Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

For the information of hon. members I should like to mention that these Bills will be introduced in the Senate.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

For the information of hon. members I should like to point out that the Bill will be introduced in the Senate.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

For the information of hon. members I should like to mention that this Bill will be introduced in the Senate.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on this Bill was adjourned on Thursday, I was advancing the argument that when human rights and freedoms and government systems were being tested and considered, such an investigation was not complete if it started and ended with the Westminster model of democracy only. At the present juncture especially it is necessary to investigate this concept as it is applied on the continent of Africa as well. We know that in the process of the attainment of independence in Africa, every effort was made to sell Western democracy in these African countries. Countries such as Nigeria and Ghana were held up as fine examples of how Western democracy could be transplanted on Africa. Yet Ghana officially became a one-party state in 1964, and in Nigeria a military dictatorship took over the reins of government in 1966.

Today there are 17 civil one-party states in Africa and 18 military dictatorships. It is clear, therefore, that the classic model of democracy, with its attendant concept of the rule of law, has beaten a retreat in the vast majority of African states. Virtually without exception the African leaders are saying that the multi-party system and the existence of a political opposition are alien to the African tradition. They are also saying that they have to have political mobility in order to tackle questions of development without having to be tied down by the cumbersome procedure of having to refer back to the electorate time and again. In these states the head of state often has unlimited authority on account of his being the leader of the only political party. In Guinea, for instance, the president and his party control not only political life, but also the economic, cultural, social and all the other spheres of life. In the other hand, however, it is also interesting to look at a country such as Kenya. Kenya, too, is a one-party state, and candidates standing for the National Assembly have to be members of that one single party. They are screened in advance by the party leadership. A lively election campaign nevertheless took place there a few weeks ago, and the results of that election were interesting. Approximately half of the members of the National Assembly lost their seats, including four ministers and nine assistant ministers. This, indeed, is democracy à la Africa.

When the Opposition express their opposition to this Bill in this House, mainly on the grounds that it would violate human rights and freedoms, I want to ask them not to back away from the circumstances, including the factual position on the continent of Africa. Do the hon. members of the Progressive Party realize that their little party would not be tolerated in those African states? Do the hon. members of the United Party realize that when they level the reproach at us that this legislation will incur for South Africa the criticism of the United Nations, the most vehement criticism will come from these very African countries, these African countries in which the rule of law concept virtually does not exist? South Africa has a democratic form of government and subscribes to the concept of the rule of law. Its legal system and judiciary are held in high esteem by world legal bodies. The South African Government sets store by to the basic human values—freedom and justice for all. Throughout the world, however, there is overwhelming evidence of the existence of subversive organizations seeking to over throw governments by force. When a government, therefore, supplements its traditional legal rules and methods with extraordinary measures in order to prevent and eliminate subversion, this does not imply a departure from the rule of law, but rather a reinforcement of the concept. The alternative is chaos and anarchy.

Order! Hon. members must stop conversing aloud now.

Mr. Speaker, in the implementation of the National Party Government’s policy of separate development, the time is ripe now for these powers, under the circumstances as defined in the Bill, to be put at the disposal of the homeland governments. These powers will be no strange phenomenon. Bantu law has traditionally been vested in the headman and the chief, and, in conjunction with the tribal council, they have made far-reaching decisions on the freedoms of their subjects. Sir, the United Party’s objection to the transfer of these powers to the homeland governments reminds me of their earlier reproaches that this Government was not in earnest about granting independence to the Bantu peoples of South Africa, but now that the policy of separate development is being applied and implemented step by step, now they are crying to high heaven that this is too dangerous and should not take place. Sir, the measures being held in prospect by this Bill are a logical step forward and I gladly support it.

Sir, the hon. member for Eshowe has taken us on a very interesting tour through Black Africa. Amongst other things, he has pointed out that Western democracy does not suit the Black African countries and that many of them have become one-party States, or that they started off as one-party States and have remained one-party States. Sir, I cannot help wondering whether in fact the hon. member for Eshowe approves of that form of political organization, because he is here today supporting a measure which can surely only place a powerful instrument in the hands of the homeland Governments in South Africa to become one-party States, in other words, the power to abolish Opposition parties in the different homelands of South Africa. Yet the hon. member is apparently supporting such a measure. He must surely realize that there is a very considerable difference between the Black States of the rest of Africa and the homelands in South Africa in that those homelands are part and parcel of a modern industrial State, which few other Black States in Africa in fact are, and also, of course, that many millions of Africans living in the homelands have had considerable experience of living and working in a White industrial community and understand and appreciate the benefits of Western democracy. I do not believe for one moment that there is a close analogy between the Africans living in South Africa and the Africans living in the rest of Black African. In this connection, Sir, we must not forget that the hon. the Minister consider every African living in Soweto or Langa or Guguletu to be a homeland citizen. I do not consider that those people can be compared in any way with the peoples of the rest of Black Africa, many of whom have had very little experience of living in a modern industrial economy and have little experience of Western democracy in practice.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take up one point with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, the chief spokesman on this Bill, for the United Party who has announced that his party will oppose this Bill. He said that in 1960 the United Party had supported a similar measure, or rather a measure giving similar powers to this Government, when it supported the Unlawful Organizations Act. He explained that the United Party had done so because the country was in a declared state of emergency.

The situation was similar to a state of emergency.

But it was not declared to be a state of emergency? I think that it was, after Sharpeville. Any way, we will not argue about that because I am strengthening the hon. member’s case in fact; I am not weakening it. By the way, the hon. member also said, somewhat darkly, that the United Party had supported this measure, “unlike other members in this House”. He was, of course, referring to the then Progressive Party M.P.s who opposed that measure in 1960. Sir, I want to point out to the hon. member that one of the good reasons for our opposing that measure, apart from the fact that we do not believe in these banning powers—we do not think that that is the way to deal with the situation—was the fact that the Unlawful Organizations Act was not passed as an emergency measure which was going to disappear as soon as the emergency had passed. The Unlawful Organizations Act became a permanent part of our legislation, and that too was another very good reason why we opposed the Bill at that time. [Interjection.] I am not very interested in that past history; I am only pleased that the United Party is in fact opposing the Bill that we are debating today. I find it another sign of braver and more enlightened thinking on the part of the United Party, and I think that this is to be welcomed. There was a time, after all, in the not too distant past when such opposition to a Bill of this nature may not have been forthcoming. Sir, the hon. member for Sandton made a vehement speech here the other night about the fact that the United Party has unerringly adhered to the rule of law. That hon. member is new in this House; if I had the time and the opportunity I could give him a very interesting list of legislation which goes contrary to the rule of law and which the United Party did not oppose.

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

Sir, I am replying to arguments which, with due respect, you allowed when this Bill was introduced last week; I refer here to the arguments advanced by the hon. members for Sandton and Umhlatuzana. Mr. Speaker, I defer to your ruling and I make a firm offer to the hon. member for Sandton and the other new young backbenchers who have not yet adapted themselves to the ways of this House in many respects; I would be very glad indeed to give them a little history lesson on the United Party and the rule of law. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the United Party are getting very excited; they do not like to be reminded of their murky past, and I do not blame them. Mr. Speaker, could I have a little silence while I am trying to make my speech?

Order!

