is a fact which we on this side of the House appreciate very much that provisions are made in this Bill for the exemption of those areas on the coast which fall under the jurisdiction of the National Parks Board of Trustees. We think that that is very commendable, that the National Parks Board of Trustees which deal with that particular place—I think they call it the Tsitsikamma Marine Reserve—should have the control of that area, which they administer so well, left entirely in their hands. They have ample powers to deal with it. The preservation of the marine fauna and flora is being adequately catered for; so there is no need for another authority to be superimposed. As the Bill stood originally, the power of delegation was given to the Administrators of the provinces, but in the amendments now proposed by the Minister in the case of Natal the Minister himself will be able to delegate those powers to a statutory body.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The time in which we are living with all the monetary instability and the consequent disruptions of social structures will be looked upon as the age of inflation. Fifty years ago no proper knowledge of the nature, of the process of inflation was available. The devaluations which are so general today would have been inconceivable to our fathers. I do not think there is any necessity for us today to waste time by offering definitions of inflation. Surely, I do not intend to carry coals to Newcastle in this venerable Chamber. Inflation, I may say, is the most cruel of all fiscal techniques. It imposes on those who must institute the necessary adjustments the task of apportioning the levy which inflation has exacted. Inflation is totally unfair. It causes social discontent. It creates frustration. Inflation makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Government to present a budget not polluted by monetary and fiscal measures and mechanisms which must necessarily impede the happy livelihood of millions, those who are most vulnerable, and at the same time impede investment which is a prerequisite to social order. Inflation is an invention of the devil! It thrives on appearances; it destroys realities.

The great disaster of 1929-’33 was preceded by insurmountable inflationary conditions during the 1928-’29 boom. If you know the history, you will agree with me, Sir, when I say that the forces which generated this unprecedented prosperity during 1928 and 1929 were rooted in the inability of the nations to institute a monetary policy which could stabilize monetary systems after the First World War. It is impossible for me to discuss that period in the course of my speech today, but I must emphasize that the deep scars which the 1922-’23 inflation left on the German people caused unemployment that produced Hitler with disastrous consequences.

Inflation has already rocked the foundations of Western civilization several times. It is the present inflation which is the force majeure behind the struggle for power between the Government of Great Britain and labour. I want to quote what the Daily Mirror, a newspaper with a daily circulation of 12 million, wrote on 19th February this year—

*Now I want to say here this morning in all earnest: In its fight against inflation the National Government has employed fiscal and monetary mechanisms and measures, ad hoc and of varying duration. The Government has achieved great success in the fight against inflation. But the greatest achievement of the Government lies in the fact that the political forces that can prey on the disruptive effects unleashed by inflation have been kept in check. Unemployment, frustration, the disruption of social and economic structures, the stifling of free initiative, the regimentation of productive forces and impulses and the replacement of the discipline of a free economy with inflexible fiscal and monetary mechanisms and measures of control, these things are all generated by inflation and are all forces majeures behind political power conflicts in a country, as is now being experienced in Britain. So it is absolutely essential to fight inflation. This Government has employed several fiscal and monetary measures and mechanisms. Economy has been encouraged. Liquidity has been reduced; higher productivity has been encouraged; consumers’ expenditure has been reduced; and growth has been stimulated. Sincere gratitude must be expressed for these measures. Sincere gratitude must be expressed for the policy which the Government has maintained throughout in its anti-inflationary programme of action.

†I am justified in saying that the Government has not tampered with the structural components of our economy. It has as yet not created a gloomy regiment of entrepreneurs obeying orders from above. The whole labour force in the Republic—the ordinary labourer, the artisan, the technician, the professional and the entrepreneur—all of them enjoy the privileges of operating in an economic structure in which an enthusiastic community is free to initiate and operate voluntarily. The Government has not embarked on the road of authoritarian planning. The Government has allowed the price mechanism to operate within the framework of a conscious discipline of a free economy. It must be stated to the credit of our Government that it has thus far succeeded in avoiding the necessity, the pressures and the temptation of applying measures in such a way and of such duration as to result in an undesirable rigidity in our economy. Mr. Speaker, a remarkable flexibility characterizes our economy, a flexibility which is of vital importance if one takes into consideration the magnitude of the social and socio-economic changes which emanated and developed in the Republic of South Africa since the National Party came into power. The process of organizing all the racial groups, the repatriation of Bantu to their home countries, the unparalleled population explosion in South Africa, especially among those sectors of the population with the lowest skill and productivity and economic status, are forces majeures in generating socio-economic and socio-economic political distortions with a direct adverse impact on our ability to create capital for investment which, I repeat, is a precondition of social progress.

This flexibility is a valuable investment. It reinforces our economy and assists it to adapt itself to meet the challenge which these great social and economic changes impose on it. The Government, I say, has had an open eye for what happened in other countries. It has not, and I know the Opposition will differ from me, allowed ideological objectives to dominate the realistic economic impulses.

This Government?

Yes, this Government has succeeded in doing so.

I make bold to say to the world that our Government, in its struggle against the forces of inflation, has not diverted from the basic structures of a free economy, in which free enterprise, merit, initiative and the discipline of a competitive market are vital, primary and proven components.

Bur surely the Minister of Finance said he would bend the economy.

Just wait and listen to what I am saying. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Government with all the powers with which it is vested, did not subordinate the interests of the individual to those of society. The Government did not find its way through the jungle of economic problems of the present age by following the light which it held in its own hands. The Government was led by the confidence and by the initiative of our entrepreneurs in all sectors. It must be admitted, I say, Mr. Speaker, that some institutional measures, which will be elaborated upon later in this debate, have been and are still applied in the Republic of South Africa. However, at the same time it must be emphasized that the Government has maintained the situation in which the price mechanism, the mainspring of economic action in a free system, conformed to the necessities of society and public interest, and not to what special interests, private or corporate, would like them to be.

*Mr. Speaker, we shall have to outgrow inflation. There are a few conditions for outgrowing inflation: we shall have to increase our gross national product; domestic consumption must be increased. In recent times the Government of the day has been confronted with the problem that defence had to be placed on an effective basis at all costs; and that the development of Bantu states, in which we are obliged to participate, had to take priority. Ordinary Government expenditure is essential. Strategic expenses, such as the search for oil, etc., are essential projects which have to be undertaken by the Government. These are all projects which cannot immediately contribute to the gross national income. These are all inflationary measures that have to be taken by the Government; add to these the unparalleled population explosion with which we are faced. I want to say to the credit of the Government that the Government has financed large projects, although some of them are inflationary at the moment in the sense that they cannot provide an income immediately or contribute to the income and the increase of the gross national income. I am thinking of harbour extensions amounting to millions of rand. These have a bearing on exports and on the stimulation of growth within South Africa. I am thinking of the water schemes amounting to millions of rand; I am thinking of the exploitation of our resources, of the refining projects, and of the processing projects with a view to export. I am thinking of the provision of power and of Iscor. To mention just one example, there is the Newcastle project which will amount to approximately R1 400 million. All these things that have been undertaken by the Government were necessary projects which will in the long term serve as feeding channels to provide a growing population with a growing economy and a growing export market. So the Government of the day is entitled to listen to a sincere word of appreciation for the things it has initiated, for the guidance it has provided without disregarding the meaning and the diabolic effects of inflation; a word of appreciation for the guidance the Government has provided in its fight against inflation without tampering with the basic structures of our economy. If there is one thing I admire, it is the fact that the Government was not afraid, but displayed the courage to initiate large projects. One day, when I am older, we shall reap the fruits of this. The allegation against the Government that it does not realize the value of growth or that it is regarding growth is unfounded. It cannot be confirmed by facts. Sometimes in the eyes of the layman we seem to be growing, too slowly, but the Government, which is charged with responsibility, must take all the factors into consideration in the long term. The greatest value, the greatest meaning of the Government’s guidance lies in the fact that it has not caused an opening for disruptive and destructive forces in the political sphere to enter on the back of unemployment, as I have put it, on the back of the disruption of social structures, as is the case in other countries of the world today.

In conclusion I want to say …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, please, sit down; you do not understand what I mean. I want to say today that I think I should sound a note of serious warning today. I am not talking big when I say that. I am not laying claim to some special wisdom when I say that, but my common sense tells me that we have a last chance. This wave of salary and wage increases, this wave of price increases is our last chance, I think. If we have gone through this process and inflation continues unabated, the British situation is in store for us as well, but not as far as confrontation between Government and labourer is concerned. That has never been the case in South Africa, thanks to the National Party Government. If we cannot by more productive labour—and here I address myself to the private sector—render something in return for the concession made by the Government in increasing salaries and wages, our orderly social structure in South Africa will be subverted and undermined and then no Government could avoid employing the most drastic monetary measures and mechanisms. [Interjections.] I say that this is our last chance and I want to tell the private sector to reflect on its actions. It is calculated that 500 million man-hours are lost every year through bad organization and the wrong application of labour. More than R200 million is spent on unproductive labour, bonuses are paid and fringe benefits are offered to attract labour without the productivity being taken into account, and those increased bonuses and the expenses in regard to fringe benefits are simply passed on to the consumer. I want to tell the private sector in all earnest today, and I think that I am justified in saying this, that the consumer cannot carry that burden any longer. The motives of the private sector in keeping the profit at a constant level must be reconsidered. In this whole struggle against inflation we are dealing with a very important factor which is eroding our ability to form capital. That is our unparalleled population increase in South Africa. I could present hon. members with a whole dissertation on this subject. I appeal to the Government to give the most serious attention to the project of family planning in South Africa. There is an old economic dictum which declares that population increase is an essential requirement for economic growth. That economic school of thought does not exist any more. There are alternatives for economic growth over and above population growth.

I have with me lists of data in regard to vocational technical training within the Bantu areas. I ask again that we should look very seriously at the training of Bantu within the Bantu areas. The success of our policy of separate development will eventually depend on the ability of the embryonic Bantu states to make the maximum productive contribution in the economic field to the gross national income of White South Africa and of their own countries as well. The more they produce there, the more independent they become there, the greater will be the burden that is taken from the shoulders of the Whites.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Carletonville moved a very strange motion today. I believe he did so with his tongue in his cheek, knowing that it did not make sense. He is only doing it because he would like to sound the reaction of the United Party.

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that the expression “with his tongue in his cheek” is unparliamentary.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I withdraw the words. The hon. member began on a high note. We thought we were going to have a very wise dissertation on the subject of inflation. But the hon. member spoke of all sorts of things, but said very little about inflation.

†He said that inflation was the invention of the devil. That is not so. Inflation is the fruit of the mismanagement of the Economy by this National Government.

*He said that the Government had achieved great success in its fight against inflation. I have interesting figures with me here. The real growth of the gross domestic product was 5,8%, which amounts to a real growth per capita of 2,7%. This covers the period between 1966 and 1971. The increase in consumer’s prices over that period, when the increase in real growth per capita was 2,7%, was 3,7%. The increase in consumer’s prices for the third quarter of 1971 over the third quarter of 1970 was 6,5%, while the increase in December 1972 over December 1971 was 7,3%. This does not look like success in the fight against inflation. Then he said—

My goodness, Mr. Speaker, every session we pass a vast amount of legislation here which forces control from Pretoria upon the private sector to an ever-increasing extent and which strangulates private initiative.

†He went on to say—

Sir, does this hon. member still believe in the magic year 1976? Is he also hitching his political reputation to that year?

*Then he said that we had to outgrow inflation. Sir, this is what we have been saying since the middle of the ’sixties …

You want to grow out and grow in.

We said that we should follow the growth school and not to the damping school. I am glad that the hon. member has now become a follower of the school of growth. Sir, there is a last thought which he expressed which I found very strange. He condemned the bonuses and fringe benefits paid to the workers of South Africa. I find that strange. In these days of financial hardship I should have thought that our workers should receive all these benefits and more. I challenge the hon. member to try to defend this motion on any platform in South Africa. Do you know, Sir, what would happen if he tried to defend it before the breadwinner, before the housewives and the young couples of South Africa? He would receive the same treatment at those meetings as that meted out to the H.N.P., our fellow-Afrikaners, by the Nationalist Party supporters at their meetings. [Interjections.] Of course the H.N.P. are fellow-Afrikaners. Sir, I hope that the hon. member will accept my invitation to come to Port Elizabeth during the recess and to debate this matter with me before the audiences in my constituency, which will consist of policemen, railway workers, civil servants, teachers, clerks, industrial workers, housewives and pensioners, and that he will then thank the Government for the measures it has taken and for the successful way in which it has combated inflation. Sir, we shall have to get police protection for the hon. gentleman!

Under the circumstances it is absolutely impossible for us to support the hon. members motion and I should like to move the following amendment on behalf of this side of the House—

†Mr. Speaker, just this week I received a letter from Port Elizabeth from the Consumers Association, a letter which I think very clearly indicates the sentiments of our lower-income groups. I would like, Sir, to read out a portion of this letter to you—

I have before me a letter written by a pensioner in the Evening Post of the 7th: “How are pensioners supposed to live?” The hon. member has been in this House for many years and he will remember that our hon. Minister of Finance previously was the high priest of the “demp” school. He will remember that the Government instituted various measures to combat inflation when this evil became a serious malady in the mid-’sixties. If the hon. member’s memory is not operating at the high level is should, let me remind him of the measures taken to combat inflation, measures for which he is asking this House to thank the Government. Firstly, there was the ever-increasing tax burden, both direct and indirect taxes. Secondly, there were hire purchase restrictions; thirdly, there were credit ceilings; fourthly, import control; fifthly there were also higher interest rates. If these measures had been effective and had been able to contain inflation, we would have had no grouse but today the Government has blatantly acknowledged that we have very high inflation, 7,3% for the 12 months preceding December, 1972, and what is it going to be during this year? We know that high prices are in the pipeline, increases which have not come into effect for the consumer yet. The average wage earner in South Africa, that vast legion of South Africans which is hard-pressed financially, will not thank this Government for their unsuccessful battle against inflation. They have to bear this intolerable burden of soaring living costs. The figures which I quoted a little earlier I think indicate clearly why all these wage earners and State employees are dissatisfied with the ±15% increases they have received.

*They say that that increase has already been absorbed by higher prices, or will very soon be absorbed by rising prices. Old-age and social pensioners who retired as far back as the ’forties or ’fifties think that the treatment they receive from the Government and the pensions they are given are scandalous. I think it is a flagrant scandal that they receive so little compensation and are then expected to live on that. Does the hon. member for Carletonville think that the thousands and thousands of South Africans who earn low wages will support his motion?

That is a different debate altogether. We can talk about that as well.

The economy of a developing country has not been discussed in this debate at all. We have been told that several attempts are being made with Government support to build up the infrastructure. We fully agree with that, but that has nothing to do with the discussion of inflation. Let us consider what must happen in a finely balanced economic mechanism to combat inflation. The Government still maintains that when demand increases too rapidly and the economy becomes over-heated the correct recipe to curb the demand is tax increases together with credit ceilings. This is the recipe the Government has always applied, but we know that the rate of inflation is still rising. The United Party has always tried to tell the Government that we should stimulate growth. The United Party has said that temporary measures should in fact be taken to curb the demand in certain cases, but that the supply should at the same time be actively stimulated in order to allow the supply to keep pace with the increasing demand. We have pointed out that the serious shortage of White manpower being experienced in South Africa can only be solved in two ways: either the pace of immigration can be increased sharply, or the available manpower in South Africa must be applied economically and to the full.

Anywhere?

This second statement, the full economic utilization of our manpower, is a tremendously important factor which should receive the serious attention of every thinking South African.

Where?

If we remember that the words of the hon. the Prime Minister were—

we realize that these are the words we have to keep in mind in considering the employment of non-Whites in skilled work. We have pleaded that the Government should do away with its ideological, its restrictive, its inhibiting labour measures; that there should be negotiations with the White trade unions and that, with their cooperation, more and more non-Whites should be employed on a skilled level. There must, of course, be built-in protection for those White workers who may drop out in this process. What consequences would this policy have for South Africa? Such a labour policy would in the first place cause the artificial shortage of manpower to disappear in course of time. In addition, the productivity per unit would increase; our growth rate would be considerably higher than it is today; opportunities for work would increase more rapidly, with the result that unemployment amongst the Bantu would decrease. The taxation base would be extended tremendously and the burden upon the individual would be lightened. A contented, stable Bantu middle-class would be created which would help to maintain the political and social balance in South Africa. Finally, supply would be able to keep pace with demand, and that is the golden key that would combat inflation in South Africa.

†The hon. the Minister of Finance has consistently been optimistic about our economic prospects for 1973. Although the hon. the Minister is absent, I am glad to say that we welcome him under the flag of growth, because he has deserted the flag of the “dempskool”. It is only by rapid growth that we can beat this bogeyman of inflation which is threatening the fabric of the South African society.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, just before the debate was adjourned for the lunch break, we were listening to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who spoke after the hon. member for Carletonville. While the hon. member for Carletonville made a speech which testified to his having made an exhaustive study of inflation, the speech made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was extremely superficial. The hon. member made this accusation: “Inflation is the invention of the National Party Government, due to the mismanagement by the National Party Government.” Actually, that statement is typical of the Opposition. They are paying no heed whatsoever to the true situation, for inflation is a world-wide phenomenon. If what they said were true, it would mean that all the comparable countries in the world which also have inflation, have also been “mismanaged”. I think that if the Opposition is not prepared to accept this point, it testifies to “mismanagement” on the part of the Opposition. The hon. member said that the hon. member for Carletonville is now accepting United Party policy in respect of growth. But the hon. member did not listen to what he said, for he stated clearly and unequivocally, as is in fact the policy of the National Party, that we believe in controlled growth …

“Ordered” (geordende) is the word.