Thank you, Sir. The hon. the Minister gave us very little information on the two principal clauses of this Bill when he introduced this measure last week. I refer to clauses 1 and 10. He spent a couple of minutes only on these far-reaching powers to ban organizations, to banish persons and to inhibit the freedom of speech and of publication, which powers he is proposing to give initially to the Transkeian Assembly and to extend to the other homeland Governments in due course. This is what the hon. the Minister said on clauses 1 and 10 when he introduced the Bill—

He went on to say—

Sir, that is what he told us during the Second Reading debate. Of course, the second quotation brings us immediately to the dilemma with which we are often faced in dealing with this hon. Minister who tells us that he has consulted all the African leaders, and that dilemma is this: What in fact does consultation mean if the views of the people with whom he consults are never really taken into consideration thereafter? That is really the dilemma with which we are faced. I have here a series of cuttings which express the views of most of the homeland leaders on these proposed powers. Chief Gatsha Buthelezi said that the Zulu Government had not requested powers to ban people and that presumably these powers would only be used by those Governments which requested them. He said that the Minister had created the impression that all homeland leaders had asked for these powers to ban. “We do not want this power”, said Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. Chief Cedric Phatudi of Lebowa said—

Then there is Prof. Hudson Ntsanwisi of Gazankulu who said—

And then there is Chief Lucas Mangope of Bophuthatswana who said—

Sir, that is what they have said. I do not know what Chief Mphephu of the Venda Government thinks about this Bill, and I do not know what Chief Wessels Mota of the Basotho Qwaqwa Government thinks of the Bill. Chief Matanzima of the Transkei adopted an attitude which I can only describe as somewhat ambiguous. He said—

Well, I dare say he does not apparently realize that the security powers that the Government has in the Republic certainly include powers to ban. However, as I say, his attitude is somewhat ambiguous because it is perfectly true that Mr. George Matanzima, the Minister of Justice in the Transkei, last November introduced a motion in the Transkeian Assembly which asked for the Transkeian Government to consider the advisability of requesting the Republican Government to amend the Transkei Constitution Act, No. 48 of 1963, appropriately at its earliest convenience to enable the Transkeian Legislative Assembly to pass legislation for the maintenance of law and order and the combating of subversion. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister was perhaps referring to that when he gave the impression that he had got the concurrence, as he said, of the homeland leaders. Now, that motion was debated in November in the Transkeian Assembly—I have a copy of the Hansard here—and it was passed without being voted against. However, Mr. Knowledge Guzana, who is the Leader of the Opposition in the Transkei Assembly, made it very clear that he and his party were against the motion. He actually said that what ought to be discussed was the introduction of a Bill of Rights which would protect the rights of all individuals against the powers of the State. He went on to say—and I believe this is probably the best argument against this Bill, an argument which, as I say, the hon. member for Eshowe seems to have ignored in his discussion in regard to a one-party State—that there was the danger that political parties in power confuse their existence as political parties with the State, with the result that the State is now the political party in power and any law which is passed seeking to protect the party in power rather than to protect the State should of course be looked at very carefully. He also said that disorder may well be confused with genuine political opposition and vice versa. And how true that is, Sir, that any political opposition might be construed as subversion and action is taken by the party in power in order to preserve its exclusive powers. The one homelands leader who unequivocally supported this piece of legislation was Chief Sebe, the Chief Minister of the Ciskei. He said that the proposals embodied in this Bill were “precautionary powers needed by every developing nation in the world”. That was the only unequivocal support for the proposals which we are considering today. The reason for Chief Sebe’s attitude became a little clearer to me last week when I heard of the banning, or rather the banishment, under the Bantu Administration Act of 1927, by the State President—in future, of course, these powers will be exercised by the Minister—presumably at the request of the Ciskeian Government, of a prominent member of the opposition Ciskei National Party. He is an executive member of that party, an attorney by the name of Mr. Mtshizana. This man, a prominent attorney, has been removed from Mdantsane where he practised law. He has been bundled off to the district of Herschel where, apparently, he is now going to stay for a number of years. I have had communications with the hon. the Minister about this man. I very much hope that in the course of his reply to this debate he will give us some reason for acceding to the request of the Ciskei Government. Of course, these powers are now going to be handed over to the Ciskei Government so that they may banish or ban or restrict members of the opposition party at will, although the hon. the Minister in terms of the Bill must approve of the powers which are utilized under clause 1 or clause 10 of the Bill.

I may say that Chief Matanzima, who is supposed to have supported, at any rate partially, the proposals in this Bill, has already announced that he is shocked at the banning and deportation of this man, and has refused to co-operate with the Ciskei Government in this case. There is of course a good reason for the Ciskeian Government’s support of this Bill. When you want to ban members of opposition parties, this is a very useful power to have. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister is going to tell us that the Ciskeian Government has strongly supported him in this regard. But I have to emphasize again that it is only the Ciskeian Government which has supported these proposals. The Transkeian Assembly has equivocally supported them, but not one of the other homeland leaders has supported this measure. On the contrary, they are strongly opposed to it.

I want to know why, since the hon. the Minister has given us no reasons whatever, he thinks fit to impose what I believe is one of the worst manifestations of the rule of this Government on the Bantustans. I refer to the exercise of vast arbitrary powers. Why does he think it necessary to do this? Instead, he should be giving them the best of Western civilization. That is what he should be giving to the Transkeian and other assemblies. One of the hallmarks of Western civilization is habeas corpus, which is really the fundamental protection of the individual against the might of the State. That is what he is taking away, by giving these powers to the Government, first of the Transkei, and subsequently to the Governments of the other homelands. I must point out that the Transkei already has vast powers in the form of Proclamation 400. Under this proclamation dozens of people have been punished without trial since its inception in 1960. The powers given under Proclamation 400 which, I may say, was meant to be an emergency regulation and which has been operating for nearly 15 years, include banishment, banning and restrictions of all kinds. Under the proclamation all meetings are unlawful unless they are authorized by the Bantu Commissioner, with the exception, of course, of church services, funerals, meetings of statutory bodies and bona fide sports organizations. There are powers to prohibit entry into any area and there are powers to prohibit departure from any area. The section which deals with subversive statements is very widely defined indeed. Any chief, I might mention, authorized by the Minister, can order any African to move with members of his household, his livestock and movable property from a place within the area of jurisdiction of such chief to any other place specified by such chief within such area either permanently or for a specified period. He can order the demolition of any hut or dwelling owned by such African without incurring any liability for compensation. He can impose fines of up to R100 or four head of large stock or 20 head of small stock or up to three months’ imprisonment. All these are powers already applied in the Transkei in terms of Proclamation 400. The hon. the Minister may prohibit anyone from entering into, remaining in or departing from the Transkei. We must realize that these powers are being used. According to a reply which I received from the hon. the Minister during this session, 27 people are at present affected by Proclamation 400 as a result of action of chiefs. Because of police action, 30 people are at present in detention, some of them for a considerable time in solitary confinement, in terms of the same proclamation. There we have these powers. I must mention that there is another arbitrary power which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been withdrawn. That is the power which is exercised in a very limited area in KwaZulu in terms of Proclamation 103 of 1973. This proclamation is in force in the area of Msinga in which some lawless characters were apparently living at the time, but the powers given by this proclamation have in fact not been used.

The hon. the Minister has given us no good reason for introducing this Bill. I believe it is a Bill which gives vast arbitrary powers to the homeland Governments and it is the sort of measure, as I said originally, which is very likely to lead to the formation of one-party States in these homelands. I do not think that that is the sort of thing which a Western democracy like South Africa ought to be encouraging in the homelands. From time immemorial, unlike others in this House that I could mention, my party, or I on behalf of my party, have been objecting to any legislation which contained provisions that allowed for any form of arbitrary restriction or punishment without success, but I have tried. And so, Sir. I wish to move the strongest objection that I can move in this House on behalf of my party—

Mr. Speaker, as far as this Bill is concerned, I should like to concentrate on the clauses mentioned, namely clauses I and 10. I do wish to say, however, that I shall try to do so in a spirit of responsibility. I have on various occasions expressed myself against the type of petty politicking one sometimes finds in this House. In this respect I must express my own personal disappointment that we have had another example of it this afternoon.

*Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with what the hon. member for Eshowe said by just pointing out that we have introduced the Westminster model of parliamentary government to the homelands. In other words, it is pointless for us to refer to what has occurred in other parts of Africa, because when we adopted the policy of political emancipation of the Bantu homelands, we adopted the Westminster model. This is also apparent from the fact that we allow political parties there, the fact that we have introduced a common franchise, the fact that we introduced a parliamentary institution and from the whole way in which government in the Bantu homelands is run. If we want to be faithful to the objectives we have set ourselves in regard to the political development of the Bantu homelands, it is entirely irrelevant for us to point out that in other parts of Africa there has been deviation from the Westminster pattern and from the rule of law. We are bound to apply, as far as we are able, those principles which we also accept for ourselves as being the best, in the homelands, too, while they are still subject to our authority. I shall come back to this later in passing. I want to say that there is surely no single person in this House who regards these powers mentioned in clauses 1 and 10 as being normal. It is obvious that the powers for which provision is being made here, are abnormal and are intended to be used only under abnormal circumstances. In other words, this is not a normal part of the legislative process or of the powers one exercises in times of peace. In that respect I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, namely that when there are special circumstances, such as a state of emergency or something of the sort, in the nature of the matter the State has the right to make use of extraordinary measures. However, when conditions are normal and appear to be in order, then, in terms of our view of our democratic way of life, it is only right and good for us to use the ordinary machinery of the State and its ordinary powers. In other words, in assessing these two clauses, we have to apply certain criteria, namely: is it necessary, is it desirable, and, further, what are the possible repercussions and implications going to be?

I should also like to have dealt with other clauses in the Bill, more specifically clauses 3, 7 and 9, but I fear that that will not be possible today. I do, however, want to say on this occasion that I have serious misgivings, bearing in mind the demands of a workable constitutional model, about the possibility that legislation which may be adopted by legislative institutions in the homelands, may also be made applicable to the citizens living outside those homelands. I want to say in all honesty that in my opinion this will be a constitutional monstrosity that really would not stand the test either of logic, or of reality. Perhaps I shall be able to dwell on this matter at greater length on a later occasion.

It is clear to me that, as the hon. the Minister, too, clearly stated, the provisions of clauses 1 and 10 should be seen against the general background of the Government’s policy of transferring powers and authorities to homeland governments. I am not opposed to the devolution of power. In point of fact, it is very clear that the devolution of power to the organs of communities forms a major part of the United Party’s federal policy as well. However, the question that occurs to me is: what powers should be transferred, within what framework and at what stage? When a homeland, in accordance with Government policy and the policy of constitutional emancipation, has achieved full sovereign and political independence, such a homeland government would naturally have the power to take all such steps as it may consider advisable to maintain domestic order, security and peace, and such a government would also, as an independent government, have the power to place any such restrictions on the fundamental freedoms and rights of the individual as it thinks fit. This is surely quite obvious, but at the same time it seems to me that in that process of emancipation, our objective should be the promotion of a political set-up in which some of the basic principles of our Western way of life and of our democratic form of government will apply. In other words, I do not think that it is our task to be instrumental in the creation of a political set-up in conflict with the basic principles of that democratic way of life, a way of life which all of us in this House subscribe to, even though only in theory. We cannot be instrumental in the creation of a political set-up which conflicts fundamentally with those principles, because then we would not only be unfaithful to the principles I have just stated, as principles which have guided us on the path of the constitutional development of the homelands, but we would also be giving them a heritage we ought not to give them. This, in all humility, is a responsibility we carry in this regard. If they want to do it themselves, it is their affair.

It is their right.

Yes, and their right. The day they are independent, it is their task and their right, but as long as they are not independent, the responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in that aera, as well as the introduction of a specific form of government to that area, rests squarely on our shoulders. This is not a responsibility we can delegate or which we can renounce. We should not be a party to doing so either. Consequently it is no argument to state that a homeland government asked for these powers. In fact it transpires that not all the homeland governments made this request, but even though this were the case, it would still be my contention that the mere fact that such a request was made, does not give us the freedom to deviate from the fundamental principles of the political set-up we want to create in the homelands. Surely that is very clear. As indicated earlier, there have also been a number of other requests addressed to us by homeland governments to which, under the then prevailing circumstances, we have considered it inadvisable to accede. The mere fact of the request does not provide sufficient justification. I have already pointed out that we are inclined to regard the dictatorial tendencies—I refer again to what the hon. member for Eshowe and others have said—that occur in other African states, as something which we can in fact accept as being their choice, although it differs fundamentally from our own principles. We often refer very critically to these things and say that it is evidence not only of the fact that the Black man cannot accept the Westminster system, but also that he himself is unable to govern effectively because he is unable to display the necessary respect for human integrity. In all honesty, we cannot take upon ourselves the responsibility of conferring those powers at a stage at which it is still our task to exercise authority over those areas. In other words, I do not think that we should expose ourselves to the accusation that in emancipating the homelands we have assisted in placing them on that road.

Now we may continue. I do want to repeat what has been said here, namely that it is quite clear from these clauses that in spite of these powers, all the powers possessed by the Government of the Republic continue to exist. In other words, there is no curtailment of those powers. The Suppression of Communism Act, the Affected Organizations Act, the Unlawful Orangizations Act and the Riotous Assemblies Act continue to apply. Now I ask the question: Why is it still necessary to make provision for these powers, parallel to those ones, to be conferred to the homeland governments?

Apart from those powers, there are other extremely comprehensive powers possessed by the State to maintain law and order in the homelands. I refer, inter alia, to section 1 of Act 38 of 1927, in terms of which the State President is the Supreme Chief of all the Bantu in South Africa. As Supreme Chief, the State President has all the powers and authorities vested in him under the Natal Statute Book of Bantu Law. Those authorities include, inter alia, that as Supreme Chief he can detain any Bantu without a warrant for a period of three months. But in addition, in terms of section 24 of the Bantu Administration Act, the State President has the authority to amend the Statute Book of Bantu Law as he sees fit. In other words, the State President, as Supreme Chief of the Bantu, can arrogate to himself all the authorities to be exercised over the Bantu in South Africa as he sees fit.