… an ordered growth, if that is how you prefer it, or a qualified growth, with special reference to the homelands and to the policy of separate development; it will take place within that framework. Sir, we believe in balanced growth which takes into account the full implications of unrestricted growth. It has now happened in this House—this is also what happens to every government in the world—that the Government is being blamed for the increase in the rate of inflation. This question of rising inflation has already become a powerful political weapon throughout the world, because this matter will of course affect people’s pockets. There is no other aspect of our political dispensation in the world which hits as hard as this very problem of inflation, and for that reason it is being utilized as a political weapon. Many governments have fallen as a result of measures which they adopted to counteract inflation. This blame which is being placed on the Government, this charge that the full responsibility must rest on the Government, is further intensified by the propaganda of the Press, in order to make miserable political capital out of it. The only basis for evaluating inflation is to compare it over a certain period with the respective increase in income over the same period. For that reason I want to say that a government cannot accept total responsibility for the problem of inflation. No government in the world can do that. If it should ever happen in South Africa that the electorate were to vote against this Government because of economic considerations, it would be a political disaster for South Africa, for if they do not take into account the complex financial implications and the complexity of this problem, it can only lead to disaster for South Africa.

Over a period of 25 years the National Party has adhered to a variety of economic principles in the application of its policy to counteract inflation. These principles were within the framework of a free democracy. It believes in a person’s right of self-determination in the economic sphere, and it honours this principle. It believes in the right to trade freely, which should be allowed within reasonable limits, and our policy has been based on the principle of an anti-socialistic set-up in South Africa. However, these principles were applied with due regard for what a government can do to counteract inflation in a modern economic structure. For that reason we want to underline this motion once again this afternoon, and for that reason I find it such a privilege to support the motion of the hon. member for Carletonville. I say this because this Government has within the framework of its means and within the framework of this complex economic structure succeeded in ensuring that inflation did not get completely out of hand as it did in many other countries of the world. The Government allowed a fluidity and an adaptability within the framework of these tested principles. It did not follow a rigid, immovable policy which could harm our economy. These measures were applied with the greatest circumspection, and due regard was had for the growth of the economy on a stable and sound basis. The United Party calls this “stop and start economic manipulation”, but where would we have been if, during the past few years, the National Party had not had the courage of its convictions to apply measures which were unpopular even with the electorate, for the sake of the conservation of our economy in South Africa? The Opposition has not yet learnt that one must take into account today the modern means of communication, the fact that our economy is intertwined with the world economy, and that we are not isolated in South Africa.

It is also necessary to determine what kind of inflation we have. In South Africa we have cost pressure inflation in particular. For that reason the Government has taken steps which were specifically directed at cost pressure inflation. These steps which the Government took must in the first place be seen against the very difficult economic background. There was the economic boom period of the sixties which created a psychosis, and a manpower shortage. The steps were taken in a time of rising costs, in the midst of an unstable external economy. The Government did this in a period when the gold price was very low, and there was one monetary crisis after another. The Government took these steps in a time when the costs of transportation had risen, when freight charges, over which we had no control, rose, and also at a time when the costs of postal and telegraphic communications throughout the world increased. It did this at a time when Government spending was essential to the development of South Africa; it did this at a time of rising prices of basic goods in South Africa. We had a cost pressure in virtually all the production sectors in South Africa, and the Government nevertheless succeeded in restricting inflation to a reasonable extent.

Is 7% reasonable?

A increasing consumer market was the order of the day, particularly in respect of the new purchasing habits of the non-Whites. There were various other factors which we cannot mention here. Under this inflationary pressure the Government took various steps. Firstly it had to encourage savings by increasing the interest rates on post office savings accounts; national savings certificates were introduced; tax-free periods were extended; the periods of notice of withdrawal were extended; tax bonds and premiums bonds were introduced. A house-owner scheme was introduced. In addition liquidity was lowered and an increased discount rate was introduced. The liquid assets ratio of the commercial banks was increased. Appeals were made for less creation of credit. The capital works programs of the State, as well as those of the authorities, were cut. Non-inflationary financing was undertaken by the State. Treasury bonds and Government securities were sold. Government loans abroad were repaid. Consumer spending was reduced. Restrictions on hire purchase credit were intensified by means of the flexibility of our policy, except in certain cases where it would harm the economy in a particular sector. The loan levies of the past were another special measure, but the public has subsequently been repaid in an economically very difficult period. Income tax was adjusted and credit ceilings for commercial banks were introduced. These essential steps were unpopular, but we had the courage of our convictions and introduced them. Production and productivity were encouraged by means of various measures, all of which I cannot now mention. Prices were stabilized. Import control was relaxed. Price control was introduced on important commodities. Market conditions were kept under surveillance. There was also the subsidization of interest rates for farmers and house-owners. Now we return to the matter touched upon by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. We adopted steps to ensure a second growth program. Devaluation, of which so much has been said here, is one of those important measures which we should not lose sight of. The State also provided further amenities and made concessions in regard to education in South Africa. Then there was the creation of a dynamic infrastructure, in the midst of these economic conditions. Balance of payments control was introduced in respect of capital flow, production goods and land sales. This program of action was supplemented as circumstances required from time to time.

I should like to conclude by saying that the Government created the background for the beginning of a dynamic economic structure in South Africa. It maintained control of inflation without throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater. Sir, the right economic climate has now been created, and the Government has said to us: “Now you must pick up the ball and run with it.”

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speeches of the hon. members for Carletonville and Newcastle with a great deal of interest. They dealt with the subject on a very high plane. They both made erudite speeches. I think this was a very, very wise thing for them to do; because if they had tried to defend Government policy on inflation on the basis of bread and butter and what is happening to the people in South Africa today, they would have been in even worse trouble than they are in at the moment. I am amazed that my friend, the hon. member for Carletonville, should have put a motion on the Order Paper, thanking the Government for the steps they had taken to combat inflation. Sir, when you deal with the question of inflation, you have to keep your feet on the ground, because people, human beings, are involved.

The hon. member for Newcastle talked about orderly growth. Where is the growth? What growth is it that he is talking about? We had less than 4% growth this year. We have not had any official figures from the Government yet. Is the reason for that that as one commentator said yesterday the figure is perhaps only 3%? Is that why we have not had an official figure? If the growth for 1972 was perhaps only 3%, where is this growth the hon. member is talking about? Then the hon. member says, and I agree with him, that inflation can be a political weapon. Of course it can be a political weapon. How do you deal with it? You curb it. You do not allow it to get out of hand. You tackle it. You fight it. You do not talk about it. You do something about it. Now, what has been done. Sir? If you examine the history of this Government in relation to inflation over the last five or six years, you will get a shock. I want to go back to 1967. The rate of increase in the seasonally adjusted consumer price index in 1967 was 1,8%. In his speech in March, 1968, the hon. the Minister of Finance said:

What was the result of the struggle, the struggle which had to be fought until final victory was won? The result was that, instead of the 1,8% inflation for 1967, we had 2,7% inflation in 1968. That is how the battle was won. So we go on to 1969. The hon. the Minister again spoke about inflation in his Budget speech and this is what he said:

What happened when we got on our guard? What happened is that instead of the percentage being 2,7% as in 1968, it went up to 3,5% in 1969. That is what happened when we were on our guard. Let us go on to 1970. This time we had a Budget speech in August. In it the hon. the Minister said:

What happened to the objective of curbing inflation “above all”? Instead of the 3,5% in 1969, it became 4,2% in 1970. Going up all the time. Then we come to 1971. We got the Budget of 1971 in March and the hon. the Minister said:

What happened in 1971? 4,2% was a joke, because we shot up to 7% in 1971! This is the way in which the Government “designed” its Budget to curb inflation. And the hon. member for Newcastle talks of orderliness! What kind of orderliness is this, to set an objective and every year it is wrong? So we come to 1972, which brings us up to last year. I must give the hon. the Minister credit, not for his successes, but for his tenacity. He is a very tenacious person, is my friend the hon. the Minister of Finance. What did he say in last year’s Budget?—

He was quite right! He was 100% right. He had to try to reap the major benefits of devaluation.

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

Order!

What happened? We went up to 7,4% instead of 7%. Each year the Government has set out with the objective of curbing inflation and each year the position has got worse. What has happened since the end of 1972? According to figures that were given to me, from January, 1972 to January, 1973, the increase was 8,3% and last month inflation was running at the rate of 1,1% which, as an annual rate, is over 12%, if these figures are correct and I understand that they are. Sir, where are we going? What are we doing with this motion in which the hon. member thanks the Government for what they have done with regard to inflation?

That is not the end of the story. Let us see what the Reserve Bank said in March, 1971:

They were complaining about 4,2% but now we are running at 7,4%. Then we turn to the Reserve Bank’s quarterly bulletin of March, 1972, which says:

What was the care with which we had to interpret these indexes? This was that we were faced with what the hon. the Minister called “once-and-for-all inflation”. We have had that “once-and-for-all inflation” every year for the last three or four years. The first time we had it, it was because of increases in the sales duties and direct taxation. That caused inflation. Then we had a “once-and-for-all” inflation the following year caused by devaluation; of course, we had another devaluation a few months later, but that is unimportant. This year we have another reason for inflation—it is because we have had higher railage rates and we have had salary increases. Every year there is a one-shock-inflation, but every year the shock changes. Soon we are coming to the end of the cycle and the Government will have to go back to the beginning and say that the reason is the same as it was four or five years ago. I say this because the hon. Minister is going to run out of reasons very soon. In the meantime inflation is going on.

But this is the erudite side of inflation; it is the economic side of inflation. The real inflation, the hurt of inflation is in the homes of the people of South Africa. That is where the real inflation is. It is in the homes of the White South Africans, the Coloured South Africans, the Indian South Africans and the Black South Africans, who are all struggling to make ends meet. Hon. members on that side of the House know it as well as I do, because their wives tell it to them every day. [Interjections.] Let any hon. member on that side of the House get up and tell me that his wife did not complain last week about the increase in the cost of living.

You are afraid of Cathy; so you need not talk about my wife. [Interjections.]

Never mind Cathy; that is what it is. Everyone of the hon. gentlemen opposite knows what this inflation is. We all know that prices are not rising any more; they are all rocketing. Day after day the papers are full of price increases. I had a look at Die Burger of this morning. It says there that more increases are coming. Some items, like petrol for example, have gone up two or three times in a single year. Here is the Rand Daily Mail of the 1st March, an important day, my birthday. They say that prices are out of control. They show a long column—which I am not going to read—giving a list of articles which have gone up in price. The list includes bread, butter, eggs, milk, soap, sugar, fish, rail fares, shoes, text-books, uniforms, textiles, meat, bacon, baby foods, canned meats, rice, clothing, cars, tyres, electricity, cement, pipe fittings and beer. There is nothing left; we have the whole lot there. In The Star of the 5th February, the price increases on groceries and tinned foods are listed. The prices have leapt in about 1 000 lines this year. There is nothing left to go up. Then Die Vaderland, my favourite newspaper, says—

These hon. gentlemen from Carletonville and Newcastle come and talk to us about airy-fairy philosophies while people are being hit day after day. There are many other items. We all know what is happening in the case of motor-cars and with our garage bills. The price of water is going up. Today I paid R6 per hour to have my mower repaired. That is what is going on in this country. The public of this country are fighting a losing battle against inflation, and on top of it all we sometimes forget that the cost-of-living index is only a White cost-of-living index; it is not a cost-of-living index for the whole country. It is in fact the Black people in this country who are suffering mainly under this heavy rise in the cost of living. Every cent added to the cost of an article is a burden for the lower income groups in this country. This is what it is, and we sit in this House and we debate a motion of the kind introduced by the hon. member for Carletonville. I have said before, and I repeat, that it is time that we start taking inflation seriously in this country. We have to be positive about it because there are serious problems ahead of us. We have to remember that what we are suffering from at the moment is cost-push inflation. We have to understand and we all accept, that the economy has got to move faster and that we have to create greater demand. I think that we all accept this. To do this the economy needs to be stimulated. What may happen is that we may add to the cost-push inflation that we have, demand-pull inflation. And if you try to marry those two together, you will have a marriage that no Bill in this House could deal with. That is our problem. We have to look at priorities to see what has to be done. The first thing that has to be done is that the supply of goods and services has got to be made to keep pace with demand; that is the first essential. If demand is going to pick up meaningfully—and we all hope it will—then any spare capacity in industries, which is estimated at 20% to 25%, is going to be very quickly taken up. Any unutilized skilled labour is going to be absorbed before we really know what has happened. Therefore we come back to the same fundamentals. We have to increase the scope for Bantu employment and the intensity of their training.

Hon. members on the other side keep on saying so. They agree with us. We know they agree with us. It has taken us years to get them to understand the problem. But they are the Government, and it is the Government’s obligation to put this in train. They must get it started. They have to pursue this course vigorously. We have given them all the safeguards; we have broken down this nonsense of opening wide the gates of Bantu flowing into the towns. We have dealt with that a hundred times.

They have to remove the inhibiting policy which has been largely responsible for the inflation which we are faced with today, despite all the talk that we get non-stop, that it is common throughout the world, that other countries are far worse off than we are. We are not concerned with other countries. We are concerned with the people of South Africa. That is what we are concerned with.

To do these things there are certain essentials. The Government has by its actions, and not by its words, got to restore the confidence of the private sector. And having regard to the development needs of the private productive sector of the economy, it has to see that the incentive of reasonable taxation is restored by the hon. the Minister on 28th March. Now, this can be done in a number of ways. It could be done by removing the balance of the companies’ loan levy of 5% and by abolishing the 3% special loan levy on the receipt of dividends by companies. The hon. the Minister can also at the same time remove the surcharge of 2½% on companies. Then the hon. the Minister can go back to his own philosophy, his own basic philosophy on tax, which he expounded and which we applauded in this House in 1969 when he told us that he was not going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. He then dropped his taxation considerably. He must go back to that and reduce the marginal rates of tax of the higher income groups. He should also do away with this reducing abatement which he introduced in 1971. It is hitting all taxpayers except those in the lowest income groups. Then he has either to do away with completely, or drastically reduce, the sales tax. We have told him this before during this session. It will serve two purposes. It will reduce the rate of inflation immediately and at the same time it will increase the spending power of the public, which will give us the demand that we need. The hon. the Minister will lose money. That we know. But he is a very lucky Minister of Finance this year. He has had enough largesse. Let him give something back to the public.

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and his Deputy, whom I am talking to now, have to continue with the policy which he enunciated a couple of days ago of reducing import control. This is something we have told him to do for years. We agree that he has to protect certain industries. We have always gone along with tariff protection. Protect those industries that need protection in the national interest, but let goods come into the country to help to fight inflation.

Fourthly, to summarize, these are the things that we have got to do: We have got to expand production; we have got to increase productivity, and it is no good the hon. member for Carletonville saying that people have got to work harder and so on and so forth. We have said in this House a dozen times that we agree that people must work harder but in that case we must provide the climate for it; we must make the conditions of work right and we must not take away what they are earning in taxation, direct and indirect; then they will work harder. We have to create more job opportunities and a larger trained labour force. Look what happened to the hon. the Minister of Transport. He told us that there were 2 400 people unemployed, and he alone needs 11 500 in the Railway Service. What is he going to do; is he going to pluck them from the sky? Sir, we have to increase the number and the spending capacity of the working population.

May I please ask a question?

No, I am sorry. Mr. Speaker, we have got to start our export base by creating greater local demand to give us the economy of scale. Let us stop the kind of thinking that we have had from the other side this afternoon. Let us stop living in a dream world. Let us get our feet back on the ground. Let us think of human beings; let us think of people, and let us really go all out and hit inflation.

Sir, contrary to what the hon. member for Parktown thinks, I welcome the idea that the hon. member for Carletonville has really, through his motion, enabled us to have a meaningful discussion of the economic problems which exist in our country. I want to say at once that the hon. member for Parktown disappointed me, for he did not make use of this opportunity …

He hurt you.

… to give really thorough consideration to the problems which exist, the causes of those problems and the method of dealing with the consequences. Sir, it is very easy for hon. members opposite to make certain suggestions in order to stimulate production and to make suggestions in order to stimulate demand. Naturally the hon. member for Parktown is aware that in the exceptional circumstances in which we now find ourselves, where a different set of circumstances to those previously prevailing obtains, we are prepared to stimulate demand in a moderate and balanced manner, and that the Government has already taken steps to stimulate production. I would have expected him, when he—he in particular—discussed this particular subject, to have done so in the same motivated and basic-standpoint-stating manner as the hon. member for Carletonville did. Sir, let us put a few questions to hon. members opposite and try to obtain answers from them; let us try to hold ourselves accountable as a Government for our own objectives, and the measure of success of non-success which has been achieved. If we do that then I think this debate will have real sense and significance. What is the Government’s own standpoint in respect of economic growth? It is not as simple as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central wants to suggest, as if there were merely a simple choice between different policies in economy. I think that when he suggests that the hon. the Minister of Finance is no longer a protagonist of the damping school of thought, but that he has now become a protagonist of the growth school, he is displaying a total ignorance of what is really at issue.

He did so out of stupidity.