Equally wide-ranging are the powers vested in the State President under section 25 of the Bantu Administration Act, viz. the well-known power of proclamation. In terms of that power the State President, by way of proclamation in the Gazette, may do anything which this parliament is empowered to do. He can make or amend laws. He can repeal or amend any law of this Parliament applying to the Bantu areas. He can do with them what he likes. The only restriction is that he may not repeal or amend the authorizing provision in section 25 itself. As far as the Bantu areas are concerned, therefore, he has virtually full dictatorial powers, if one wants to put it like that. He is entirely untrammelled in the exercising of his power of proclamation with regard to the Bantu homelands. As we have already seen, he has already exercised those powers on a number of occasions, with the very object of achieving the aims envisaged by these clauses. I refer, for example, to proclamation 67 of 1958, under which the ANC was declared a prohibited organization in areas specified by the Minister. This was before the Unlawful Orangizations Act was adopted. Action was taken at the time against the ANC in areas specified by the Minister in terms of his power of proclamation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that proclamation was immediately applied in certain areas in the Republic, or the Union, as it then was. Later it became superfluous when the Unlawful Organizations Act was adopted. I refer, too, to Proclamation 268 of 1968, in terms of which a gathering of more than 10 Bantu in a homeland could be prohibited if such a gathering was held without prior approval, unless such a gathering involved only an official, domestic or social purpose. In other words, under this proclamation, a political gathering of more than 10 people cannot take place in those areas without prior approval. The approval of either the Secretary of Bantu Administration and Development, or the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner or the Bantu Affairs Commissioner concerned, is required, after consultation with the chief or headman of the area. In this regard I also refer to the judgment in the case of the State v. Mkize of 1965, in which these powers were discussed. I refer, too, to proclamation 52 of 1958, as amended by proclamation 138 of 1959 and proclamation 109 of 1960 in which provision is made that for periods of six months each, in areas specified by the Minister, it is an offence, inter alia, for any Bantu who is not an inhabitant of the area where those regulations apply, to be or to live in that area without permission from the Bantu Affairs Commissioner. There is also a further provision that a Bantu inhabitant of such an area may not leave that area without a permit, except for the purpose of attending a court, visiting Government offices or receiving medical treatment. In terms of this proclamation it is also a criminal offence for any person to make any statement, verbally or in writing, which is intended or which is likely to have the effect of subverting the authority of the State or specific officials or which threatens any person with subjection to boycott, violence, loss, other disadvantage or inconvenience if such a person were to act in obedience to the State or to an official of the State. Proclamation 400 of 1960 has already been referred to in this regard. I quote this merely to indicate that all these things may in any event be done under the power of proclamation of the State President. I therefore do not consider it to be necessary now for all these powers to be specially conferred on the homeland governments under these circumstances. There are other powers, too, but I am not going to weary you further with them. I refer you, for example, to section 8 of the Statute Book of Bantu Law and also to section 5(l)(b) of Act 38 of 1927, namely the Bantu Administration Act, which we also quoted here on a previous occasion and which also provides for the removal of Bantu from one area to another. It is in the light of these considerations that I want to say, in all honesty, that in terms of the necessity for this kind of step, I simply fail to understand why we should come up with measures of this kind at this stage, because all possible powers to maintain peace and order effectively in those homelands already exist, without us having to expose ourselves to the accusation that we are placing these homelands on a constitutional road which we cannot reconcile with our consciences and with the framework of the principles of our policy. In fact, these powers under clauses 1 and 10 go much further than those in our existing legislation, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has indicated. In this regard I want to concentrate on clause 10 in particular, merely to prevent my having to refer continually to the two pieces of legislation, viz. the one that applies to the Transkei and the other that applies to the other homelands. But as far as the Transkei is concerned, with reference to clause 1, I do want to put a question. We have been given an indication here that the Transkei will probably be independent by 1976 and that steps are already being taken which will lead to that independence. In the light, therefore, of the powers that already exist and to which I have referred, I want to put this question: Why, at this stage, confer these exceptional powers under clause 1 on the Transkei? Is it in fact true—I find it difficult to believe; I do not think it is true—that a state of emergency prevails in the Transkei; or is it true that a serious state of emergency is perhaps expected in the Transkei within the next two years and that it is for that reason that these powers are being conferred on the Transkeian Government at this stage? I am not aware of the existence of such a state of emergency or of a threat that such a state of emergency is going to develop. In that sense I find it inconceivable that at this stage, on the eve of the independence of the Transkei, one can confer these powers on the Transkeian Government. Sir, I also want to refer to two differences between clause 10 and clause 1. In clause 1, specific reference is made to the fact that the powers conferred in terms of clause 1 may only be applied in those areas or districts over which the Transkeian Legislative Assembly has jurisdiction, while in clause 10 there is no reference to areas.

Order! Hon. members must not converse aloud.

Later, in the Committee Stage, I shall move that this matter be rectified. Sir, I also just want to point out—I know that this is a minor printing error—that in the English text in clause 10, the word “such”, before the word “organization” in line 16, has been left out. The Afrikaans text is correct, but the English text prohibits all possible organizations, although it is surely obvious that the intention is that it will only have regard to the organization in question to which reference is made here.

Mr. Speaker, in this regard I should like to dwell for a moment on what the hon. member for Vereeniging said here, namely that when we oppose these powers, these truly Draconian powers, it testifies to a lack of confidence in the homeland governments. I want to say at once that resorting to arguments of that kind will not really get us anywhere and cannot guide us towards a rational consideration of the merits of the case; because when can it be said that what we are doing testifies to a lack of confidence …

May I put a question to the hon. member?

May I just complete my sentence? I said that this kind of argument makes it difficult to conduct a fruitful discussion of matters of this kind, because in that way one can get involved in an endless altercation without it really leading to a positive result. In other words, it could be said with equal justice—I say “could”—that the provisions of clauses 1 and 10 themselves are evidence of the most extreme lack of confidence in the homeland governments, in the sense that this suggests that they would find it necessary to make use of these powers to maintain their position.

But they asked for them.

The fact that they asked for them means nothing. I should prefer to say that conferring these powers on them could be interpreted as an act of no confidence, because we are implying thereby that they are unable to maintain their position by democratic means. This is also particularly clear from the fact that the South African legislation will continue to exist parallel to this. In other words, if this were an act of confidence—I do not think it is—then we should surely be able to say: “Look, we are conferring these powers on those people without retaining our own powers in terms of Bantu citizens in the homelands.” Sir, it could also be interpreted as an act of no confidence owing to the provision in subclause (2) of each of these clauses, that these powers may not be exercized without the prior approval of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Sir, when we talk about confidence and lack of confidence, then we can quote various arguments and say that this is evidence of confidence or that that is evidence of no confidence; but that gets us nowhere. It could even be said that these clauses …

May I ask a question now?

No, let me rather continue. It could even be said that these clauses imply the admission that the policy of separate homeland development has not succeeded, because the philosophic basis of the homeland policy, as is often stated, is the recognition of the diversity of nations, and each of these nations, so it is said, has the opportunity of full political realization of all its aspirations in the various Bantu homelands. In other words, this is a method by which they can be freed of all the frustrations they would supposely be subject to if they were to remain in the rest of South Africa and be subject to the authority of a White Parliament. In other words, those Bantu homelands would, generally stated, be uni-national, and what we are really doing here is saying to the Legislative Assemblies: You may now exercise these powers in regard to members of your own people. This, I just want to repeat, could be implicitly interpreted as being, in fact, a recognition on our part that this Bantu homeland policy has not succeeded. I say that this is not so, but this is the inference that could be drawn from that.

I just want to say, referring to this provision, the prior approval of the Minister, that we shall propose in the Committee Stage that the word “Minister” be replaced by the term “State President” because we feel that in any event, the Minister should not be placed in the position of having these powers. I shall elaborate on this point, because I do not want this Government and the Minister to become involved in the politics, the party-political differences, of the homelands. If he is in the position of having to give prior approval for the exercising of these powers, the situation could arise that he could be accused of interfering in the domestic or internal affairs of the Bantu homelands. [Interjections.] Now, it could be said that in this way unnecessary friction could possibly develop between the Minister and these developed Bantu states. I am not here to protect the Minister, but it seems to me that the Minister should not put himself in a position where he can be accused of these things. Under these circumstances there is a further factor of vital importance. If we want to cause the homeland development there to be acceptable, particularly to the thinking Bantu, and if we want to hold out the development in the homeland to the Bantu beyond its borders as something that corresponds with their own sophisticated way of life and values, then I repeat that we are doing an injustice to the policy itself by conferring these powers on those legislative assemblies at this stage, because I cannot see the Bantu being prepared seriously to acknowledge this development as their own if they know that this could possibly occur there. [Time expired.]

I have listened to the hon. members for Houghton and Edenvale, and I just want to make a few comments on the speeches made by these two hon. members. The hon. member for Edenvale gave us a lecture on Bantu administration.

I hope you learnt something from it.

I learnt a great deal from it. I learnt from it, amongst other things, that everything the hon. member said was quite correct. But, unfortunately, what he said is not really relevant in a debate such as this one. I shall tell you why not. There are two clauses in respect of which hon. members on the opposite side differ with us. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana stated the old familiar standpoint of the United Party in order to indicate under which circumstances they would be prepared to use or implement powers such as the ones embodied in this legislation. As far as the United Party is concerned, I want to say that we are familiar with that standpoint, but the hon. member and the hon. Senator Crook should go and compare notes on the question of whether we do in fact have a grave state of affairs making it necessary for us to transfer powers of this nature to the homeland governments. Last week the hon. Senator argued quite differently in the Other Place from the way in which the hon. member argued here. According to that hon. Senator the position is grave, and according to this hon. member the position is not grave. This means only one thing, and that is that we on this side of the House, the people outside as well as the Bantu homeland leaders cannot pay any attention to people who come along and state such divergent standpoints in this Parliament. This also means, therefore, that the argument the hon. member advanced here does not hold any water at all. Even in their own ranks it has no substance. This also applies to all the arguments the hon. member for Edenvale advanced.

The big question which hon. members opposite are putting to us, is why we are introducing another law in this regard. The hon. member for Houghton referred to Proclamation No. 400, and the hon. member for Edenvale displayed all his academic knowledge and recited all the proclamations in terms of which action may be taken. That is correct; the State President may do as he pleases in those territories. But the hon. member once again stopped short at a certain stage, without giving any thought to the fact that we in this House have made laws in connection with the constitutions of the respective Bantu homelands. If we want to be honest, not only towards the Bantu as such but also towards the Whites in South Africa, we should come back to this House when we propose any amendment in respect of the powers contained in the constitutions of the various Bantu homelands. That is the only reason why we come back to this House, i.e. to have a debate here on how we are going to effect changes to the constitution of an existing legislative assembly or people or state—whatever we want to call it. This is the right we should give the White voter, and this is the right we should also give to the homeland authorities, i.e. that matters of that nature will be debated here. For that reason the argument advanced by the hon. member for Edenvale is absolutely worthless. It was academically correct but politically quite irrelevant.

The second question that was asked was why we were now granting these powers to the Bantu homeland authorities. The hon. member for Houghton expressed misgivings about the hon. the Minister’s method of consultation. I do not want to revert to the question of whether it is desirable for us to get all the Bantu homeland authorities to request this, but I do want to say that the department has a specific method. All the Bantu homeland governments were consulted. Whether all of them reacted to it is another matter. The fact of the matter is that not one of these Bantu homeland authorities adopted a negative attitude while the official liaison was taking place, i.e. when they were requested to comment on this particular Bill. Everyone adopted a positive attitude, whether actively or passively. Those who participated actively, such as the chief minister of the Ciskei, said so explicitly. The other chief ministers or their legislative authorities preferred not to comment. What is interesting is that certain of the homeland leaders reacted in a way which might probably be interpreted negatively, and this they did long after these matters had been settled by the homeland authorities and after certain people had said certain things. The fact of the matter is that some of these people asked for this step to be taken. The department and the Minister considered this step and after that they prepared legislation. The third step was to submit the legislation to the legislative assemblies in question. Not one of the legislative assemblies adopted a negative attitude towards it.

Let us now tell one another today, in all seriousness, why the step was deemed necessary. I have already pointed out that we are introducing the legislation because it affects the constitutions of various Bantu homeland areas, and because we want to do so through Parliament and do not simply want to make it applicable by proclamation of the State President, or whatever the case may be. I wonder what kind of howling we would have heard if we had used the powers of the State President to transfer this type of measure to the homeland authorities. We must also ask ourselves what we should like to see in the Bantu homeland areas. Not one of the hon. members sitting in this House wants to see a state of chaos in the homeland areas. Not one of us wants to see these governments in the homeland areas not being opposed by a lawful opposition. We are all agreed on that. The argument of a one-party state is not relevant here at all, for the National Party is not a party which can be reconciled with the standpoint of a one-party state. In any event, it is not our fault that we were returned to this House with such a large majority that it seems as if we are a one-party state. It can be ascribed to the weakness of the Opposition. We should like to ensure that the Bantu homeland authorities are not merely afforded the opportunity of getting desperately needed practice under the wary eye under the existing structure of the Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development; we also want them to get practice at being able to identify, to take action and, especially, to take preventative action. If there is something we can really transfer to the Bantu authorities, it is the concept of taking preventive action, since it is always better to take preventive action than to take action after the event. I see the hon. member for Mooi River is smiling. He and I know what we are talking about, but there are other hon. members who do not agree with us. It is absolutely essential that the Bantu homeland authorities, too, be given the right to take preventive action.

No.

There is no problem. Why should we begrudge them the right to be able to take preventive action? The hon. member says that we may not give them that right.

I know what kind of action the hon. member has in mind.

We take preventive action and we are granting them the right to take preventive action, or does the hon. member want to see chaos before they are granted the right to be able to take preventive action? That is why the whole argument advanced by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana falls through, except for the fact that he and the hon. Senator must go and compare notes after what has been said today. If they should do so, the Committee Stage could perhaps be shortened considerable. We must transfer to these people the powers enabling them to take preventive action, and we must afford them the opportunity of getting practice in this process. Neither the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development nor any Minister of any Government department is interested in seeing these powers used for establishing a one-party state in the Bantu homelands, and the hon. members ought to accept it as such. Our concern is purely with one matter, and that is that the powers we want to transfer have to ensure that the homeland governments can continue with their lawful opposition and, at the same time, prevent all kinds of subversive elements being introduced in this process, elements which can create chaos in the homelands, for not one of us is interested in that. For that reason I think that the arguments advanced by the hon. members completely miss the crux of the matter. I think the hon. member for Edenvale, in particular, was very wide of the mark with his argument. We must come back to this one single matter, i.e. the question whether we want to see law and order prevailing in the homelands and whether we want to provide the necessary powers to take preventive action so that it may not be necessary to have to act later on by way of a kind of after thought.

Mr. Chairman. I find it striking that the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke as well as the hon. member for Vereeniging have been basing their arguments in defence of this legislation on the fact that the homeland authorities requested it. They say the homeland authorities want it. I find this a touching plea.

Are you denying it?

No, I am not denying it; after all, clear enough evidence to this effect was submitted here. I do, however, find this a touching plea when I think of other requests which these homeland authorities addressed to the Government in the past.

What is more important than this request?

One thinks, for example, of the requests which came from the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, to which we shall come back later. And of all those requests it is this very request which is so freely being granted by the hon. the Minister and that side of the House. I must honestly say that this is the first time I have seen those hon. members coming forward so freely and saying, “We are giving it because they requested it.” The real point I am trying to make is that it makes no difference what kind of petty politicking is in progress here; in the final analysis it amounts to the fact that we have a typical case here of mountain fires being extinguished without firebreaks having been cleared. What I actually mean by that is that it is generally accepted in political science, in political philosophy, etc., that the State and its subjects stand in and inverse relationship to each other as regards the proportion which the measure of coercive power applied in that society bears to the voluntary co-operation the State can count on from its subjects. In other words the more coercive powers the State uses in society, the less one is in a position to know whether one can count on the co-operation of the subjects in that particular society. Here we have a typical instance of this. I must congratulate the hon. member for Edenvale on having pointed out the scope of the coercive instruments at the disposal of the State in connection with any action both in and outside the homelands. I can assure hon. members that history will prove that we were right. Long after the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke and I have ceased being important in South Africa, history will prove … [Interjections.] Well, we are important enough to be in this House. History will prove that since this Government came into power, we in South Africa have increasingly lost the ability to know what the nature and scope of voluntary co-operation is on the part of subjects of the State, whether in the homelands or in the areas outside the homelands.

Why is this legislation necessary? This is the real question that crosses one’s mind. I have not yet received any satisfactory answer to this from that side of the House. Why is it necessary? Is it perhaps because this Government itself is not prepared to accept responsibility for the implementation of this type of legislation in the Transkei? Is that why they are giving it to the Transkei to implement it themselves? Is this perhaps one reason why they are coming forward with this legislation? Is it perhaps because there are disturbances and dissatisfaction in those areas? The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke referred to preventive action. The best preventive action that can be found in any society is to change the circumstances in the economic, social and educational spheres to such an extent that one can rely on the voluntary co-operation of those people. If the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke is so eager to give these powers to those people when they request them, why are they not equally willing to satisfy these people when, for example, they request more land or more money for educational purposes? Why are they not also prepared to yield when these people ask for more powers to be granted to the urban inhabitants of the homelands? For example, when these people ask for better treatment for the migratory labourers, why is this not granted as readily? It is clear to me that, if this has ever been illustrated by legislation, this type of legislation illustrates the political bankruptcy of the Government’s policy in respect of homeland authorities, simply because they see that the policy they have been applying to the homeland authorities and the homeland areas is possibly of such a nature that the people who are in power there cannot count on the voluntary cooperation of all the people who are under their control. This is one of the most important reasons. The hon. the Minister has repeatedly said that the Tswana, the Zulu, the Venda, etc. want to be separate and that each of these peoples wants to preserve its own identity. If this is true, why is it necessary to compel them to do so? Surely they would do so voluntarily? Why is it essential for one to grant them these powers?