He may with justification ask what the Government’s standpoint in regard to growth is. He may ask whether the Government advocates unbridled growth or whether, on the other hand, it wants to ensure optimum growth in the best national interests in the long term. There is no one who argues about the fact that sustained economic growth in the country is in everyone’s interests but there is no one who has to form a responsible opinion of this process, who does not want to relate this growth rate to the growth potential of the country. I want to suggest that hon. members opposite are to a large extent responsible for the problem of inflation we have to contend with; they are basically responsible for one of the most important inflation-producing factors which exist in this country and that is, namely, the psychological causes. I shall return to that later. Should this Government be prepared—and I want to provide answers to these questions—to encourage a flood of imported capital and of labour and in that way increase the growth rate as an object in itself, or is the Government’s standpoint, on the other hand, that it is in favour of optimum growth within the limitations of an assimilable importing of labour and capital and foreign resources? Herein lies the most important difference between hon. members opposite and us and it is, namely, within the socio-political framework of South African society. I make no apology to the hon. member or other members for the standpoint which the Government is adopting in this regard. Sir, no responsible Government would ever strive to achieve a certain growth rate simply because it is forced to do so. It sets its sights and its aims higher, as it should do. It does so in order to obtain the maximum advantage for all the inhabitants of the country and to do this on a long-term basis. The reproach has frequently been hurled at the Government—the hon. member for Parktown, amongst others, did this—that the Government is damping the growth rate of this country unnecessarily. He alleged that the Government is so obsessed with counteracting inflation that it cannot see the wood for the trees. What did the hon. member do this afternoon? He complained about inflation, and I wonder, if the Government had not applied these corrective measures, the corrective measures which he complained about, what the situation would then have been. I want to repeat this. The hon. member should, in all fairness, see our position in South Africa in terms of world perspective as well. He said we should not draw comparisons with other countries; we are living in South Africa. He said people in South Africa were experiencing the detrimental effect of the high rate of inflation. Of course that is true, but surely South Africa is not living in isolation. Surely South Africa is not an island. South Africa is a member of a far greater economic and monetary unit which exists in the world. I want to put this question to the hon. member. Should the Government of South Africa, in the formulation of its policy, pay no heed whatsoever to external factors? Should the Government in South Africa keep itself entirely ignorant of what is happening in the international monetary world? Actually, the hon. member for Park-town did himself a disservice. He is capable of better things, but there was one temptation he could not resist, which was to exploit for party gain the little political advantage he thought he could get out of this unfavourable situation. In spite of the high rate of inflation, and I am not being unsympathetic in this regard, they are becoming fewer and fewer. That is true after all, the hon. member will concede that. Let us look at the history of our growth process in the economic sphere during the past few years. Let us look at the ’sixties, at the other side of the picture.

But we are living in the ’seventies, and we are going hungry.

The fact of the matter is that if the Government had followed the advice of hon. members opposite, that hon. member would have been living in extremely difficult circumstances now. South Africa is fortunate in this respect that, with the help of the sustained efforts of its people, it had a rapid growth rate in the ’sixties or for most of that period. In fact, the standard of living of our population in those particular years, the ’sixties, rose to such an extent that we have in fact become accustomed to that exceptionally high standard of living. From 1961 to 1971 the per capita income of our population, after an adjustment for price increases during this period, increased by an average of 3,7% per annum. What hon. members lose sight of is the fact that no country in the world with a free market economy such as South Africa has can succeed, in maintaining constant conditions of economic prosperity. The hon. member knows that this is true. The reason is obvious and this the hon. member also knows: Economic progress is the result of individual and collective effort. In the second place the hon. member knows that economic progress is also the result of millions of independent decisions which are taken every day by free individuals, decisions on how large a part of his income the individual will save and how large a part of that income he will spend, where he will spend it and in what form, where he will offer his labour and of what quality that labour is. Very frequently these decisions are of a divergent and conflicting nature. For that reason all countries with the economic pattern which we have—the hon. member will have some idea of this—and which is based on the system of private initiative demonstrate the characteristic features of prosperity and relatively low growth rates.

The hon. member, I think, used this opportunity to exploit the existing price increases for specific political advantages, but I want to inform him that the central point, the crucial question which may with justification be asked by the general public to whom we have a responsibility and to whom we owe a reply which I do not intend evading, is ambivalent. In the first place the question is not whether there have been price increases but whether the Government has done everything in its power to alleviate the price increases or to eliminate them where possible, and whether it used the means it has at its disposal effectively.

Tell us.

Very well, all the hon. member has to do is listen. In the second place the question is—the onus rests on the Government to furnish a reply and therefore I am not offering any excuse—whether the Government is able to prove positively that the steps it took against inflation were the right steps in those particular circumstances. These are the two questions, and I think the hon. member for Parktown would agree with that. Let us consider the first question. As regards the first question, I can state definitely and with conviction that there has been no other aspect of our economic situation during the past five years or more which has received a greater measure of attention from the Government than has in fact been given to inflation.

Without any success.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens ought to know better. He knows that there are factors involved in this rate of inflation which it was entirely impossible to control internally. He must not waste my time.

But in the meantime the rate has increased by 8%.

Order! The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens must give the hon. the Deputy Minister a chance to proceed with his speech.

At the meetings of the Economic Advisory Council—hon. members will forgive me if I attach more value to their opinion than to that of the hon. members opposite—and also in the formulation of Government policy, we gave top priority during the year to the struggle against inflation. I shall now discuss the effectiveness—but first of all I want to present the facts. The Government adopted a variety of measures to counteract this inflation. I do not know of one measure adopted by the Government which was supported or endorsed by hon. members opposite. Now, quite justifiably, the question arises: In view of this, why did we not despite these measures, succeed in averting or reducing the spiralling price increases during the past year or two?

They were the wrong measures.

Oh please, Sir, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central must not discuss economy with me. Were our measures ineffective? Did we fail to apply them correctly and effectively? Were they not intensive, harsh or drastic enough? These questions are important to the consumer, and for that reason I think we should try to answer them. I sincerely believe that no one could ever suggest or allege that the measures which were chosen, were badly chosen or were ineffective. I challenge any hon. member to prove that the Government made the wrong choice in regard to the measures which were at its disposal. The measures were chosen to serve a particular purpose, something which hon. members opposite ignore completely. They were, in the first place, chosen to identify the causes of inflation, and, in the second place, to counteract or reduce the consequences of inflation. In the same way as a medical practitioner, when he has to treat a patient, first has to diagnose the disease, the Government first has to diagnose the causes of the economic disease, and then decide what kind of remedy would be the best under the circumstances.

What astonishes me is that we always have to look to overseas countries for evidence and appreciation of what our Government is doing in this country, and that people living here are completely ignorant of or do not want to recognize it when something good is being done. In a difficult world in which heavy demands are being made, we get appreciation and approval from international sources. On various occasions there was a good deal of praise for the measures adopted. In those circles there are people who are truly qualified to form an opinion and are able to see the matter in its true perspective. From those people we received not only consent to, but also agreement on the steps and the effectiveness of those steps. Sir, with complete justification you will then be able to ask: If the measures were then chosen correctly—and I maintain they were—why did they not avert the marked price increases to which the hon. member for Parktown referred with such political gratification? Why did this remedy not work? Should not other or more drastic steps have been taken? I want to state in all fairness today that in the past the Government applied the measures against inflation with the measures of intensity which circumstances required. The hon. member for Parktown knows that I am correct when I say that these measures would have restored the economic equilibrium if it had not been for certain factors over which neither the Government nor anyone else had any control. Let us consider these. What were those factors? The first was the serious international monetary crises of 1971-’72, to which I shall refer in a moment. There are other factors such as climatic conditions over which we had no control, and such as increases in prices and rates of inflation overseas, over which we had no control either. Surely the hon. member knows that we in our economy are extremely sensitive to foreign factors. Surely I need not spell it out for him. I am quite prepared to spell it out for the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, for he is unaware of this. I do not take it amiss of him for not knowing either, but I do take it amiss of the hon. member for Parktown. What should our aims be now? Let us consider the present situation. I do not think that I am going to differ with the hon. member for Parktown in this regard. If we repeat the same process in respect of the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, what should our aims be if we again have to identify causes and have to apply means after this process has been completed? Then I agree with him that we should now stimulate demand. For the rest I do not agree with him. He knows that the Government has already taken an entire series of steps precisely in order to do that for which he is now an apologist.

What happened?

I am still coming to what happened and also to what the cause was, provided I have time to do so. These steps were taken to enable the industrialist to increase his production, to increase the productivity of his workers, to increase his exports and in this way to reduce the unit costs of our industrialists and our merchants so that prices could be reduced. We agree on this. We can debate what methods we should have applied, but then we should not treat this subject which is of such great important to us in South Africa in such a lighthearted and superficial manner as the hon. member for Park-town and his colleague, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central did. In other words, the remedy for this new ailment is in this specific form. The Government is aware of this.

May I deal now with an accusation which the hon. member for Parktown has repeatedly made today and in the past? What did he say? He said that we should allow the restrictions on labour to disappear, and that he wants an established labour force.

†The hon. member said he does not want migrant labour. I do not think there is any particular field in our economy and our policy in which we have been accused more than in this particular field. The favoured reproach against the Government is the lack-of-labour charge. Let us examine for a moment whether there is any justification for this charge at this stage. This charge takes many forms; in fact, it ranges across the whole gamut of personal efforts in all its various forms in the industrial field. I know that I cannot discharge these allegations simply by refutation. I know that we must examine these charges intelligently, but I do think that in the turmoil of views that have been exchanged on these matters outside this House and within it, there is one more or less unassailable fact that has emerged, namely that there cannot be, simultaneously, a surplus of capacity in industry and a shortage of labour. Either the one or the other has to be untrue, unless the concept of surplus capacity is stretched to unreasonable limits. I think the hon. member will concede that there is surplus capacity in industry. If the existence of this surplus capacity is accepted, the remedy required to achieve the objectives on which we agree cannot be found in an additional availability of labour. The hon. member knows that the monthly index of those unemployed who are registered has been showing a steady increase since 1970. When these facts are seen in conjunction with the increases in respect of Bantu labour in established industrial areas, lack of labour cannot be a deterrent to economic growth. Naturally, when one considers the matter on the medium—or longer term, the position changes. I am prepared to concede that point. I have no wish to and do not for one moment intend to exonerate the Government in respect of matters to which the Government actions may have contributed to uncertainty, but in all sincerity I think that the hon. member should realize, or should know, that the Government has bent over backwards in its attempts to meet the professed doubts and needs of industrialists in regard to future labour supplies. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is pleading for more immigrants. He apparently does not know of the success that we have had in past years with skilled immigrants and that we have succeeded with a selective policy in drawing an average of 30 000 to 40 000 skilled immigrants to South Africa. I would like to know from the hon. members on the other side whether they want us to have unskilled immigrants in this country. Would they want them to absorb the opportunities in our labour market? Do they agree with me that these job opportunities should be reserved for our own people in this country and that they should fill these vacancies? We hear the accusation that we are not training our available labour force effectively. That is the second charge in this particular field. The Government has provided guidelines on these lines. This calls for some clarity and some clear thinking. The view that the Government holds in this regard is that the major responsibility for this type of training must necessarily be the major responsibility of industry itself—I think the hon. member for Parktown will concede this—especially on account of the very large variety of operations in the industry which calls for different skills and training for this type of work. Of course the Government has a responsibility in this regard and naturally the Government through the institutions and training processes is training labourers, but there is a responsibility on the industry as well.

*What does the hon. member for Park-town really want in respect of labour? I think he must give us a reply, and do so today. They are asking for the removal of labour restrictions which apply in this country.

That is not true.

It is true. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said a moment ago that we should utilize the labour force in this country to the full.

I said “with certain conditions”.

Then the hon. member read the speech written for him by those others incorrectly, but that is what he said. I now want to know from hon. members opposite whether they are in favour of the repeal of statutory work reservation.

Yes.

Thank you. Secondly, are they in favour of the abolition of the colour bar on the mines?

You know that that is an ambiguous statement.

I want to know whether hon. members are in favour of the abolition of the colour bar on the mines.

You know that that is an ambiguous statement.

It is not ambiguous. Thirdly, I want to know whether they are in favour of the repeal of the Bantu Building Workers’ Act, in terms of which several thousand Bantu have already been trained as building workers on condition that they may not perform skilled work in the urban areas. I am putting this question to the hon. members. Reply to it.

What about Ladysmith? May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, you must reply. Fourthly, I want to know from the hon. member whether they will do away with influx control measures which will create serious socio-economic problems.

But it was we who introduced it.

Surely this is not the first time these people deny paternity to something they fathered. Do hon. members want stagnation in the border areas and in the Bantu homelands as a result of trained Bantu making every effort to enter the urban complexes? I am putting that question to hon. members. Let them reply to me. Are they in favour of demolishing the resistance of White trade unions to employment of non-Whites in traditional White avenues of employment? The hon. member says we should negotiate with the trade union. Let them do it.

The Railways are doing so at the moment.

I am asking the hon. member what their reply is. Do they want industrial development to be dependent on a labour market which is only in White areas temporarily? I want to deal with two other accusations.

You have said nothing yet.

Oh, the hon. member for Maitland cannot understand it. Hon. members opposite ignore certain facts. They are constantly accusing the Government of being responsible for inflation and of having failed to counteract it. What was the combination of circumstances? The hon. member knows that the high inflation rate which exists and which cannot be denied has in recent years been the product of a combining of a number of inflation-producing factors. Everyone knows this. We have not yet in this country had such an unfortunate simultaneous combination of circumstances. The first—and the hon. member is aware of this—was inflation as a result of excessive consumer spending. Does the hon. member want to suggest that the measures adopted by the Government in this particular connection were unsuccessful? The international exchange rate fluctuation led to serious pressure on our balance of payments during 1971. As a result of this the Government was compelled to apply import control, and subsequently to devalue. I concede at once that both these steps had inflationary results. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that he accused us on this side of being responsible for the psychological atmosphere that reigns in business and which is preventing business from getting on with growth. The hon. the Deputy Minister made that accusation. I would like to deny that in the strongest terms. It is the Government that is responsible for the present psychological atmosphere in business. I can mention two reasons why that is so. The first is the two devaluations which we have had during the last 15 months. These were devaluations which were caused by the steps which the Government took and which resulted in a weakening of the economy, forcing them to devalue first in December, 1971, and then again in the middle of last year when they floated the rand with the pound. Devaluation is one of the factors which causes psychological uncertainty. Were we responsible for devaluation or were you responsible for it? There are many other factors involved too.

A second important factor which is causing psychological uncertainty is that businessmen are afraid of the position that when growth really starts the economy will be bumping its head up against the same bottlenecks as it did in the last boom because the necessary measures have not been taken to remove those bottlenecks. That is made as plain as a pikestaff in the latest report of the EDP. It is that side of the House that is responsible for psychological uncertainty.

There is a second matter I want to deal with as far as the hon. the Deputy Minister is concerned. He spoke a lot about measures that the Government has taken to keep the inflationary position under control. He was delightfully vague as to what those measures were, and when he had taken them and what the effects were.

But you know what they are.

But I must tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that there is only one measure of success, and that is by result. When I was in business, if I did not produce results and I went to a shareholders’ annual general meeting, they were not interested in the steps I had taken that were not successful. They were only interested in the results, and the result as far as the control of inflation by this Government is concerned, was 7,4% last year. I do not regard this as success.

Sir, I am grateful to the hon. member for Carletonville for having put forward this motion this afternoon, not because I regard him, when it comes to matters economic, as a particularly original thinker—not that I regard him as a particularly eminent economist—but because once again it gives us the opportunity of discussing what is one of the most important economic problems facing the country, and certainly facing individuals in the country. He defined this problem of inflation as being a fiscal technique; those were his words. We on this side of the House call it a cancer. It is an intolerable burden that the people of South Africa have to bear. During this session we have listened to many speeches on the subject of inflation by members on the other side of the House. We have had speeches from all of the Ministers in charge of aspects of economic affairs, the Minister of Economic Affairs, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Planning, and now we have had two speeches on the subject of inflation from the Deputy Minister. There has been a constant theme running through all of these speeches, and that is that the causes of inflation have to do with the devaluation of the rand …

That is not correct.

… the international currency upsets of the last two years, the importation of inflation from other countries that are suffering from high rates of inflation, the high price of foodstuffs, which has resulted from droughts and other conditions allegedly outside the control of the Government, and a poor level of productivity by labour in South Africa. Government speakers have left out what I regard as an equally, or even more important reason why we have inflation, and that is that inflation itself is a spiral that feeds on itself. Once you have prices going up, you have costs going up, which cause prices to go up again, and until you break that spiral you continue to have serious inflation. The Minister of Finance actually went so far as to quantify the reasons, out of those ones that I have identified, as to how much of the 7,4% each reason was responsible for. But apart from giving the reasons why we have inflation—and those reasons are not very difficult to establish—Government speakers and the Ministers particularly and this Deputy Minister today have tended to shrug off the seriousness of the problem of inflation by using two arguments, the first being that salaries and wages have been rising at a higher rate than prices have been rising and, secondly, that other countries in the world have been suffering higher rates of inflation than South Africa. Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, those arguments just do not wash. It is no solace to persons with fixed incomes such as pensioners to know that salaries and wages are rising at a faster rate than prices. They are suffering from the intolerable burden of inflation; they are not helped by the fact that salaries and wages are rising faster than inflation. It is no solace to the thousands and thousands of non-White workers who are living at or below the breadline to know that inflation in New Zealand or inflation in the United Kingdom is more serious than it is in South Africa. Those workers are suffering from the intolerable burden of inflation. The only yardstick that can be used to judge the Government’s success in combating inflation is whether they have done everything that they could have done in the South African circumstances to fight the inflation that we find in South Africa.