But what are we compelling them to do? We are merely granting them powers.

That is precisely my whole point. The hon. member for Vereeniging says that we are merely granting them powers, but my question is why specifically these powers. Why not other powers? Why, for example, are they not granted powers to decide how their budget should be appropriated? Why are they not being granted powers to decide on migratory labour? Why do they not have the power to demand that people in urban areas be granted more rights? Why are these powers not granted to them? In clause 1(2) the bankruptcy of this type of legislation is depicted very clearly. On the one hand they are being granted powers of banning, but on the other hand they are being told that no decision which is taken by them and is in conflict with any decision taken by the central Parliament will carry any authority whatsoever. Here we see the paradox of the Government’s policy splendidly depicted. On the one hand they are being told that they may ban, but on the other hand they have to remember that if they take any decision which is in conflict with the wishes of this Parliament, it will be deemed invalid. I now ask the hon. member for Vereeniging whether he would be just as prepared to submit to his caucus or to the hon. the Minister those other requests which are made to him as a member of the governing party, and to request that they be granted? As I have already said, it is very clear to me that nothing illustrates the Bankruptcy of this Government’s homeland policy quite as strikingly as does this very type of legislation, and that is why I fully support the hon. member for Houghton’s proposal in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, since I now have to reply to this debate which has, with interruptions, extended over a few days, I think it is a great pity that such a great deal has had to be said in order to achieve so little.

I shall prefer not to deal with the first point raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana since he took it amiss of me, this time, for not having spoken long enough. I try my best to curtail my speeches, precisely because the hon. member has complained so many times before that my speeches are too long. But now he is complaining because my speech was supposedly not long enough. The hon. member had a great deal to say about security matters, in regard to the rule of law, and soon. Fortunately there is no need for me to say a great deal about this matter, because hon. members on this side of the House have already replied adequately to the arguments on the rule of law. However, I think the hon. member will appreciate—as a matter of fact, he said so and the hon. member for Edenvale also referred to it a moment ago—that in a modern state and in modern times one is sometimes compelled to do certain things in time, and one is even compelled to set aside certain traditional and customary procedures. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said himself: “We recognize that there are times to put these principles aside.” It is for contingencies such as these that these provisions are being included in this Bill. The hon. member said, however, that in 1974 there are no reasons for having legislation such as this. I am afraid things are not getting any easier in the world, and the society is not becoming more tranquil either. I am afraid that if any reasons, any reasons for proclamations and measures such as these, existed in our earlier history—whether it concerns the White area or the White people, or whether it concerns the Bantu homelands and the Bantu peoples, times have not since become any easier. All the more reason exists to adopt measures such as these. When it comes to security matters such as these, one should not wait until it is too late and then try to prevent something which has already been done from happening. One should prevent it before it happens.

The hon. member complained that the prohibition is too wide and that even political organizations may be prohibited. Other speakers have also referred to this matter, among others the hon. member for Houghton. She complained that it will be possible to prohibit political organizations. Sir, we know—and Africa has proved this to us up to now—that according to the views of the Bantu peoples and leaders there is very little room for more than one party. For that reason one of the hon. members was quite correct in telling the hon. member for Houghton that in African states they will probably not allow such a small mushroom party as hers is. That would not fit in with their views. We know this; I know it too. I want to make something quite clear, and I say this for the information of our homeland leaders in South Africa in particular. I think it will be an evil, sad day when our Bantu homelands in South Africa suppress and prohibit internal, legal orderly, political opposition.

You are making it easier with this law.

I am not making it easier. The hon. member did not read the Bill carefully enough. It may be that she and others perhaps think that this Bill makes this possible, but the hon. member should appreciate that there is some indemnity against such abuse.

In the legislation in regard to the constitutional development of the homelands we have up till now established a fairly sound link between what was called here today the Westminster model of democracy—I call it the Western democratic system—on the one hand and the traditional views of the Bantu peoples and the Bantu in general on the other hand. In our modern times there is a great deal from the extensive constitutional repertoire, if I may call it that, of the Western world the Bantu peoples may use. However, this does not mean that the Bantu may not use some aspects of their own traditions as well. That is why, in our constitutional development, an admixture is taking place between the two traditions, an admixture which has gone very well up to now, although the road has not been without difficulties. This we admit. What is of cardinal importance here, is for the Bantu people gradually to be educated to this—and not for them to be forced into this once they have become independent—in order to make possible this orderly revolution. For that reason this provisions has been inserted here in order to make these things possible for them. For the sake of this evolutionary method of learning, this auxiliary supervision from outside, it is however being laid down in clause 2 that they are not allowed to undertake any executive action in regard to a series of matters without the prior approval of the Minister.

That is not much use.

Surely, the hon. member has already spoken in great detail; why must she maintain a running conversation from her seat as well? That is why we have specifically provided for this in this provision. I want to make it quite clear here—this will prevent a great deal of disappointment—that this National Party Government and I, whoever will hold this office of mine, will not allow orderly political parties which may be established in the Bantu homelands to be suppressed—whether they are or may become opposition or governing parties. We shall not allow this clause to be used for the suppression of such political parties; this we shall not tolerate. In other words, we did not insert this provision to make it possible for Bantu governments to suppress political parties. The reason for this is that we are trying in many other ways—this is not the only way—to bring about successfully this admixture, as I called it, this link between the Western and the Bantu traditions. We know that to bring about this in a successful way, it is desirable and essential for them to have an opposition element represented in their legislative bodies and administrations, no matter how troublesome such and opposition may be at times; of that we even have some experience in this House. Now the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has woken up. In fact, I am glad I woke him up, because I see he is enjoying this little joke with me.

In subsection (2) of clause 1 we see quite clearly that the Government of the Republic has not been eliminated on the application of this provision by Bantu governments. There are various reasons for this. One of the reasons I have explained quite fully. I said this was one of the ways in which we are able to withdraw from the Bantu homelands and, at the same time, be able to assist them in establishing an order of which we, as the joint creators, may be as proud as they. In other words, we want them to take from the Western traditions that which is essential and sound. It is also essential for the Government of the Republic to remain in the picture because we have to be able to act in a coordinating manner. As has been said here the parallel say of the Government of the Republic still exists in regard to these matters. A certain body—and this has been entrusted to me—will have to see to it that a Bantu Government does not take a certain course in respect of a certain Act, or that certain steps will be taken in respect of which the Government of the Republic might want to do just the opposite, or that the one wants to do something while the other one does not want to do it. Provision is therefore being made for the necessary co-ordination to take place by inserting in this subsection (2) the provision in regard to the role the Minister has to play. Then, of course, the simultaneous say is still there. It may perhaps concern security aspects, and up till now the Republic retains its responsibilities while those Bantu areas have not yet become independent. The Government of the Republic will have to act itself when certain security aspects may become involved and when such action is required. For that reason the Government of the Republic cannot forfeit that responsibility as it has already forfeited its simultaneous say in respect of other matters. Our legislation contains many examples of this. However, this is not the case in respect of the specific aspects of this matter.