Sir, I find it very disturbing that there has been so much defeatist talk in regard to the ability to combat inflation; that so many causes of inflation are beyond the control of the Government. That is defeatist talk. I do not believe that this is so. I do not believe that inflation cannot be fought effectively. I believe that the Government must accept the responsibility for inflation being at such a high rate as it is. There are steps that can be taken to fight inflation. There are long-term steps and there are short-term steps. The hon. member for Parktown was clear in his description of some of the long-term steps that should be taken. We will never fight inflation in the long term unless you remove the curbs that exist at present and which are hindering productivity, curbs such as those that result from the Government’s ideological policies, curbs that result from the application of the Physical Planning Act which restricts the mobility of labour and prevents labour being used where it is most productive, curbs such as job reservation which prevents people from being able to produce as much as they are capable of producing, and so forth. Those are the long-term problems with which the country is faced as far as increasing productivity is concerned.

You want to ignore the social structure completely?

The hon. the Deputy Minister is well aware of what the hon. member for Parktwon said. I say that you will never tackle inflation in the long-term as long as you have unreasonable restrictions against productivity, and these things are unreasonable restrictions against productivity.

Do you want to do away with job reservation completely?

In the time that is available to me, Sir, I want to say something about the short-term steps that can and should be taken to combat inflation. I have only time, I think, to deal with one and that is the question of the sales tax. Sir, I regard it as a matter of urgency that the present method of collecting sales tax should be scrapped and replaced with a sales tax or a purchase tax or a selective turnover tax levied not at source but at the final point of sale of the goods to the public. The Deputy Minister is as aware as I am of the fact that the present method of levying the sales tax at source, i.e. when the goods leave the premises of the manufacturer or, in the case of imported goods, the first stage of import, results in a markup being added to the sales tax at each subsequent stage of distribution until the goods are finally sold by the retailer to the public …

I don’t think he understands that.

… with the result that the public is paying, by way of increased prices as the result of the sales tax, considerably more than the Government is receiving by way of tax.

Do you know that Assocom denies that?

Sir, I will give an example of how this works. This is a practical example that has been submitted to me. It refers to the case of a suite of furniture for which the manufacturer’s price, without tax, is R100. The normal mark-up in the retail trade for that would be 60%, and the price, had there been no tax, would therefore be R160 to the public. But with the sales tax, the price of the manufacturer, including the sales tax, becomes R110. The retailer still uses his 60% mark-up; he does not reduce his mark-up because the price has gone up by 10%, so the price to the consumer becomes R176 instead of R160. The increase is R16, but the Government only gets R10. In other words, the consumer is paying an additional R6 on account of the escalating effect of the markup through levying the tax at source. When you look at this position in the aggregate over the whole of what is consumed and what is subject to sales tax, I think it becomes a very serious position. The sales tax in this financial year is estimated to yield R180 million and will in fact yield round about that figure, which is near enough to 2% of the amount that will be spent by the public on consumer goods. In other words, the sales tax itself is responsible for 2% of the consumer cost-of-living index. But when you add to that the markup which is put on the sales tax, which I would conservatively estimate in total as something more than R75 million, the picture then becomes, not that the sales tax is responsible for 2% of the cost-of-living index, but for 3% of the cost-of-living index. I therefore think—and I hope the Government will consider this very carefully—that this method of applying sales tax is a considerable factor in the intolerable burden of inflation. I believe that this is an urgent matter. I believe it is urgently necessary to change the sales tax at source to some form of collective purchase tax levied at the final point of sale.

Would you be more explicit as to the administration?

I know that there are administrative difficulties. I am quite aware of what the Franzsen Commission had to say about the administrative difficulties of levying the tax on this basis, but I am quite sure it can be done because it is done in other countries. It is done in Rhodesia, for instance, which has a far less elaborate administrative machine than we have in this country.

And it is done in the United States.

In Rhodesia you have a sales tax levied at the final point of sale, but you have exclusion for essential goods like food. What I am pleading for is the same in South Africa, a turnover tax at final point of sale with exclusion for essential goods like food and clothing, the same categories that are at present excluded from the sales tax.

An added tax on commodities excluding food.

I believe that we have people of ability in the relevant Departments of Finance, Inland Revenue, etc., who can work out a scheme of this nature. If the Government does not take this step to reduce the intolerable burden of inflation it will have lost a golden opportunity and I believe that it would have been guilty of a considerable dereliction of duty in this respect.

Both the hon. members for Parktown and Constantia have referred to the escalating cost-of-living index and to the fact that we had inflation to the tune of 7,4% during the past year. That is, I admit, an unfortunate fact, but they have not put this figure in its true perspective. They will know—and it was referred to earlier this year in a debate in this House—that even allowing for this inflationary rate in our economy the net growth rate was such that we had in fact an increase in living standards, and the difference between a growth rate at something like 4% and an increase in population at the rate of about 2,8% in fact meant that as far as our population was concerned we experienced an increased living standard rate. I am afraid that looking only at our inflationary trend one could raise the criticism raised here, but these gentlemen should be fair and should look at it in its true perspective and also give credit for the fact that the overall growth rate in South Africa has been such that we have in fact experienced an increased rate in living standards in the past year.

*The attack made by hon. members of the Opposition who spoke on this subject, was mainly concerned with two aspects. The first was the question of the non-availability of labour and the other was the question of the taxes which were too high, either income tax or purchase tax which is now being imposed by the Government. As far as the non-availability of labour is concerned, we tried to ascertain by means of questions, the way in which they would want to effect changes to this system, but they remained vague on this point. When we ask them whether they would throw open the doors they say no, but on other occasions again, they say that we should do so. When we talk about work reservation hon. members opposite tell us we should do away with it. If we ask where, they are silent. One is continually getting this kind of argument from hon. members opposite. For that reason we will simply have to trust this Government and allow it to continue along its present course in terms of which it respects the laws of the economy and at the same time protects the socio-economic position in South Africa, the social structure, by means of the application of the economic laws. We must take that into account.

As far as taxation is concerned, I shall spend some time on that in a moment. It seems to me that the inflationary tendency which we have in our economy is unavoidable because of four specific reasons. The first is that ours is not an isolated economy, one which is completely self-sufficient. We are dependent on international trade and we are also to a very great extent subject to inflationary tendencies which obtain beyond our borders. We are subject in this way in respect of capital goods and imported goods and even the services of people whom we bring from abroad to render services locally. As everyone knows, we are not completely alone in this regard. Hon. members may not be aware of this but the British Government viewed this situation with such concern that they issued a White Paper in the past year and in the previous year, dealing with this very subject of curbing inflation, and earlier this year they introduced a Bill in their Parliament called the “Counter-inflation Bill”. They were so concerned about this matter that they even considered laws aimed specifically at curbing inflation. What did they say, inter alia? This—

I would like to endorse this: “By rising demand as a result of higher living standards throughout the world.”

If the British with their economy complain about that, I think we are equally justified in complaining about this worldwide phenomenon which also has its influence on our economy.

The second reason I wish to advance as to why we have to contend with this phenomenon of inflation, is the fact that our country, like many other developing countries, has a fast-growing population. Provision has to be made for this fast-growing population as far as their standards of living are concerned, and also as far as their educational institutions and facilities and their housing is concerned. We therefore have to plan for a growing economy, in order to absorb a bigger labour force into this economy from year to year and curb increased unemployment and that means only one thing, namely an increased industrialization of South Africa. Only by way of industrialization will we in future be able to accommodate the growing Black, Brown and White labour force in South Africa. When we are concerned with industrialization, we are concerned with the creation of an infrastructure. Without the infrastructure, no industrialization is possible. The establishment of an infrastructure costs money which is not immediately remunerative, from which one does not immediately receive an income. One has to build dams, lay on water, supply electricity, construct railways, build houses, schools, towns and roads, provide telephones and establish means of communication. All these things form part of the infrastructure which costs millions of rand per year. We must create the infrastructure in order to be able to accommodate the growing population of South Africa. It is a very important contributory factor to the fact that we have inflation in South Africa.

A third important factor is the State expenditure on defence and other strategic objectives. These expenditures are also a world-wide phenomenon. If hon. members complain about Government expenditure, about higher taxes and purchase taxes, I want to know whether they would propose that any of this expenditure for strategic objectives be curtailed.

You are talking nonsense.

Must we prune our defence budget? Must we spend less on the enrichment of uranium in South Africa? Must we have less expenditure in connection with the creation of an infrastructure in South Africa? It seems to me that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth wants to imply this. I hope that he will repeat it where we may quote him.

I said you were talking nonsense.

If we do not incur these expenditures, we could reduce taxes. He must tell me whether he wants us to do that. Finally, before I resume my seat, I would just like to mention that there is yet another very important reason why we have inflation in South Africa. This is that we are in the process of raising the standards of living of all our people. White, Brown and Black, over a wide front. This means increased expenditures on housing, pensions and the other special services which we are rendering. This is the reason, as was stated in the White Paper of the British Parliament, why there is inflation in the rest of the world—a raising of standards of living, which is unfortunately not always accompanied by the necessary increase in productivity.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Bellville will excuse me if I do not reply to his argument. Time is definitely too short.

The motion we have been asked to accept by the hon. member for Carletonville, is totally unrealistic. The viewpoint taken by the hon. member in his speech, caused me to think back to an opinion which he himself expressed a few months ago. On that occasion he asked: “Are the gods making mad those whom they wish to destroy?” Sir, the hon. member used these words in a totally different context. He put this question when the control board of the SABC wanted to change the name of the Hertzog Tower. But the hon. member cannot expect that we on this side of the House should express our gratitude to the Government for what they have done, or have not done, to limit or curb inflation in the South African economy. Sir, inflation is a fait accompli; I could almost say that we would be lucky if we could achieve a situation in which we need not contend with galloping inflation. If we should move from the high rate of inflation which we are presently experiencing, to galloping inflation, it could break the country’s back. Dr. Anton Rupert himself declared recently that galloping inflation is the cause of the decline of the middle class, the backbone of any country. According to Dr. Rupert—and I agree with him—there is only one method of curbing inflation in established countries such as South Africa, and that is to produce a surplus of goods and / or services for export and for local use.

†Sir, in the short time still available to me, I want to deal with one or two comments of the hon. the Deputy Minister and of the hon. member for Carletonville. The fact is, as my hon. leader has indicated, that we are faced with inflation at a rate that has risen from 2% in 1968 to the region of 7% in 1972, and that is expected to be higher this year. Against this background, no reasonable member of the Government can expect this side of the House to endorse the praise of the Government for having contained inflation. Then the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has said that the inflation rate will drop in 1973. This is according to a report in The Argus. He went on to say that the present rate of inflation which, according to information, was not more than 7%, had been caused by various factors. These included the 1971 devaluation, continued age and salary increases, further devaluation and, last year, imported devaluation and inflation.

I want to tell you how the United States of America tackle inflation. President Nixon, speaking only last month and making a renewed promise to fight inflation, said they had a good chance of slowing down the overall rate of inflation in America, which is a high-inflation country, to 2½% or less by the end of 1973. He said that they had already cut the inflation rate in half in four years. He said too that he was cutting down on federal programmes which wasted the taxpayers’ money. He went on to say—and I want hon. members in the Government benches to listen to this carefully—that the new budget would provide 66% more help to the poor than four years ago, 67% more help to the sick and 242% more help to the hungry and the mal-nourished. The question is not whether to help, but how to help. We on this side of the House represent the voice of the under-nourished—all eighteen million of them. I was privileged only recently to attend a luncheon in the City Hall. The menu on the table was that which was available to the inhabitants of Sada and Dimbaza. In front of us was a little mealie meal, a little thin gruel and a glass of water. It is against the background of the impact of inflation that we experience in South Africa, on the lives of our under-privileged and undernourished people, that I make a plea to the Government that it has failed ignominiously in achieving anything that can be regarded as satisfactory by the South African people. Inflation hits at the poor; inflation hits at the needy, the pensioner, the sick, the civil servant with a fixed income and of course our non-Whites, our Bantu, Coloureds and Indians. When we read that the price of basic foods is going up by 20%, it means that the cost of living may rise with as much as 10% When you spend all your money on food, 20% means that if you could afford a loaf of bread on your table a day to feed your children, one day in five days there will be no loaf of bread. This epitomizes more than anything else the significance of the fact that in this country we have not even begun to understand that when we talk about the high rate of inflation, we ought to be worried not about Ministers having to cut down on whisky or about the working man having to cut down on his beer, but about the ordinary non-Whites having to cut down on the basic requirements like protein food, milk, cheese and other things you need in order to live a healthy and a meaningful life, free of frustration, and a life that gives you an opportunity of employment and health. Only today there is an article in Die Burger under the caption “Nóg Prysstygings word binne ’n paar maande verwag”. Is that beating inflation? The Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut says “Growth must get top priority”. We on this side of the House have appealed for growth in the Budget debate three years ago, in the No-confidence Debate three years ago, last year and this year but what have we been told by hon. members on the other side of the House? They will defeat inflation by holding back the economy. Now all of a sudden they come with this idea of rapid growth. What do they mean by rapid growth? It takes an institution such as Hill Samuel, which should know what it is talking about, to make the point that the border area development, this ideological monstrosity of the Government whereby labour is moved to uneconomic areas, will cost R9 200 per job opportunity. Hill Samuel goes on to say: “The respective commercial banks have warned that the South African industrial growth is suffering from the Government’s policy of moving industry to the border areas.” They go on to say: “That, industrial development is suffering through moving to the border areas.” This has been found to affect the productivity of the country. They make the point that if we are to have productivity we must have productivity where we can first enjoy the profits of productivity and then bring on the border areas, which we will be only too happy to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is extremely important to discuss a motion such as this in this House today. We are all aware of the extent to which our society is, I might say, “infiltrated” by crimes that are committed. I believe that crime is a much more deep-rooted problem today than one generally thinks and therefore we need a deeper insight into this matter. I believe that it has become necessary for the Government today to approach this matter much more seriously than has been done in the past.

†Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice J. H. Steyn, speaking at the NICRO symposium on 4th October last year, stated that crime, next to pollution, was the worst destructive force in our rapidly urbanizing society. It is with trepidation that I venture to disagree with that, but then I disagree only slightly. I venture to say that I believe that crime is a greater menace in South Africa today than pollution, because crime threatens all of us. We are all victims of crime; it is much more of an immediate threat. More people are today being killed through crime than there are people being killed by pollution.

To illustrate this problem, one need merely open any newspaper in any part of South Africa today and read the crime reports. There is virtually no crime, however hideous it may be, that is not reported, daily in each and every newspaper in South Africa. We read of cases of rape, of murders, robberies, of everything under the sun. We know that crime has become an international problem, a problem which has definitely not bypassed South Africa. Especially in this House one hears a lot of statistics quoted on many matters, but I think it would be futile to try to describe the situation with regard to crime in South Africa today purely by means of statistics. Figures are dead. They numb the mind. I think we should rather have a clear conception of how it is to live outside, especially in our less privileged areas. What are the problems facing these people today? In what light do they see crime? I may say that statistics do not give us the answer. We must look around us in South Africa. We hear so often that in the United States of America, especially in New York, it is dangerous to walk outside at night because they have such a fantastic crime rate there. I believe that, if we look around us here in South Africa, especially in our big cities such as Cape Town, we will find that the position is not less serious than it is in any other city in the world. One of the most dangerous spots to be in at night in South Africa is right next to this hon. House, in the lane opposite. I am sure that no decent citizen dare venture out there after dark. We remember the time not so long ago when the hon. member for South Coast was attacked in this very lane. It is a place where we know that crimes are continually being committed. I want to say that in many of the streets in our big cities it is not safe for any person to venture out after dark. It is, therefore, no use listening in awe-struck silence only to what happens overseas, pretending that we are all right here because nothing like that is happening in South Africa. That very self same position pertains to South Africa. If we look at the situation in Cape Town and if we have read the papers over the past few months that we have been in Cape Town, we will have come across every crime in the book every day in the papers. I venture to say that we have such a spate of rapes and robberies that virtually no citizen can feel safe, even in his own home. I venture to say that the Cape of Hope is now becoming the Cape of Fear. I think that urgent action is necessary in this regard. I may remind hon. members that only a short while ago a very senior police officer warned housewives not to open their doors to strangers at any time of the day or night. He even discussed in serious terms the practical impossibility or difficulty for a housewife in her own house to go about armed. He said that it is unfortunately not practically possible because a housewife cannot go encumbered by carrying arms and ammunition around with her. Upon reading that, I asked myself whether this was now really what we had come to at this stage in South Africa, that a housewife in her own house at daylight cannot feel safe and where the possibility of her having to be armed, whether it is with a gun or with aerosols or with all the new contraptions that one can use against invaders of the home, has to be discussed here. But it is no wonder because every day we can see people being attacked in their own homes. We seem to think, and unfortunately it is the attitude of our people, that it always happens to somebody else and that it cannot happen to us. If we really look at the people to whom this has happened, it is quite obvious that these are people, ordinary people just like ourselves, who live in their homes, going about their own business, when suddenly this tragedy befalls them. I think it is our duty as the highest council in this country to take cognizance of this state of affairs and to take serious action in this regard.

I am trying to sketch to hon. members the position as I believe it exists in South African society today; that is what I am trying to do at the moment. I am trying to give some idea of the problem which faces us before we tackle the question of what can be done about it. I believe that the position in the townships, especially in the Coloured townships, is even worse. There the people are virtually never safe, especially because of the activities of youth gangs which roam the streets, gangs which become bigger and bigger and terrorize decent citizens continually. Not so long ago there was a report in The Cape Times of a cache of arms that was found stacked by some of these youth gangs to be used for their gang activities. This caché of arms fortunately was found by the police. It is well known these days that for all our arms licensing laws these youth gangs in fact can obtain fire-arms. They are even better armed than the ordinary decent citizen who has to defend himself.

I want to say that this situation does not only pertain to Cape Town. It most certainly also pertains to Johannesburg. We have there what is known as the Western Coloured townships and a similar incident occurred there where a caché of arms was found by the police. The arms included guns, revolvers and even Molotov cocktails which had allegedly been stacked there in an old church by a gang called the “Fast Guns”. I once had the opportunity to appear in court as defence counsel in a trial of a gang murder case. There the evidence from the ordinary people in these townships made it abundantly clear that the ordinary decent citizens who live there live in constant fear of these gangs. It is clear that the position there especially has reached crisis proportions. The strange thing about it is that these youth gangs roam the streets, they have their places where they convene, the police know them, the inhabitants of the townships know them and they know which individuals belong to which gang. We have heard so many gang names: the “Fast Guns”, the “Spaldings”, the “Maria Meraais”, etc. They have the strangest names. As I have said, the people in the townships know them and they know which individuals belong to these gangs, and yet it seems that the police are unable to deal with this problem, for various reasons. They have a very difficult job in these townships. Especially in this particular case it was evident that insufficient street lighting was one of the reasons why they could not control this thing. There are insufficient recreational facilities for these young people. There are insufficient shopping facilities, even, for these people. They have very poor shopping facilities in these areas. I want to stress, however, that these are some of the problems which lie on the surface. They do not go to the root of the violence in society in South Africa. To get to the root of that problem, we shall have to go very much further than the obvious problems which lie on the surface.

I also had occasion to speak to a very well-respected Coloured leader who lives in the Western Coloured township. I put this proposition to him about the conditions in those particular townships, and he said: “Yes, the position really is shocking”. Now, Mr. Speaker, you must remember that this person, although he is of the Coloured élite, is through Government policy forced to live with all the other people in the same small area. He lives in amongst the poorer classes, the middle classes and everybody else. So it is a communal problem.

Where do you want him to live?

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the problems that they face. I want to tell that hon. member who seems so wise on this question, what happened to this person. I should like him to tell me whether he would like to live in a situation like the following: This person has two teen aged daughters, and one night while they were sitting in their own home, going about their business, the door was kicked in. A whole gang of youths, guns in hand, appeared and said: “Come on, we want all the girls out; we are going to rape them”. Just like that. What could this man do? Call the police? They have no telephones, Sir. In any event, those gangs should not have been allowed on the streets in the first place. What could this man do? His daughters were taken out of his home, where the maximum protection for one’s own children should exist. They burst in and violated that home. They took his daughters out, bundled them into a car and took them way out into the bushes in the northern parts of Johannesburg. Fortunately, however, his daughters managed to escape at a robot. They were picked up by some White people and brought back to their home. So fortunately they themselves were not violated. I relate this incident, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate to hon. members the state to which this has come. The stage has been reached where ordinary, decent citizens cannot feel that they themselves can give the necessary protection to their families. What an insult, really to any person to feel that in his own home he is unable to protect his own family.

This happens all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member says it happens all over the world. That may be so, but why does it have to happen here? Is that hon. member too spineless to try to do something about it? Should I not mention it, because it is happening somewhere else in the world? Should I not mention the fact that it is happening here because it is happening somewhere else in the world too? And although it is happening somewhere else in the world, should we not try to do something about it? So, Sir, let us not have that type of utter tripe from that member, which we are so used to. If we are serious about governing this country, if we are serious about the welfare of our South African nation, then it is our duty and our right to speak about these things and to try to get some idea as to what can possibly be done.

Give us a constructive solution.

Sir, I think there is obviously a crisis of violence in South Africa, and it is also abundantly clear, as I have said, that statistics are virtually valueless. Sir, I want to read to you the following quotation from the Rand Daily Mail of the 4th October—

Sir, I can say from my own experience even as a public prosecutor in a magistrate’s court that the statistics cannot show what types of crime take place in South Africa. In my own area there is a location called Dobsonville; there is open veld between Dobsonville and the rest of Soweto, and very often corpses are picked up in the veld, sometimes with stab wounds and sometimes with wounds showing that the victim was strangled. These corpses are picked up in the veld and the murderers are never brought to trial. Sir, the situation has got so out of hand that in the majority of cases the police are unable to trace the people who have been connected with crimes of this type. Furthermore, I want to say that as far as South African statistics are concerned, Mr. Labuschagne has made a statistical analysis which I believe still holds good. He says—

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this gives an indication of where the problem of violence lies; in other words, where the first steps must be taken to root out the subculture of violence that has developed in South Africa. Sir, as the highest body in South Africa, charged with the well being of our people, I believe that it is fitting that we should view with alarm the situation that has developed, and it has developed over a long period of time, because there has long existed a sense of urgency and a sense of alarm among the people who in their daily lives become aware of the problem and its implications. These are people like judges, lawyers, social workers and academicians. Sir, they are highly respected people like Mr. Justice J. H. Steyn, Mr. Justice V. G. Hiemstra, Mr. Justice Marais, Mr. Justice Nicholas and many others. Therefore I believe it is imperative that this House at this stage should take cognizance of what is happening; that it should take cognizance of the necessity to study the situation thoroughly and of the necessity to take urgent action, and when I say that urgent action must be taken by us, I do not mean that all criminals must be banned.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Government has through its policies created the seedbed for crime in many instances in the Black areas and has been tardy in the extreme in taking the necessary action to curb crime. I am not going to deal with the social situations as I do not have the time but other speakers will go fully into the causes. Now we know what kind of action it is possible to take against this. We realize that this Government has a jackboot philosophy of life. In this very debate, where we are discussing virtually a social problem, whom do we have to answer the debate but the Minister of Police? In other words, this is the strong-armed method. This is the way the Government deems fit to deal with this kind of situation. I want to say that we are not going to solve the problem by meeting violence with violence. We are not going to root out the problem of violence through stricter laws and more hideous punishments. We do not need a new Criminal Procedure Act, as was suggested, to root out violence and crime. We have a tried and trusted system, for all its weaknesses. So, as I have said, we cannot meet violence with violence. We already have more capital offences in South Africa than in any other Western country. Sir, the death sentence has, I think, proved that it has virtually no value in combating crime. Our whole penal system—and I believe this is part of the problem—is revenge-orientated, while I think we should get away from the concept of revenge. Rehabilitation and prevention are the only answers. Obviously we still know too little about crime. We still know too little about the criminal, especially the criminal in South Africa. Therefore I very seriously wish to request the Government to institute a full-scale inquiry into crime in South Africa. I think that is the only course of action that can be adopted. It is late but it is better to learn now than never to learn. On this score Mr. Justice J. H. Steyn also said this—

[Interjections.] The hon. member can now direct his remarks to Mr. Justice Steyn. He said further—

That is why I say our penal system is designed to punish and to show revenge rather than to rehabilitate the criminal. We know that the causes for crime lie much deeper than appears at first thought. I want to read what Mr. Labuschagne further said:

These are the roots, Sir—

This was said by Mr. Labuschagne, whom I quoted before. That is why I say it is in this particular regard that the Government has fallen down because many of the things mentioned here, are not only instances where the Government has failed to take action but in fact where their action has created the very situations mentioned by Mr. Labuschagne. So we must realize that the situation in South Africa is further compounded by the existence of this subculture of violence. Mr. Labuschagne made a very deep study of this subculture in South Africa. He says—

A lot has been said about this and if one would go to any of our courts and take notice of the types of crimes which are committed and the way in which violence springs up, one would see that it has something to do with this subculture and what is meant by it, because some of these people view aggression in a different light from what we do. They do not see it in the same light as a White man sees it—

You find that the most violent crimes are sometimes committed as a result of the most insignificant acts of aggression; for the most insignificant reasons a murder is sometimes committed. This happens every day, as one who attends court sessions will realize. I therefore think that this needs a lot more study. We need an entirely new approach to crime, both in the form of prevention and in the form of cure.

I want to support the call made by Mr. Graser, who is the director of the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders (NICRO). In the first instance he called for a scientific study of the entire penal system to determine whether it is really effective. Secondly, for more consultation and collaboration between all concerned with crime and criminals—police, courts, prisons, welfare organizations and academics. He said that as long as we continue functioning in isolation, our prospect of success is small. In the third place he called for more attention to the causes of crime than to the manifestation of results. In the fourth place he called for a bridging of the gap between prison and the community by means of greater contact between prisoners and organizations in the community.

I believe that only the Government can take this action effectively. I believe that we are fortunate in South Africa that we have public-spirited individuals who cared enough to start an organization like NICRO. I believe, however, that the time has now arrived for Parliament to give its approbation of these efforts and to let our people know that we are in earnest to protect their lives and property. Now is the time for this Government to act.

Mr. Speaker, we were pleased to hear there was one time the hon. member had a case to defend. We join the client, however, in our concern at the result, and we wonder what the client did to him after the result became known. That is my conclusion after I had heard how the hon. member defended his motion. The hon. member states a case in which he places the emphasis on the crime rate. He particularly wants to emphasize, for hon. members on this side, the increase in the crime rate as a result of an increase in gang activities, but he did not quote a single confirmed reference to increasing gang activities. He says figures do not signify, but how can we reply to his case if he did not react to this? I can well understand that the hon. member is sensitive about gang activities, because was there not recently, in a particular press group, a reference to Mafia activities? I can very well understand that that member would be sensitive to any reference to gang activities. In addition, the hon. member requested special measures to combat this increase. He very clearly has a measure in mind that does not accord with what he proposed, because what he did propose as measures today is a scientific investigation and not measures for the combatting of crime per se as a result of gang activities.

I did not say only gang activities.

In conclusion, as far as that aspect is concerned, I want to point out that the hon. member wants, a commission of inquiry appointed, but he already comes to the conclusion—and this comes through very strongly—that he knows why there is an increase in the crime rate as he identified it. Why is a commission necessary? We saw the hon. member here in his capacity as prosecutor, witness and judge. We cannot accept this. For the reasons I have mentioned, and am now going to mention, we cannot accept this motion of the hon. member, and this will also be stated by hon. members on this side who will follow me up.

In the first place this motion is based on findings that point to alarmism. It creates the impression that crime is not under control in this country and that there has been a disproportionate increase. The hon. member who follows me up will deal with this facet.

In the second place, the motion takes little cognizance of the causes of crime, except to suggest what should be done in connection with a commission of inquiry. No measures, suggested by him, were offered in this House today. In no way does he give us the impression that he is aware of the measures the Government is taking through its very important wing in that connection, i.e. the S.A. Police. That hon. member’s motivation of his motion reveals a particular ignorance about the methodology and ability of the Police. These facets will be dealt with by another speaker on our side.

Thirdly, the motion is defective in that it is drawn up and formulated in a way that gives the impression that the State alone is responsible for measures in connection with crime. This takes no cognisance of other responsibilities that may exist. It also creates the impression that crime is a matter solely of the individual and of property. He does not give a good definition of crime. What then of crime against the State? We shall discuss these facets with the hon. member at a later stage. Consequently we have thought fit to move an amendment to the hon. member’s motion, so that we can discuss the question of crime in a much wider context than his motion allows.

Mr. Speaker, I move as an amendment—

Sir, it is my task to deal with this third question of the motion, i.e. how far does the responsibility for combating crime reach, and how wide does the concept “crime” itself reach? At the outset I want to state that the task of preventing and combating crime is not only the task of the police. Every community that regards itself as ordered and civilized, must accept the responsibility for that and furnish a contribution in that connection. Every community has a collective consciousness of responsibility, or ought to have. I want to suggest a method according to which a community can furnish a contribution towards the combatting of crime. I would be glad if the hon. member for Florida would pay attention and subsequently react to this in an intelligent manner.

In the first place we must encourage our boys to make the South African Police Force their career. It is not the task of only one national or language group. In that connection I should like to point out that in 1972 no students for the Police Force were recruited in Sea Point or Houghton. The police are today doing prestige work, and not only the kind of work the hon. member would like to ascribe to them. Great skill is demanded of them. Some of them must be sociologists and criminologists. They must be knowledgable about the combatting of crime, such as drug smuggling, prostitution, etc. Secondly, if a community were to argue that the financial benefits outside the Police Force are too enticing, it is the duty of the private sector to make use of a unit such as the reservists to make his contribution. The greater the reason for practising a career for personal gain outside the Police Force, the greater the responsibility to make a contribution to the maintenance of order, peace and quiet within the community. In that manner continuity can be effected in a residential area.

Let us look at the reservist situation with reference to a few interesting points. Persons can join the Group A reservists who do full-time police work and are called up in the case of disturbances, or they may serve in Group B, which forms a home guard and is prepared to work two hours each day in their home town or city. Here are interesting statistics for the hon. member who says that the Cape is becoming the Cape of Fear. In Pretoria there are 42 active reservists in Group A. In Group B, i.e. people who voluntarily work two hours per day, there are 58 active reservists and 531 non-active reservists. In Bloemfontein there are 52 Group A reservists, i.e. people who will take action in the case of disturbances, and 14 Group B reservists. An interesting trend in this city, and other places where there are active reservists, is that when trouble occurs, these people who are inactive again come to the fore and do their work. A greater enlist ment rate is therefore to be detected at those places. Before I come to the figures for Sea Point, I want to mention a newspaper report of 3rd March, 1973, under the heading “How Safe is Sea Point to Live In?” In the article the writer goes into the question of whether Sea Point is a safe spot. As I have said, I think the test I have applied is reasonable and fair in respect of the inhabitants of Sea Point. It has to do with their collective responsibility and then, at the very least, their contribution to the reservist force as is the case elsewhere. In Sea Point there are 12 active Group A reservists, while 14 are inactive. In Group B there are five active and 20 inactive. I think the hon. member for Port Natal would not even ask somebody to become active. The meaning of this is that Bloemfontein, which has 10 000 fewer White inhabitants than Sea Point, has far more reservists. Taken further, the point is that in the past few years, in respect of Sea Point, red flags have been flying as far as petty crime, troublesomeness, etc., are concerned. I want to repeat that in that area there are only five active reservists in Group B. Where does the collective community responsibility come in then?

A third way in which the public can help is by reporting crime. The hon. member knows that the public is not fond of doing this because they do not want to be involved in court cases. I would say that if the hon. member were to have asked us today to consider measures for getting the public to give evidence in certain cases more easily, it would have been a positive motion. In addition, the public must not create opportunities for crime. We have too many cases here in Cape Town of young children, between the ages of 12 and 16 years, wandering around alone on the streets at night and being assaulted. We are given too strong an impression that parental ways to life are responsible for this condition. Why then a commission of inquiry when we can already say today that there is a case here for our churches and other social services? In addition, the public can assist by the better control of firearms. For the period June, 1970 to June, 1971, 4 406 fire-arms were stolen, while only 588 were recovered. In addition 1 997 cases were taken to court in which fire-arms were involved and played an important role. 852 court cases were heard in which dangerous weapons were involved. The public will have to react to the call from this House to keep fire-arms under lock and key according to the prescriptions of the law. In addition, our public must have an idea of the task of our police. When the police have arrested a person and the person escapes, as a result of which the police must take action, we hear a tremendous amount of criticism. We want to say today that our police deserve more understanding from the public in the execution of their task. They must act in such a way as to indicate to those people, who have diabolic plans, that action will be taken. That is where the element of deterrence in crime reform enters the picture. The public must be aware of their powers of arrest. In terms of sections 24 and 25, of the Criminal Procedure Act, each citizen in this country, has, under given circumstances, the same powers as any police constable. We have too few cases in which citizens use those powers of theirs, or in which the public gives assistance in the case of a crime. We can also give attention to this matter, and we can perhaps again point out to the public that they do have those powers at present.

In conclusion, particularly as far as Sea Point is concerned, I want to point out the responsibility of the public to ensure that their employees are of good character and do not lure vagrants there. It is presently estimated that at any given moment there are 500 vagrants in Sea Point. Those people would not have been there if they had not been lured. This deserves attention.

The police still remain our front line in crime prevention and reformation. I asked myself whether our police are aware of the alleged gang activities. I came to the conclusion that outside Cape Town gang activities in respect of petty crime, and also other crime, such as rapes, robberies, knifings, etc., which are perpetrated, have been quashed. When I say that this is the case in places excluding Cape Town I do, however, want to call in The Argus to witness, and specifically a reporter who has no reason to be fond of the police. He states—

That evidence comes from the weekend Argus of 13th January, 1973. How do the police do this? They handle the matter as if it were a military attack. So much then for police action.

I said we must also identify crime. The hon. member spoke of crime against the person and crime relating to possessions. There is one crime that is more serious than any other, and that is crime against the State. Crime against the State is committed when one population group is played off against another, when feeling about Colour is abused with a view to engendering certain anarchistic conditions. The security of the State is threatened by communism. It is good and it is right that we take note of the fact that the South African Communist Party is not dead. We must take particular note of that in this year of 1973. In 1969 the South African Communist Party sent a deputation to the conference held in Moscow. The next year there was a central committee meeting. That Party is still operating outside our country’s borders, and extensions of it have possibly been organized in our midst. We can be certain that it will use every possible means. Therefore they will try to create disorder in an industrial country. That is one of the objects of classic Marxism. In 1970 this central committee held another meeting far beyond our borders—we do not want to say where. In 1971 the South African Communist Party celebrated its 50th birthday abroad. The chairman was J. B. Marks and Moses Kotani was also there. They were already members in 1951, that was when the Party was dissolved for the first time by a measure of this House. If the hon. member agrees with me that subversion of the State, the subversion of law and order and of social order go to form the most serious kind of crime there can be against the people, their persons and their goods, I want to ask the hon. member: If any of the gangs, which he has in mind, could be taken down a peg or two by restrictions in terms of Act 44 of 1950, as amended, would he approve this. An article in that legislation states that someone is a communist if he engages in activities calculated to promote the realization of any of the aims of communism. I ask that hon. member, if any of the gang activities, which he saw, were to promote anarchism, would he be prepared to restrict them. What would the hon. member say if I asked him that? Is the hon. member not prepared to do that?