As far as the provisions contained in clauses 1 and 10 are concerned, I want to point out that there is something many hon. members unfortunately did not take into account or overlooked. The fact remains that the whole of this legislation is purely enabling legislation.

This is merely a right that is being granted. There is no need for them to exercise this right if they are not in favour of it, and those who are in favour of it may exercise this right. It is not a case of a constitutional instrument, an Act, having been made for each one of these separate homelands; there is one for the Transkei and then there is another Act for the other areas in the four provinces and a third one for the areas in South-West Africa, and for that reason this provision is being inserted in the two clauses wherever it is relevant, but this is not an obligation that is being imposed on them; this is an enabling provision. If any homeland government should be opposed to this, there would be no need for it to apply it, and no one is going to penalize or take it amiss of such a homeland government. Other homeland governments who want this, are allowed to apply this and they will have to apply this in such a manner as to comply with the provisions of subsection (2), in other words, subject to the consent of the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members on that side advanced the argument that the Government of the Republic has powers as far as this matter is concerned. The hon. member for Edenvale also dealt at tedious length with this point this afternoon. He said the Government of the Republic had certain powers in this matter, and he quoted a long list of these matters. He said: “All those powers exist; why should provision also have to be made for this power?” Sir, I am afraid the hon. member overlooked a very cardinal point in regard to this matter. I do not believe he has kept quiet about it deliberately; I think he is an honest man; he would not have kept quiet had he thought of it. I think he merely overlooked it, just as he overlooked another minor point I shall deal with in a moment. Sir the hon. member is well acquainted with Bantu administration matters and with our policy. As a matter of fact, he assisted us initially in devising these things. Only the other day I referred to writings of his I have on my shelves which assisted us in devising this policy. He is therefore quite conversant with this policy. Sir, what is the crux of our policy? It can be spelt out in four letters: S-E-L-F.

Sir, the policy of the United Party, to which that hon. member now belongs, is that the joint Parliament, or the federal council, of all peoples has to enact legislation for all of them, but our policy is that it is the inherent right of a people, that it is the God-given calling of every people, to do its own work. Sir, why should we do this kind of thing for them if they can do it themselves? This concerns the security of their own people, within their own ranks, within their homelands, within their own areas where they have jurisdiction over all kinds of matters ranging from agriculture to education, and in which they probably perform some police functions themselves, in which they administer the law themselves with their own people sitting on the bench, in which they can provide for their own security themselves. This is what is involved.

Sir, why should the Republic of South Africa do these things when they can do it, particularly when it concerns the maintenance of law and order in a community which has to maintain itself? After all, it is so much better if one is able to maintain it oneself. What is the supreme test of civilization? The supreme test of civilization is, after all, that one is able to exercise self-restraint whenever one has to; that one is able to control oneself whenever one has to; that one does not need another person to control one, and this is what this legislation is doing among other things. The hon. member for Christiana—I beg your pardon, Sir, I mean the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke; I have Christiana very much on my mind today, and the hon. member knows why.

What is happening there?

The National Party is gaining increasing support there. Sir, a moment ago the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke also referred to the fact that the homelands and the Bantu people have to be trained in these extremely difficult but yet essential State duties of a government and also of a State in the making Because a State and a State in the making do not only have easy things to do, such as building additional schools for their people; neither do they have only easy and fine and pleasant things to do, such as building more dams and factories and railway lines. A State and a Government also have the extremely difficult task of taking steps in matters such as these, and this the hon. member for Umhlatuzana knows, because the other day he referred to the strain, the pressure, of the problems in the modern world, of the “great strain of society and the skills of government”. Those were the words the hon. member used. This measure affords these people the opportunity to learn these skills of government in an evolutionary manner so that they will also be able to deal with these strains of society. This is the duty of a government. A government does not have a honeymoon all the time; it also has the opposite of a honeymoon.

If you have those powers you do not need skills.

No, that is wrong. We have all those powers. I dealt with precisely this point a moment ago. We have all those powers through the State President, but they do not have them. They have to be taught to exercise those powers as well. Why should they be denied all these things until independence is granted at a given moment and the then have to exercise, carry out and do all these things of which they have acquired no experience? This measure is an education measure, a measure which introduces them to those responsibilities. As I have said, we are dealing here with matters which are really their concern only.

I do not know why the hon. member for Albany was so spiteful. And yet I think I do know. It was an unconscious psychological reaction which manifested itself, but I leave it at that. However, there was no need for him to act in such a derogatory way against me personally simply because I, just as he, have had no legal training. Mr. Speaker, I think you, with your legal training, would detect far more quickly that the hon. member for Albany has no legal training than would be the case with me. Furthermore, the remark that a Bill such as this has been drawn up by someone such as I, with no legal training, testifies to poor insight on his part. After all, the hon. member ought to know. I know he has had no experience in the drawing up of statutes, nor will he ever gain any. Why not? Because he will always be sitting over there. But what about all the lawyers in our Public Service? Are all of them to be treated with contempt? What about all the lawyers in our Government, here among our members, and what about the lawyers in our Cabinet? After all, I do not simply submit and introduce a Bill such as this to and in this House without our Government knowing about it. A Biff is not prepared in this way. The hon. member used a poor, I beg your pardon, Sir, a stupid argument. The confusion that prevails in the mind of the hon. member as far as these matters are concerned, he himself showed quite clearly through the remarks he made here, for example, that he does not know what the position of clause 1(2) in this Bill is, but I prefer to leave the matter at that.

I want to deal with the hon. member for Sandton. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Sandton conducted himself in such cheap fashion in this House the other day. At certain places in his constituency he may create the impression of being very important by acting like a clown but in this House he will merely be laughed at The hon. member asked—he only asked one question I need to reply to—whether the Bantu Governments which are going to exercise the powers under clauses 1 and 2 would also be able to enact legislation for an extra-territorial purpose, in other words, for people outside their homeland. What the hon. member should do, is to look up the principal Act, the Transkei Constitution Act and the Bantu Homelands Act of 1971. He will then see that this matter is being dealt with there, because what we are doing here is simply to add one matter to their list of powers. In those principal Acts a provision had already been inserted at that time to tell them what to do extraterritorially in respect of their citizens outside, namely that they have to have the prior approval of the State President. Probably the hon. member did not read the principal Acts. He would do well to look them up again.

†I now come to certain matters raised by the hon. member for Houghton. I have already referred to her arguments in connection with the banning of members of political parties. She also referred to Press statements made by certain Bantu leaders. By now, after so many years in this House, the hon. member for Houghton should know and should be appreciative of the fact that I never make use of or abuse the opportunities in this House to react directly against individual Bantu leaders. If they think it is necessary to do so with regard to me, it is their personal choice. I have my own principles and I have my own methods and I am not going to discuss the reactions of individual Bantu leaders as that hon. member did here today.

It would be nice to know if it is true.

However, Sir, I am going to give her particulars in connection with every one of these Bantu governments.

That is all I asked for.

The Transkei and Ciskei homelands both very clearly asked for measures of this nature, measures of the type which we have in this Bill. They did not draft the words of the Bill as it stands before us today, but they did ask for this type of measure. Then, after we had drafted the Bill, the draft Bill was sent to all the Bantu Governments concerned, all eight of them. We asked them for their reactions. In the case of the two who asked for it specifically, we received positive replies. In the case of Lebowa, the matter was put before the Cabinet more than once and the Cabinet did not disapprove of it at all. In other words, there was no positive reaction, but definitely also no negative reaction to this measure in their Cabinet. It was a question of “we note it”. In the case of the Tswana Government it was exactly the same. The draft Bill came before their Cabinet and they adopted the same attitude. In the case of the Venda Government they said they had no comment. In the case of Gazankulu, it was put to the Cabinet and they were quite satisfied with it. They expressed their approval.

Gazankulu?

Yes, Gazankulu expressed their approval.

That is the opposite of what I read.