I want them before the courts and in goal.

The hon. member wants to study them. The hon. member did not come along here and say he wanted them in goal; he wants to study them. He wants a commission of inquiry. That is what that hon. member has in mind. For that reason I now want to state that when we speak of crime we must do so in the broadest sense, and the particular circumstances of the Republic of South Africa require that we take a special look at those crimes that are aimed at the State, at the security of its citizens and at the polarization between Whites and Blacks. In particular we must avenge and curb organized crime. No gang can be as active as the gang that promotes communism and envisages an attack on the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, which apparently reflects the attitude of hon. members opposite, as well as his speech, fully confirms the opinion I have of the Government’s approach to this major problem. What does this amendment entail? The amendment suggests that the measures which are being taken, are adequate. This proves a complacency about the state of affairs which is quite unjustified. That is the attitude which has been reflected. In the second place, the hon. member made it clear that he would give priority to, as it were, the political crimes other than the other types of crimes which are undoubtedly increasing enormously.

I never said that.

I think that was the implication of the emphasis he placed on that particular point. Before coming back to my main theme, I want to refer briefly to what he had to say about English-speaking members of the Police Force.

I said nothing about English-speaking members.

As I understood you, you said …

It seems to me you are too sensitive.

How do you know what I am going to say? Perhaps you do not even know what I am going to say about that.

I should like to put a question to the hon. member: If I were to say that, would the hon. member have been sensitive about it?

I do not think I am sensitive about it. I think it is a good thing that both the language groups are represented in the Police Force. I regard it as important. But the hon. member said he did not mention it, and I shall therefore leave the matter at that.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity of addressing a few words to the new Deputy Minister. We now have a brand-new Deputy Minister of Police. I want to congratulate him on his appointment. I believe a very important task is awaiting him. It is because he is a brand-new Deputy Minister, that I should like to address him. My approach is that the incidence of crime in South Africa, especially crime of a violent nature, is such as to be totally unacceptable. I also want to say that the police is making major and bold attempts to combat crime—I will deal in greater detail with this later—but that South Africa is unable to solve this problem. On the contrary, I want to suggest that the position is in fact deteriorating and is getting worse by the day. I shall quote figures to confirm this statement. I want to add that there are certain excuses for this state of affairs, but these are not sufficient to explain the State of affairs.

†Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to say to the new Deputy Minister that an enormous task awaits him. I sincerely hope that he will grapple with this in the way that is required. The amount of crime and the seriousness of crime in our country is such that it requires a war on all fronts. This Government has, I believe, over these last years, played this whole aspect down. They have played down the seriousness of the crime partly because it is a reflection upon their policies and partly because it is a reflection upon their competence. I think that if this hon. Deputy Minister can really bring about an improvement in our terrible crime rate, he can build for himself a monument far prouder than any of these great structures of concrete and bricks which are named after other people of the Government.

I have said that this is a problem which has to be fought on all fronts. I shall only have time to touch on a few of these fronts today, but I hope that this hon. Deputy Minister will make his voice heard in the Cabinet through his own Minister and in any other way he can to bring about an improvement on all fronts. The first obvious front is the social and economic front. Another front is the prevention and detection front. A further front is the whole question of the hearing of cases, trials and judicial procedures. Lastly, there is the aspect of rehabilitation. There are other fronts too, but this will more than consume my time in dealing with them.

Let me say at once that I stand second to no one in my admiration for the great and fine work the police do in combating crime and in dealing with the results of crime. I feel even more strongly about this because they are struggling to keep their heads above water in the fight to prevent crime. One sees only too often how they rush from one crime to the next and barely have time to deal with it as they would wish. But my own experiences, and my contact with the police including the practise of law over the past 24 years convinces me that the police do their very best in this regard. But having said that, I must say that they are losing the battle, and in proof of this I wish to quote just a few figures to convince you, Mr. Speaker. I quote now from the latest annual report of the Commissioner of Police. The number of alleged murders reported in 1969-’70 was 6 564, an enormous number, but one year later it has risen to 7 463, an increase of 1 000 alleged murders in the space of that one year. The population growth in that time was insignificant. Let us take another aspect. The average daily prison population during the past 10 years has grown in an incredible way. In the past 10 years it has grown from 49 000 to a total of 88 000. The average number of murders committed in Soweto per month is of the order of 80. This is entirely unacceptable. I have not got comparable figures for other countries, and indeed I do not regard a comparison with other countries as entirely profitable. I say this, Sir, because it would be entirely unfair to compare our situation, where we have a population of 20 million consisting of very many groups at very different stages of civilization, with a Western country like France, or Britain, where for the most part they have a homogeneous population and where they are highly civilized and developed.

There is no comparison.

I quite agree, there is virtually no comparison, but at the same time it is as well for us, when we consider the large number of alleged murders in South Africa—7 500 in the last year in respect of which figures are available—to know that in England and Wales, which are at least as populous, the number of convictions—I stress the number of convictions—for murder in 1969 was a mere 121. But I do hasten to say that it is quite wrong to draw comparisons with other Western countries. Perhaps Rhodesia is the only comparable country, and even that country is not a useful one as a standard of comparison.

Mr. Speaker, these are the figures which apparently give hon. members opposite so little cause for concern that they are satisfied with the measures being taken by the Government. Let me leave figures aside for one moment and consider what the position of our citizens is in regard to the quality of their life, in regard to matters which can be tested not by figures but by the way we live. Mr. Speaker, is it not a very sad commentary on the state of affairs that the vast bulk of South African Whites live with burglar-bars upon their windows? I think this is a most dreary commentary, I think it is a most tragic reflection on the situation in South Africa, because it is the most dreary situation for any population to have to live behind burglar-bars. I may say that I have always refused to live behind burglar-bars. When I move into a house with bars, I take them off at once. Sir, it would be a monument for the hon. the Deputy Minister if, by the time he lays down this portfolio, South Africa has taken down its burglar-bars. It is what I hope sincerely he will achieve, and if not he, then his successor on this side. Not only is it a question of burglar-bars; it is a question of many of our non-White workmen. On Friday afternoons many of our non-White workmen get sent home early, at 2 p.m. or 3 p.m. Why? Because if they get home late, in the crowds and particularly in the dark, they will be robbed of their pay-packets. [Interjections.] That is so. Go to the provincial government building which is being built now near here, in Dorp Street. They work from 6 o’clock in the morning, if not before, until 6 at night or thereabouts but on Fridays you will find that they are all free at 3 p.m. or 3.30 p.m., and this happens in many places. If hon. members do not know it they should learn these things. There are many young people, particularly young women, who leave South Africa because they want to avoid the dangers of moving alone in our streets. Again I must say that this perhaps is not a fear comparison with Western countries, for the reasons I have given, but this is an indication of the extent to which crime impinges upon our daily lives and it is something that we cannot tolerate.

But when the Government takes action you object.

The hon. member says that if the Government takes action, we object. Now how can he say that? When did we object with regard to the combating of crime? I am speaking of everyday crime. That is what the motion deals with. We speak of murder and robbery and that sort of thing. This is quite clear from the wording of the motion. We have never thwarted such action and we shall never do it either.

†Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he replies to this debate, will not give us comparisons with other countries where crime may have increased, and particularly by giving us percentage figures because nothing is more misleading in regard to crime than percentage figures. A much more accurate indication of the state of affairs is the absolute number of crimes that are being committed.

I want to touch now on steps the Government could take. I do not pretend this is a complete list. I want to mention social and economic matters. Clearly there is a large field for improvement on the part of the Government here. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will make his voice very strongly felt when matters in regard to extending the migratory labour system are raised. I hope he will make his voice strongly heard when funds are needed for family housing in places like Johannesburg where families are living in overcrowded conditions. I hope he will make his voice heard when funds are needed for housing in places like Cape Town for Coloured and other people, because it is the absence of proper housing for those people that leads them to move into Sea Point, which is concerning the hon. member for Bloemfontein West and is concerning me. If the Government would only get ahead with housing and get these people properly housed they would not have to creep into accommodation with friends in the backyards of Sea Point.

There are separate areas.

Yes, but let us have the houses in those separate areas. Let me just mention to the hon. the Deputy Minister one aspect in regard to township peace. There is an African township cited here which has peace. It is Kambuzuma and it is the home of 12 000 people and there were no murders there last year. They say in this article that what makes this township unique is that every householder has a stake in its future, for the township is the only one in Africa in which every house is occupied under a home-ownership scheme. This is the type of thing which can make a big difference.

Let me move now quickly to the question of prevention and detection. The strength of the Police Force is such that it is very seldom up to strength. One quite understands, with the difficulties on our borders, that police do get denuded from the towns and the country-side of South Africa, but what particular effort is the hon. the Deputy Minister making to remedy this position? I was reading the answers to questions by the hon. member for Durban North in the papers yesterday from which it appears that the Railway Police are far better paid than the South African Police. To my mind the Railway Police certainly do good work, but their duties cannot be compared in difficulty and danger with those of the South African Police. I would have thought there is certainly a strong case for better payment and emolument to our South African Police.

Let us take the position in regard to particularly non-White townships. Many non-White townships are arising and very often there is no police station there at a sufficiently early time. This occurred in regard to Bishop Lavis and Manenberg. There were thousands and thousands of people but there was no police station. No wonder that so much township crime prevails, much of which is not reported, much of which undetected. What is the position in regard to the reservists? Are they being used to the full? Are they serving a very good purpose?

I should like to move to the questions of conviction and procedural law. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the very thorough investigation which was made by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in regard to the whole question of the law of evidence in criminal cases. There is a great deal in that report which can be considered from the point of view of South Africa. It was stated by the hon. commissioners—

There is a great deal that can be studied with benefit there and I suggest that in this respect we should take steps to bring our law up to date. I am aware of the task that was given to Mr. Justice Botha, but it goes nowhere like as far as does this commission. The question of willingness to give evidence is another field where there can be much improvement. So often witnesses in a case are brought to court to give evidence at the trial at the magistrate’s or supreme court and there is quite an insufficient attempt to receive those people, to consider their convenience, to help them fit in with their own arrangements and to keep their support. I should like to suggest that it would easily be possible to have somebody in the department on a telephone line to keep directly in touch with these people, perhaps somewhat in the way in which Whips here keep in touch with speakers. You have to be in touch with your people to see that they come there and that they are not unduly delayed there.

Where is Cathy? [Interjections.]

Lastly there is the whole question of reformation and rehabilitation and reception back into society. This is a difficult question. In conclusion I want to say that this question of our drastic crime rate requires war on all fronts. We have a new Deputy Minister and I should like to hear from him what plans he has to deal with it on all fronts. I should like to hear a report from him as to how the battle is going. As I have said initially, if he can be the person who will enable South African homes to lose their burglar-bars he will indeed have created a monument for himself.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I listened attentively to the argument of the hon. member for Pinelands and appreciatively took note of the hon. member’s standpoint in respect of the South African Police Force. I appreciate it very much that he paid tribute to the Police Force. But what I cannot express my appreciation for is the hon. member’s short memory in respect of our action in the past. When we took socio-economic action in Sea Point, what was the standpoint of that side of the House? How they fought us tooth and nail!

Was Sea Point a Coloured area?

When notice was given that District Six would be cleared up, what was the reaction of hon. members on that side? They fought us tooth and nail. What contribution has the Opposition really furnished towards the combating of crime? Very, very little. For the edification of the hon. member for Florida, I want to mention that when this side of the House, at the time, was fighting tooth and nail and day and night to clear up Sophiatown and to correct the pitiful conditions there, he was not even born yet.

You only shifted the crime from Sophiatown to Soweto.

There was mention here of socio-economic conditions. We created better socio-economic conditions, better housing and a better infrastructure, which virtually did not exist in Sophiatown in the days when that party and Rev. Huddleston were fighting us.

What happened last year here at the Cathedral when the police took action there to combat demonstrations? Sir, it is as if I still see the hon. member for Florida when he came trotting in here as pale as pale can be.

Are you now saying I committed a crime?

No, I was not insinuating that. I only said the hon. member was pale because he had had such a big fright. Sir, I am not saying the hon. member committed a crime, neither am I insinuating it, but was the hon. member at the demonstrations?

I was there after it was all over. *

Sir, then the hon. member got the big fright afterwards, and his “first stop” was the Parliament building.

I regard this motion of the hon. member for Florida as a veiled, subtle attack on the South African Police Force. In his whole argument the hon. member for Florida did not once say a good thing about the Force. Let me now tell the hon. member: He went to the demonstration there. He alleged here today that it would be unsafe to walk outside this House in the Avenue. I have been walking up and down here for years and nothing has happened to me. Was the hon. member perhaps in the Avenue at the time? Sir, I think it is a scandalous accusation against the authority of the police in Cape Town that he thinks it is so unsafe here around the Houses of Parliament that no one can venture outside any longer.

What happened to the hon. member for South Coast?

Anyone can be attacked in any way. It could also happen to me. I acknowledge this, but these are isolated cases, and one cannot generalize. To allege that it is supposedly so unsafe here around the Houses of Parliament, I consider to be an exaggeration of the true situation.

First deal with the figures.

I shall come back to the hon. member for Pinelands in a moment. He must just not be so hasty. If we think, today, of the South African Police Force and the limited manpower at their disposal, it is excellent work they are doing in South Africa. As an example I just want to quote what someone from abroad said about the S.A. Police Force according to last weekend’s Argus. The report reads as follows:

South Africa’s Police were amongst the most efficient law-enforcement forces in the world, a London barrister visiting the country said in Pretoria. The barrister, Mr. Steven Kerr, practises in the London criminal courts and has been in the United States for several years studying police methods of training and law-enforcement. Yesterday he visited the police training college in Pretoria and the African police training college at Hammanskraal. He paid a courtesy visit with Lieut.-Gen. Crous, Chief Deputy Commissioner of Police.

It is someone from abroad who said that, but I want to quote someone else who said this as far back as the ’sixties, i.e. Dr. Louis Fried, who wrote a book about crime in South Africa. He said the following—

Yes, exactly.

Here I also have the figures of the staff complement of the S.A. Police Force. Just the other day the hon. member for Musgrave asked what the manpower of the S.A.P. is. According to the figures of the staff complement of the Musgrave, there is a shortage of about 1 200 Whites in the Police Force. I know that it is said every day that we have a shortage of manpower, particularly in the White sector, but there is also a shortage of about 1 000 non-Whites in the Police Force. Then we are told there is no work for these people. We are then told that the people are so unsafe they cannot even get to their homes. What is then going on now? They are surely paid well for police work. The advice I can give the United Party is that they must go back and tell the people they must join the S.A. Police Force so that they can make a contribution in respect of the combating of crime amongst their own people. Why must only the South African White Police Force furnish contributions all day long to combat crime in South Africa under these difficult circumstances in our multi-national country, while the contributions in respect of the non-White groups are in many cases minimal? I feel, therefore, that the United Party should rather tell the people that they should join the S.A. Police Force, that they must furnish their contribution and patrol the Avenue outside this House. The hon. member for Florida will then be able to walk around here with safety.

The hon. member for Pinelands spoke here about crime. All crime, i.e. offences and law infringements, totalled 2 915 053 for the year 1.7.67 to 30.6.68, and for the year 1.7.71 to 30.6.72 they totalled 3 119 091, which evidences an increase of 204 038 cases or 6,99%. During the year 1.7.67 to 30.6.68, 1 001 893 cases were reported in the Republic and South-West Africa in the category of offences, i.e. serious crimes. During the year 1.7.71 to 30.6.72 1 160 914 cases of that nature were reported in the Republic and South-West Africa. There was, therefore, an increase of 159 021 cases or 15,87% from 1967-’68 to 1971-’72, i.e. over a period of five years. During the year 1.7.67 to 30.6.68, 1 913 160 cases were reported in the Republic and in South-West Africa in the category law infringements—i.e. not serious crime. During the year 1.7.71 to 30.6.72 1 958 177 cases of the latter kind were reported in the Republic and South-West Africa. There was, therefore, an increase of 45 017 cases or 2,35% from 1967-’68 to 1971-’72, i.e. over a period of five years. I think this is a very good record. The estimated population for the financial year 1967-’68 was 19 364 000 and for the year 1971-’72 it was 22 808 000, which evidences an increase of 3 444 000 or 17,76%. In other words, our population increase was 17,76% and the increase in crime only 2,35%. What does the hon. member for Pinelands get?

We look at what the position is in the United States of America and in England; after all, there are no such evils as there are in South Africa. As far as the United States of America is concerned: During 1971 in the U.S.A. property to the value of 686 million dollars was stolen, while the value of the property recovered was 78 million dollars. 941 600 motor vehicles were stolen. Crime statistics show, in addition, 5 995 200 serious crimes, which is 7% more than 1970s figures, but which was nevertheless a considerable improvement on the previous three years with increases of 17%, 12% and 11% respectively. During the year 1970 5 568 200 cases of serious crime were reported, an average increase of 11% on 1969. Crimes of violence increased by 13% over the same period and robbery by 17%. In other words, serious crime increased by 17%. During the period 1960 to 1970 there was an increase of 176%, while there was only a 13% population increase. Over that period crimes of violence increased by 156%, and offences against property by 180%. That is the position in America.

What is the position in England and Wales? During the year 1971 there was, with the exception of the metropolis of Greater London, an increase of 5,8% on 1970s figures, while the increase in the Republic and South-West Africa was only 3,74% per year. As far as the metropolis of London is concerned, there was, according to the latest report, that of 1964, already an increase of 31,1% per 1000 inhabitants. The population of the city was then 8 186 830. The source of this report is “The Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for the Year 1964.” In New Zealand the incidence of crime increased by 34,6% and in Rhodesia it increased by 29,14%. Here I have the facts of the matter before me. With these few ideas I should like to conclude, and I want to say that we pay tribute to the South African Police Force for what they are doing for the South African population and for the good work they are doing for the security of us all.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down has said that we do not praise the police and that we often criticize them.

I would like to ask the hon. member who has raised the question of police pay year after year in this House? This very day I raised the question of medical aid for the Police Force with the hon. Minister. I would like to say to that hon. member that next time we ask for an increase in police pay—and heaven knows they are badly enough paid—I hope he will support us.

The one day you ask and the next day you criticize.

He, as well as other members on the other side of the House, also talked about the question of Sea Point. The question of Sea Point is a very topical one at the moment and I could not agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein West more, but when the hon. member says that they can be moved elsewhere I would like to know, where? Where are the houses for the people who are at present living in Sea Point and where are the amenities for them? In this respect I would like to say that some of the employers in Sea Point should pay their servants more so that they could at least travel to some of the other areas. The whole of society is wrong in this matter of crime in South Africa. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West also moved words to the effect that the Government is satisfied that what is being done is adequate. I would like to say to that hon. member that he should say that the Government’s actions are satisfactory to all the victims of the assaults and rapes that take place daily in our cities in South Africa. We would see then whether they believe that the action the Government is taking is satisfactory.

There is a further point I would like to refer to. The hon. member said that I have not enticed any of the residents of Sea Point to become members of the Police Reserve. That is perfectly correct. I happen to live in Sea Point on a temporary basis. I would like that hon. member to know that I was one of the founders of the Police Reserve in South Africa. I hope he will put that in his pipe and smoke it !

Then there is something else that amazed me too. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West said that one of the most serious crimes in South Africa is a crime against the State. He was talking about Communism and so on. I will agree with him that that is without doubt one of the most serious crimes against South Africa, but I would link it with another crime and that is the crime the State commits against the individual. It is these crimes that are partly responsible for our galloping crime rate in this country. When you break down the social order for one reason or another you create the breeding ground for crime. I would say that if the Government was really concerned and if it really applied its mind to this matter in the way that it should, it would realize that the greatest security to South Africa is goodwill and the lowering of the crime rate in our townships. This is by far the greatest security to South Africa and we would find then that our police, who do such gallant work on our borders, would not be so hard-pressed on our borders and in the townships in trying to combat the crime that is rife there. Let us make no mistake; all the figures in the world that Government-speakers can produce will not alleviate the fact that here in South Africa we have a crime rate that is certainly nothing to be proud of. I have not checked with other figures in the world, but I would just like to give the hon. the Deputy Minister one very interesting figure and that is the figure in regard to rape. Every day one picks up the paper here in Cape Town in particular and one reads of another rape. Over a weekend in Cape Town it is nothing to read of 300 stabbings, 11 murders and eight cases of rape. This is all in one weekend. If hon. members on the other side are so complacent about this, then let me remind them that according to reports in the newspapers which I have examined in the last three months, the women who are raped range from the age of 81 years down to the age of five weeks. If that does not fill every decent South African, every South African, with horror, then I do not know what will. Sir, it is not a question that our women are not safe on the streets any more. It seems that they are not safe in their homes either, and babies are not safe in their prams. Surely, if anything should alarm the hon. the Deputy Minister, then this is one of the factors that should. One of the interesting things about the record of the last few months in Cape Town—and Cape Town in probably just an echo of what is happening in the other cities to a greater or lesser degree—is that most of the people who are apprehended for these crimes are youngsters between the ages of 15 and 24. It says something for us when one looks at these figures: a woman of 81 raped by a boy of 19; a child of five weeks raped and murdered; a child of four; 11; 21. Mr. Speaker, these are terrible figures for a society which claims that it is Western and that it is Christian. If it is, then I think the time has come when we must give very serious consideration to this.

Especially the English-speaking part of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what occasioned that remark, but I believe that type of remark underlines the stupidity of authority on the other side. Society in South Africa is at fault; whether it is English speaking or Afrikaans speaking, I could not care less. Society is at fault and the party in power is the party to put it right. They have the laws, and heaven knows, there are enough laws to put these matters right.

The hon. member for Pinelands talked about houses that are burglar-guarded. Every second house in South Africa is burglar-guarded. Every second family in South Africa has a fire-arm. We are already the most highly armed White population in the whole world. I do not condemn the fact that we are armed; I condemn the reasons that are bringing this about. I shall give you some of the reasons why it is being brought about. This whole question of crime cannot be considered in isolation from the socioeconomic problems. What amazes me, what astounds me, is that members on the opposite side of the House can get up and quote a few figures as though everything in the garden is no different than it is elsewhere. In fact, somebody suggested that it may be worse elsewhere. What is creating crime in this country, Sir? It is quite clear. It is the poverty, frustration, the lack of education, instability …

Now you are really talking nonsense.

… and for the benefit of the hon. member who has just chipped in, this is what creates crime in every country in the world. It is no different here. Other reasons are doubts about the future, the uncertainty, the lack of amenities, the lack of opportunity, the living conditions, the frustration and the exploitation. All this is bringing about contempt for the law and, unfortunately, to the detriment of our Police Force, it also brings about a contempt for those whose duty it is to enforce the law. This is one of the reasons behind the fact that so many of our policemen—who, as I said just now, are poorly paid—are injured in the execution of their duty.

And while I am talking about the police, it might be as well to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that we today, per ratio of population, have a smaller Police Force than we had in 1912. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister may turn around and say that we are more mobile today, but then I submit that crime is also more mobile today than it was in 1912. In 1912 there were 1,42 policemen per 100 000 of the population. These are the figures taken from the police report of last year. In 1946 there were 1,31 policemen per 100 000 of the population, and that was the last time that it was lower than it is today. There are fewer policemen today per ratio of the population than there were 60 years ago. I refer now to the established figure of the Police Force. The actual number in the Police Force is even lower, because it is below establishment strength, as is the case in so many other walks of life in South Africa. With the Police Force, hard-pressed as it is, under-staffed as it is, with the number of policemen in relation to the population lower than they have been since Union, with our policemen having to serve on the border, and doing the wonderful job that they do there, with all these things, the rate of crime in South Africa is increasing faster than the increase in the population. As a result, with all the best will in the world, more criminals are going about un-convicted. For this reason …

[Inaudible.]

If you kept quiet for a while you might learn something, and the country would benefit. In the case of crimes involving personal relations such as murders, assaults, etc., 256 000 cases were reported and 157 000 went for trial. Nearly 100 000 crimes, in other words, I assume, went undetected. In the case of burglaries, theft, etc., 430 000 cases were reported and 155 000 went for trial. In the case of culpable homicide, 1 129 cases were reported, and 183 were sent for trial. Of all the robberies that were committed, 50% went for trial, and of all the burglaries, 20% went for trial. Mr. Speaker, I do not say for one moment that that is a reflection against our Police Force; I say that this is a reflection against the Government, who keep our Police Force to such numbers, for various reasons, that they are finding it impossible to keep up with their duties.

Sir, I should now like to turn to another matter. I should like to ask the Government: Just what sort of people are we? What sort of people have we become in South Africa? Every statistic that you can quote will show that 56% of the assaults reported to the police are committed when the offender is under the influence of liquor. Put do you know what happens, Sir? The Government is fostering the purchase of liquor amongst these groups. I shall show you why. 52,3% of Coloureds, and 26,8% of Blacks, were convicted of assault while under the influence of liquor. But the Bantu Investment corporation has so far financed 92 liquor outlets for the Bantu. The Coloured Investment Corporation has so far financed, according to the figures supplied to me in this House—both these figures were supplied by the respective Ministers—36 liquor outlets for the Coloured community. It might be held by the Government that this is good business for the various corporations. No doubt it is. It might be held, too, that the number of liquor outlets does not increase the incidence of drunkenness, but then I would ask the Deputy Minister of Police this question, because ultimately the ball falls in his court because crime is his province: Why then, if this is so, if these liquor outlets are encouraged by the Government—and they are, encouraged by Government money, money voted by this House—do they ignore the pleadings of the Black people and the pleadings of the Coloured people when the leaders of these people say: “Please do not give us any more liquor licences; we have a problem in this respect?” Despite this plea, the Government blithely goes on encouraging the sale of liquor among these groups. And yet we have figures to show that more than 50% of crimes of assault are committed by people under the influence of alcohol.

Now you are talking nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says I am talking nonsense. I would say to the hon. member that he should listen to some of the things I will tell him. In my job—and I regard it as my duty—I visit Coloured and Indian townships throughout South Africa, and I will confine my remarks to them. I have said earlier on that one of our problems is a socio-economic problem. Sir, I know of Coloured families who live in holes in the ground; I know of those who live in trees; I know of ten people living in a little room of 9 by 9; they live in rooms where sex does not mean anything; they all live together. Their home is the street outside.

How are you going to help them?

Build houses for them. That is how you can help them. Sir, I know of a woman who burnt herself to death because she could not find a home for herself and her family, and this happened in the last three or four weeks.

Why did you not help her?

She had been applying for 10 years for a home. Sir, these are the socio-economic problems that I am talking about. The children are growing up in this atmosphere. Sir, they are old while they are children. They begin to hate their parents because they see their parents making love in a room which is 9 by 9. They see things there that no child should ever see. So what do they do? They go into the street and they stay in the street until all hours of the day or night. Eventually they join up with gangs, like everybody joins up with a gang. The gang then starts committing crimes and then the police have to act because a crime has been committed; somebody has been raped and somebody has been stabbed. Mr. Speaker, I have had literally hundreds of these people appear before me, crying their eyes out for some place to live. They are decent people. They do not want to live this way. We have forced them to live this way. We have forced them out of the homes that they had into new areas, and when we do so we do not even provide the necessary amenities for them in those areas. There are no lights, no schools, no churches and then they cannot travel to the places where they have to send their children to school because they do not earn enough. Sir, if you want to know where the crime rate comes from, I can tell you: It comes from the ghettos, the slums that we have built for our people, and if we want to do something about this crime rate, we must listen to the cries of despair of decent human beings who are frightened to open their doors at night, who are frightened to send their children to a shop. If something happens, they cannot send someone to a telephone because if the telephone is working it would be a miracle, and if they do not get stabbed on their way it would be a second miracle. Sir, these people are living in fear. Screams and curses in the night are second nature to them; this is all they hear. They live in areas where they see nothing but drunkenness, and I sincerely hope that one of these weekends hon. members on the other side, instead of driving around in their Cadillacs and Mercedes, would get out of their cars and go and see what is happening in these townships, because if they did, Sir, they would come here and plead, as I am pleading here today, “For heaven’s sake, stop this”, because what is happening in the townships? You will find out if you speak to the people as I have often done.

Challenge them to walk through the townships.

They dare not walk through the townships. I have been walking through these townships and I have seen the atmosphere change over the years. Three weeks ago I was in a Coloured township and I asked a Coloured man why he was not working. He said, “I don’t work for a bloody White man”. He was a loafer. You have loafers in all communities. But now we are being blamed for things which are not our faults and this is what I want to warn the Government about. Sir, history shows that strife and trouble all over the world starts like this. It is starting in our townships. Mr. Speaker, let me read out to you just a couple of remarks passed to me in recent weeks by these people: “We live like battery chickens,” another one said, “We live in a graveyard of lights,” and his companion remarked, “You are lucky to have lights.” “We are stuck out here,” said one here in Cape Town, “Are you ashamed of us; am I an inferior being; is this why we are treated in this way?” Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that something like three-quarters of a million people have been moved in South Africa. A third of the Coloured population of Cape Town is unhoused and the Government has cut back on its housing programme. I know of Coloured townships which were established 14 years ago on the basis that the inhabitants would be left there for three weeks. They are still there today 14 years later. The children who have grown up in those townships are ashamed of their parents; their parents are ashamed of them. Those children have now moved into the realms of crime. We have two alternatives facing us in South Africa. Either we solve the socio-economic problems, and the only way we can do that is for the hon. members opposite to help. They are the legislators of South Africa, not the so-called liberals who are spread around outside making a noise. These are the people to whom I plead. I plead to them; I plead to them not in the interests perhaps of those affected but more in the interests of South Africa as a whole. What is happening in our townships—can I not get it across to them—is far more dangerous than any terrorists on our border. And it can be stopped by the upliftment of these people, by restoring in them a sense of pride—give them back the pride that has been taken from them for one reason or another. The alternative to this is to make almost every second South African a policeman, and I believe this would be a sorry day. Let us hope that a Christian conscience returns to the people of South Africa and that society at last wakes up to what it has been doing for so many years.

Mr. Speaker in listening to the arguments of the United Party in connection with matters which are of such great importance for the whole of South Africa, one becomes more and more amazed. We have been listening to their speakers all afternoon now. They have told us that crime is serious. The hon. member for Florida devoted almost three-quarters of his speech to telling us how serious crime is. The hon. member for Port Natal gave us gruesome accounts of the circumstances under which certain people live. I just want to make this point: We all agree; we are all ad idem about the fact that crime is serious, and everyone is concerned with solving this phenomenon and reducing it as much as possible. But if we do something about it, if we have discovered a sore and have ascertained that it is dangerous to our society, and if we have found that the United Party agrees that it is intolerable and we proceed to treat that sore, then they are up in arms and kick up a fuss about it and criticize the Government for the positive steps it is taking in this connection. Now again, for example, we have heard here what Sir Richard Luyt said, that he banned people in British Guinea only after there had been so many cases of murder and homicide. Is that the viewpoint of the United Party now, that there should first be murder and homicide, that the sore should first start festering before any action is taken? As I have said, we are in agreement that there is crime in South Africa and that it is a phenomenon which deserves our serious attention. But let us pause a little and investigate the causes of that phenomenon.

Sir, we are aware that we have a tremendous population increase. We have a tremendous increase in our Bantu population of at least a half million per annum. The White population is increasing by about 80 000 or more per annum. We have immigrants at a rate of about 30 000 per year. This tremendous increase in our population, as we are aware, brings with it a substantial increase in the number of industries. We have a tremendous economic development and this results in tremendous concentrations of population in our cities. Another reason is the conditions which sometimes prevail in the rural areas, resulting in the familiar stream of people from the rural areas to the cities. We have heard this afternoon that the socio-economic conditions in which our people find themselves, particularly our non-Whites, are also a cause of crime. But in this connection I would really like to mention with gratitude what the Government has done to improve these conditions. For example I would just like to mention the question of education. My hon. friends opposite will take note of these figures: In 1962 the total number of Bantu children in schools, including those of the Transkei, was 1 684 000; in 1971 it was 3 028 583. The expenditure on Bantu education was approximately R19,5 million in 1962-’63; in 1971-’72 it was R65,75 million. The viewpoint of the National Party is that the faster our policy of separate development is applied, the greater will be the improvement in our crime figures.

As a further cause of the increase in the crime rate, I would like to mention a frame of mind, very difficult to counter, which has possessed people in this shrinking world. I refer to this feeling of permissiveness. Can we really say in all sincerity that parental discipline is still properly applied? Can we acknowledge in all sincerity that discipline, wherever it exists, is being exercised to its full effect? In this way we can argue about it throughout our society. There are other causes of the incidence of crime. I do not think the time will allow me to discuss all these causes in detail.

I want to dwell for a moment on the methods which our effective Police Force are applying to fight crime. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they agree that these methods are exceptionally effective, because it is really very significant that speakers opposite have to an exceptional degree referred to the incidence of crime, to the serious crime situation, but have really made very few constructive proposals to help us fight this evil.

For example I should like to mention here a matter which has been mentioned previously in debates in Parliament, namely the foot patrols. One would have thought that these foot patrols would have been mentioned again today. It is obvious that these foot patrols can no longer be effective in today’s society, because then one would need a policeman in uniform on every corner of every street because the hardened criminal will obviously not commit his crime in the presence of a policeman. He will do it when the policeman has his back turned, or he will do it around the corner. In this connection we can mention that the number of non-Whites in uniform is increasing. We are very pleased that this is the case. I want to mention the effectiveness of the radio patrol units which are also known as the Flying Squad. The undoubted effectiveness of these flying squads requires no further argument. Every child on the Witwatersrand knows the guarantee offered by dialing 30.

Hon. members are presumably also aware of the fact that there are members of the police who are disguised and who are on plain-clothes duty in our streets. They move about in the urban complexes, near the stations, and in the Bantu areas they move along the roads leading to the various houses. The hon. member for Florida said by way of interjection that we have merely moved crime from Sophia-town to Soweto. I would like to know from that hon. member whether he is opposed to segregation of residential areas. He must tell us that. [Interjections.]

Now I come to the next very effective method employed by the police in fighting crime. I refer to the “mopping up” units of the police. The members of these units are not attached to any particular service shift. They are not restricted to any station area. The most suitable place and time to crack down on a particular area is carefully and scientifically determined beforehand. Hon. members will be amazed to see the extent to which such mopping up units operate effectively and to what extent crimes are uncovered on such occasions.

I now come to the following application, namely the road-blocks. Hon. members are aware that a motor vehicle was stopped on one occasion by such a road-block and within that vehicle there were documents which were subsequently found to be communist pamphlets. That discovery led to the discovery of the Communist cell to which Timol belonged. That was a random police road-block which stopped an ostensibly innocent vehicle.

I mention yet another very effective method used by the police, namely the special patrol units which also use police dogs.

A very important aspect which I wish to mention, is the application of Act 94 of 1972, the Police Amendment Act. Can hon. members imagine what an asset this reserve force is to us particularly in emergencies, although not necessarily in emergencies only but at any time when they may be called up. These units are comprised of experienced members of the police force, and they are organized and built up and made available to complement our existing police force in emergencies or other circumstances which might threaten the safety of the State, its people and their property. It will be remembered that this Act provides that a person who has served in the police force for at least six months may still be called up for police service for a period of five years after his discharge, provided he is not older than 65 years. These people can immediately be integrated into normal police duties.

I would like to refer briefly to the Industrial and Trade Security Association. Discussion has taken place with the members of this association and it has been agreed that the security personnel who belong to it are in the first instance responsible for the security of their employers. There are regular discussions and symposiums arranged by the association, in which the police participate at a high level. I want to refer to Aspol, which is derived from the words “assisting the police”. This body is also organized on a country-wide basis and in all centres where vehicles with two-way radios are employed. Here, then, we have additional eyes and ears for the police. The people who belong to this body, supply valuable information on the basis of which the police may act.

There are also radio hams who operate throughout the country and co-operate with the police. This system is something new and is still in its initial stages, but it is already an invaluable channel of communication.

I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition whither they do not agree that what I have stated now, indicates that we have an effective and purposeful and comprehensive organization for dealing with crime in the times in which we are living. Therefore it is a pleasure for me to support the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West.

I put the question.

Wake up, Mike!

Mr. Speaker, I did not jump to my feet immediately, because I thought the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police would have thought that he surely should jump to his feet, since he has a lot to answer for. There is less than half an hour left. There are many issues that have been raised and canvassed in relation to this motion. The motion asks that special measures should be taken in connection with the alarming rise in the crime rate, and gang warfare.

Let me go to the meat of the problem and deal with the kernel first. Everything, all the problems raised by this motion, relates to the Government’s policy in one field or another, especially on the cardinal question of the Bantu, where the crime rate in the Bantu townships has reached proportions that I do not believe any of us imagined they could possibly reach. The reason for this is the basic, fundamental policy of this Government, according to which these people must live in these townships, where they are going to be for ever, in the urban areas at least, as temporary sojourners. It is not possible for those Bantu people to help themselves, unless they have a stake in law and order, unless they have a property there, unless they have the security of knowing that they and their families will be secure, that their children will have an education and a job. Unless they know that they have this basic security, there is no law, policeman or order of things which can rescue the situation which is now escalating and which will get ever worse. When the hon. member for Florida, who has done the country a favour by introducing this motion here this afternoon, talks about his experience of what is happening in these townships, he is not exaggerating. I remember a case where a house was broken into in a township. The persons inside were robbed; a man in the house was murdered, and they did not dare to report the matter to the police until the next day, because they dared not go out in the streets to report the matter at night. I had a servant, an ordinary domestic servant. She wanted to send her son, who lived in a township, to a boarding school. She had to send him to a boarding school, she said, because it was quite impossible to bring him up in the township with all the unlawfulness and the “tsotsis” roaming about. That was why she was working, so that part of her family could escape from the system which, as I say, no law is going to change, and at the root of which lies an approach, an attitude of mind, which is fundamentally wrong and is the basis of this Government’s policy in that regard.

The South African Police are the instrument whereby law and order is maintained, and the SAP have to spend far too much time dealing with petty matters. If you look at the last police report, you will see that nearly a million offences were committed relating to pass laws and that sort of tiling, offences most of which should not be there, because the basic policy is wrong. It is quite true that in most of these cases they plead guilty, and it is not necessary for the policeman to give evidence, but in every single case it is necessary for the policeman to be prepared to give evidence. Normally it is necessary for him to go to court. Sir, this takes time. Consider the mediaeval liquor laws we have in this country, and consider how much time of the police is taken up in dealing with offences in terms of those laws.

It has been indicated to me that I have in fact less time than I thought I would have had, so I want to come down to the basic point. It has been mentioned by hon. gentlemen on this side who have spoken on this motion that you cannot expect to have a Police Force which will retain its experience and its members and be at full strength unless you pay them properly. You cannot compare the work of a policeman with the work of any other civil servant. He is on a 24-hour basis, more or less. Every time he leaves home his life is in jeopardy. He is obliged to spend months away from his family in border areas, in places as remote as the Caprivi Zipfel. He has to go and give evidence in his off hours. He is not paid overtime. The pay of the police is a public scandal, and the responsibility is this Government’s. I hope that hon. Deputy Minister is going to tell us what he is going to do about it. I have asked some questions, and the answers given by the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Minister of Police show a most disgraceful and shocking disparity between the pay of the Railway Police and the pay of the South African Police. The figures are all there in Hansard, but I would like to give you some idea. I know a White constable who is married and has been in the South African Police for four years. He draws, after deductions. R148 a month. There is another policeman who left the South African Police and went to the South African Railways Police Force. Immediately, he was paid R100 a month more. This man in the South African Police who has been a constable for four years, is married and has a salary of R148 a month. A man in the South African Railways Police with one year’s service, also a constable, is drawing, when the deductions are taken off, something like R230 a month. What is the explanation for this? How is it that there can be such a disparity? This is one of the reasons why so many of these people leave the Force when they have the experience; they find, with a family, that they just cannot cope with the salary paid to them. I have just had a message with a four-letter word, and so I shall have to sit down.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I once again caused the hon. member for Durban North to rise unexpectedly. I was under the impression that he had a great message, and although he did say a few important things here towards the end, he did of course try to seek some publicity for himself again by way of a newspaper report.

Why did I have to raise it? Why didn’t you raise it?

We are quite aware of the position of our policemen, and they know that we are aware of it. They know that this side of the House will always look after the policemen, and that is why we are getting out of the policemen the service we do. In all fairness, we do not need the hon. member for Durban North to try to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of his party by writing newspaper reports in order to be popular with the ordinary policeman.

The policeman does not allow himself to be bluffed. I want to extend my sincere thanks to everybody who has taken part in the debate for their contributions, including the hon. member for Durban North, although in effect he did not have anything to say. From our side of the House there were persons who really made good contributions—to be specific, the hon. members for Bloemfontein West, Aliwal and Brakpan—for which I express my sincere thanks. Positive contributions were made on the other side of the House as well. There was one, as far as I know, by the hon. member for Pinelands, and I want to thank him very much for it. He expressed a number of constructive thoughts, with which I shall deal in a moment.

As far as the hon. member for Florida is concerned, I am very pleased that he introduced this motion here. That is just about all I can say for the hon. member, for he did afford us the opportunity of debating it; he himself never debated his own motion. He spoke about other things. The hon. member for Port Natal …

It was just hot air.

… made a speech consisting of nothing but hot air. That was actually all that happened.

You have not said anything yet.

I shall now address myself to him first. He referred to socio-economic conditions. Figures were furnished here this afternoon indicating that there is an increase in crime; that is true. All over the world there is an increase in crime owing to a whole series of factors, which one will not be able to thrash out in a debate such as this one. We, too, are experiencing an increase in crime, but to try to make political capital out of this and to say that this is the case simply as a result of the socio-economic conditions, the responsibility of this side of the House, is a very simplistic approach.

I never said that. I said …

Then the hon. member actually became excited.

You are to blame for most of it because you are the Government.

In respect of the socio-economic conditions of the Black people, let me now state this categorically: All the positive things the Coloureds and the Bantu have received, they have received from this side of the House. [Interjections.] There is no point in disguising this. Hon. members know how many Black people we have placed in schools. They know how many housing projects we have launched. They also know that we established the University of the Western Cape here. The hon. member for Port Natal said he had spoken to a Coloured tramp, a drunk as he himself said, who had told him: “I do not like the White people and that is why I do not work.” Now the hon. member blames this side of the House, but surely we are not to blame. It is not our fault, having done everything in our power to give the Coloured people what they need, if the Coloureds do not accept it and do not edify themselves. They must edify themselves too, and I appreciate the fact that many Coloured people are beginning to realize today what opportunities are being created for them by a National Party Government. I am pleased that many of the Coloured people are enjoying the benefits and reaping the fruits of the National Party Government, and to those people to whom the hon. member referred, i.e. the tramp type who do not wish to work, I want to say that there are many opportunities for Coloureds in South Africa. They should not fix their minds on the propaganda made by that side of the House in regard to petty apartheid and matters of that nature. One may look everywhere—there is employment for every Coloured person who wishes to work.

Tell us about it.

You referred to the socio-economic conditions. There is employment for every person in South Africa who wishes to work. This is what I say to the Coloureds and the Black people: Take the benefits offered to you by the National Party Government and stop asking for more and more favours. Every people must edify itself from within.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

The hon. member has already had a turn to speak and I have very little time. Every people must edify itself, and those people should seize every possibility which we offer them. They should seize it positively, and let us hear less about such nonsense as that in regard to the theatre here in Cape Town. Let these people build a theatre for themselves; we shall help them. Let these people build up a family life for themselves; we shall help them. This side of the House is prepared to help the Black people. Now the hon. member for Port Natal comes along and says we are giving them so many “outlets” for liquor. What happened in America when they put a stop to the provision of liquor? The hon. member should look at what happens all over the world when one takes people’s liquor away from them. One would have “shebeens” everywhere and, in addition to that, a kind of liquor which would kill people. After all, they are just as entitled to their bottle of wine as the hon. member is, or does he not drink wine at all? [Interjections.] He wants it, but he does not want to give it to the Black people. [Interjections.] I am speaking now and the hon. member must give me a chance to do so.

Let us now take the crime of rape as an example. I am sorry about the cases of rape that have occurred, but the Police Force are working themselves to a standstill in order to combat crime. Just go and see how many girls between 12 and 14 years of age are walking around in the streets in Sea Point every night while their mothers do not know where they are. Should the families not come together and say, “We must help the police; we must know where our children are; we must keep our children off the streets.” What can the parents expect if a 14-year-old girl is allowed to walk in the streets at night? And then hon. members want to blame the Government. The hon. member does not understand where the solution to the problem of crime should be sought. That is his trouble.

Take gangs as an example. The hon. member for Florida never said a word about the gangs.

Oh no, you did not listen.

The hon. member spoke about other matters and did not say a word about gangs. I shall speak about the gangs. The experience of the police in regard to these gangs is that gangs are a normal phenomenon amongst people of this kind. These independent gangs come together. There are, for instance, the Alley Brats, the Beach Boys, the Medwood Garden Boys, the Salot Gang, the Young Capetonians, the Queen’s Brigade, the Young Americans and other similar gangs. Actually, they are formed for the fun of it more than anything else. With them crime is a matter of chance. They take opportunist chances with crime. The police are combating such gangs very effectively. There are a few gangs which are being led by criminals who have been discharged from prison. Those gangs committing organized crime, have been combated absolutely effectively by the police. I just want to give hon. members an example. There are a number of real gangs that were wiped out completely. The Wonder Kids were wiped out completely; the Pangaleros, the Vikings, the Panorama Kids, the T.O.T. Gang, the Corner Boys and the Seventy-sevens were wiped out. These were dangerous murder and robbery gangs which were under the leadership of skilled criminals. The moment such a gang comes into being, the police seize them and stamp them out completely. In Johannesburg we had the Msomi and the Spoiler Gangs. They were stamped out completely. Nothing is left of them. I can tell hon. members that nothing is left of these gangs today. That murder is being committed, is a fact. This is so. But hon. members should not say in this House that because cases of murder occur, it is an indication that the Government cannot combat it. The Government is combating it. That is why our crime rate, percentage-wise, is much lower than those of other countries.

Never !

Oh yes. I can tell hon. members that if they were in New York, they would not only put iron bars in front of their windows, and that when they get into a taxi, the door slams shut and they cannot get out again. Between the passenger and the driver in taxis in New York there is bulletproof glass! That is a dangerous city! I do not wish to say that it is not dangerous here in our country, but it is not as dangerous and the situation is not as serious as these hon. members want to suggest. This is what I want to say to the hon. House.

The police are on the go all the time. When we get wind of something, we send in the police. Let me give hon. members an idea of the successes being achieved by the police. Arising from only one operation during the night of 16th January, 1973, we made the following arrests in a specific area: We found 144 cases of liquor being sold in shebeens—that is what the hon. member was talking about; we found eight people who were dealing in liquor without a licence; we found 29 persons in possession of a brew—this is still in one area only; we found 67 persons in possession of dangerous weapons; we arrested one person for maltreating animals; we arrested one person for filthy language; we arrested six persons who were in possession of dagga, four for gambling, 33 for being drunk in public, 11 without passbooks, one in possession of stolen property, and six in connection with theft of motor vehicles. That gives one a total of 281 persons arrested by us in one night’s time. Such operations are undertaken by the police every now and then.

Were they convicted?

Oh, please, do not talk about convictions now. Our task is to track down the criminal, to identify him and to hand him over to the courts. If the advocates manage to secure the acquittal of such a person, hon. members should not tell me that the police have not been doing their work. I am telling hon. members now what the police have been doing. I have here a report from The Agus of 13th January, 1973, from which I want to quote this:

That is what the police are doing. We are engaged in combating it. That is why I think the amendment to the motion is correct.

Let me tell the hon. member what else we are engaged in doing. We went into Soweto. Officially there are approximately 700 000 people in the Soweto township. We established a new police station, an entirely new division, there. Soweto has now been given its own police division with its own divisional commissioner. They have a whole host of officers in the police there. We purchased the old Good Shepherd Home, and now the entire Police Force are operating from the south-western townships themselves; whereas they previously operated from John Vorster Square, they are now doing so directly from Soweto itself. We have planned it in such a way that there will be room for supreme courts; that is to say, if the Department of Justice will make provision for such courts, and they have indicated that they are going to do so. This means that the people of Soweto will have their own magistrates’ courts and their own Bantu administration courts. They will have a large police station there which will enable them to be mobile and cover the whole of Soweto quickly. I do not have the slightest doubt that through the establishment of that Soweto division we are going to combat crime in Soweto to a large extent. From there we went into Mabopane in the Pretoria area. We examined the police position there, and now I want to tell the hon. member this. He mentioned that he had gone into the Coloured townships. I went into Soweto myself; in fact, I have been there on three occasions. We took a look at the position there. I went into Mabopane myself, twice by helicopter.

On your own?

I go into it in the company of the police. Does the hon. member think I would go into it all on my own? I am more afraid than the hon. member is. I am not prepared to go in without being accompanied by the police.

They will tell you what you do not want to hear.

I looked into the situation there. We have established a new police station in Mabopane. From that police station we can handle the whole of Mabopane. We have provided the inhabitants with a place where they can lay their charges. I want to tell the hon. member that we have other aids as well. The hon. member for Brakpan spoke about them. We have the reserve police force, on which we can rely. It is made up of experienced policemen. In an emergency we can avail ourselves of them immediately. Then we have the police reservists. Hon members were furnished today with the figures in respect of the number of police reservists in Sea Point. The people are not helping us. It is all very well to turn around and say: Where is the policeman, why does he not come and help us? As a member of the public every person must show co-operation. In the beginning of the telephone directory one finds in very bold print the numbers at which people can reach the police quickly. We have mobile units which rush to the scene of the crime immediately. Our men are patrolling the streets continuously; but the only thing is that the people should co-operate. The people should merely realize that the police are their friends instead of simply thinking, “Oh, there is going to be trouble here”, and then taking to their heels. Do hon. members know what happens when a policeman arrests a person? The people look the other way and, walk past, We are looking for witnesses, but the public walk past because they do not want to be involved to the extent of having to go to court and seeing that justice is done and that the area in which they are living is cleaned up. The moment someone is hurt, he wants to know where the police are and why they do not arrest the person concerned. When the police come to arrest the person concerned and it happens to be a person’s neighbour who is in trouble, that person looks the other way. The public must learn to cooperate with the police, and the Opposition must learn to assist in building up the reputation of the police in a positive manner.

We do it all the time.

Pay them higher salaries.

They must assist in building it up. This is what they must do and that is what we expect of them. Let us take Aspol, for instance, which is derived from the English words “assisting the police”.

Words, words, words.

No, these are all acts and not “words, words, words”. I am telling hon. members that these are very definitely acts. Are hon. members disputing the facts I am giving here? The hon. members want to go and politicize this matter again; they want to write in newspapers again that the man was simply talking a lot of words. I am telling hon. members that I have obtained this information from the police. Aspol is an organization, an auxiliary service which assists the police. It is organized on a country-wide basis and is equipped with vehicles with two-way radios. There is communication between the points of trouble and the police. Then there are the amateur radio operators, the so-called hams, who are geared for assisting the police. The moment there is trouble, the police are called. Then the police are also assisted by the police reserves and the Society for the Protection of Industrial and Commercial Property. The police are doing all these things. Lectures are held, and at these lectures ways and means of combating crime are discussed. The police are organizing all the time. I concede that the police are below strength and that there is a shortage of men.

Give them more money.

Now I want to say this to the hon. members, and I want to do so in all courtesy because I have great respect for the English-speaking policemen in our Force: Let there be no doubt about the fact that the English-speaking young men in our Police Force have in some cases risen from the bottom right to the top. One such person retired recently, General Pat Dillan. He is an English-speaking person. Some of our best young men on our borders are English speaking, but the English-speaking people are not giving enough to our Police Force by way of recruits. There is no point in bluffing about this. The English-speaking family looks more to the business world for its children. Its children must become wealthy.

You do not pay enough! [Interjections.]

No, wait a minute, why do they get young men from Afrikaner homes? Why should the young men from Afrikaner homes man that service on their own? [Interjections.] This is a social service. Why does the hon. member not go to English schools and tell the boys there that they should join the service? After all, the hon. member cannot expect the young men from Afrikaner homes to man the Police Force of the entire country.

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