Sir, I do not care what that hon. member thinks or dreams. I am telling her what was written to me. In the case of KwaZulu and in the case of Basotho Qwaqwa there were also no reactions forthcoming; they accepted the position as it is. That is the position in regard to these Bantu homelands.

The hon. member also had something to say with regard to arbitrary powers being given to the Bantu homelands. I think, however, that I replied to that point adequately in the introductory part of my reply to this debate. But we must of course remember, and that hon. member must realize, that her party does not want to allow these Bantu homelands such powers as will be given to them in terms of this Bill, or to let them exercise these powers themselves in connection with citizens of their homelands. This hon. member’s party, however, would like to bring in here all the Bantu people whom she cannot trust with measures like these, which affect only themselves, to discuss such matters with us in Parliament where they will have the majority and where it will affect the whole of South Africa. That is the sort of logic which one gets from that hon. member and her party. With all due respect, I think that Proclamation 400, which she dealt with at length, and other proclamations in terms of which persons were banned, are not relevant here in the matters we are discussing today.

They are.

I now want to deal with the hon. member for Edenvale about whom I have already said something.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is no relevance whatever to Chief Sebe’s acceptance of this legislation and the subsequent banishment of Mr. Mtshizana.

No, I do not think so because Mr. Mtshizana was not banished in terms of this legislation.

Of course not, I know that.

This legislation was not ready then.

*I have partly replied to the points raised by the hon. member for Edenvale. He made two rather contradictory remarks. He said clauses 1 and 10 were intended for abnormal circumstances and that he could appreciate that one would require powers such as these under abnormal circumstances. Furthermore, he said that we could not allow these powers to exist in a body politic we were creating, because it ran counter to our views. But we are trying to do in our own body politic—I am trying to use the same gestures as the hon. member did, because then he will probably be better able to understand me—those very things we do not like, but which are essential in the difficult times we come across in our body politic. I really could not appreciate the point made by the hon. member in that respect. To me it sounds quite contradictory.

Furthermore, the hon. member wanted to know why they should be given parallel powers. I think I have already replied to this point when I said that we should not wait until they become independent before just granting them such powers. He wanted to know why the powers the State President and the Minister already have are not adequate. I have already replied to that when I said that the people should be taught to be able gradually to take these steps themselves.

The hon. member also drew my attention to a minor error that crept in when the Bill was being printed. Apparently the word “such” was omitted from the English text. I am grateful for the suggestion that came from the hon. member. If he wants to put this right, he can do so by moving an amendment in the Committee Stage to the effect that we should insert this word, and this we will then do. The hon. member may well do so, because then he will also be doing something positive.

I now want to deal with the point the hon. member overlooked and in respect of which he wants to move an amendment. However, the hon. member should listen to me now.

Teacher!

I would rather be a teacher than a pumpkin. The hon. member said that in his opinion there is some kind of discrepancy in the wording of clauses 1 and 10 in that clause 1, which deals with the Transkei, refers to districts, while this is not the case in clause 10, which deals with the other homelands. On the face of it this seems to be the case, but I do not think the hon. member has read the Transkei Constitution Act carefully enough. I think he read it too superficially. At first I also thought the hon. member had a point, but after I had looked it up, I saw what the answer was. In the Transkei Constitution Act it is laid down that the Transkei Legislative Assembly has jurisdiction in a certain number of “Bantu areas”. Then a whole series of regional authority areas are mentioned. In other words, the Constitution does not mention which districts these are; it merely says “Bantu areas”. In the 1971 Act, which deals with the other homelands, the areas in which they have jurisdiction are mentioned. The position is that there are quite a number of White spot towns in the Transkei which are totally different from the other areas. In those towns live Bantu persons to whom these things may possibly be made applicable and who have to be protected by means of measures such as these in those White spot towns, which, strictly speaking, do not fall within the areas of jurisdiction of the Transkei Government. For that reason it is being laid down in this legislation that they are able to do these things in the districts of the towns mentioned. The purpose of this is to define more clearly the area of jurisdiction of the Transkei so that there can be no misunderstanding. It is not necessary for such an area to be defined more closely in clause 10. Apparently the hon. member wants to move an amendment to have this inserted in clause 10. The hon. member was kind enough to let me know about the amendment. I want to tell the hon. member that although such an amendment would not be misplaced, it would be quite unnecessary because, unlike the case of clause 1 regarding the Transkei, it is not essential in the case of clause 10.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? When a legislative assembly is established, the area has to be defined in a proclamation …

That is correct.

In other words, this is the equivalent of the area of jurisdiction over which the legislative assembly is able to exercise its authority?

Yes, as I told the hon. member a moment ago. I explained why these words were being inserted in clause 1, i.e. because the position in respect of the Transkei differs from the other homeland areas. I have already told the hon. member that should the words he proposes be inserted in clause 1 in respect of the other areas, it would not be inappropriate but it would be unnecessary.

You mean clause 10.

Yes, pardon me; it is just the other way round. Clause 1 applies to the Transkei. In other words, it is really unnecessary to insert those words in respect of the other homelands in clause 10, which amends the 1971 Act. As the hon. member apparently knows, the area of the various Bantu homelands are duly defined in the proclamation. I therefore do not think there is any need for the hon. member to move that amendment of his, although he can move the amendment concerning the word “such”.

The hon. member for Rondebosch merely tried to perform here as one would at a school debating society by asking why we are so keen in this case to agree to what is asked for by a homeland government, while in so many other cases we have not agreed. This is the kind of argument one finds in debating societies at school. This is not the kind of debate conducted in this House. If a homeland government asks for something we are able to fit in with our policy and which we can accept as something desirable, we gladly grant its request, as we have done in this case for reasons I have explained fully. To come here and ask why we cannot also agree to the request, for example, that the whole of the Transvaal be handed over to one or other Bantu homeland is a ridiculous thing for the hon. member to do. He said one should take care of the fire-belts. I have already made it clear what value subsection (2) has, in terms of which provision is, in fact, being made for a fire-belt, i.e. that the cooperation of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is required before the homelands will be in a position to take the relevant steps. I think that the whole argument of the hon. member, apart from the fact that, as I have said, it is in the style of a school debating society, is quite idealistic and theoretical.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—104: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Diederichs, N.: Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter. J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A.; P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Win-burg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, G. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and C. J. van der Merwe.

NOES—42: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Caller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and R. J. Lorimer.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, the importance which this side of the House attaches to this debate is of course demonstrated by the participation in it not only of distinguished leading members of this side of the House who have spoken before me, but also of the national leader of our party and of those of his provincial leaders who sit in this House. The Coloured people have been a dominating topic since this Parliament assembled and it need not be stressed that the issues to be decided are urgent and essential, in the interests of all who seek justice and peace in our land. Our attitude has been clear. Our country and the security of our people come first, and our policies, dear as we hold them, must take second place to our country, because there are bigger issues involved than pure political advantage in South Africa. Not only are the people of South Africa waiting anxiously to see how the social, economic and political future of the Coloured people is to be determined, but the world outside watches with interest as well. The relationship between Coloured and White should, after all, be the easiest race question for us to resolve in South Africa. Historically this relationship is the closest between any two groups. There is common ground, based on language, religion, culture and other factors. If we, the Coloured and the White people, cannot find an accommodation acceptable to both groups, how can South Africa possibly hope to find a solution for relationships between groups which some regard as having far less in common? We have heard repeatedly from the Coloured leaders that they believe that the White people of South Africa have rejected them. If this debate is to produce nothing else, it should produce and provide an answer to this challenge. We do not reject the Coloured people; we wish to show not only our feelings and our sincerity but we hope that action resulting from this debate will demonstrate the contrary. I shall respectfully, as others have done, make certain suggestions in this regard.

Why are you reading your speech?

We are all concerned about our security and our safety. The solution of the future of the Coloured people and their relationship with the Whites is essential for our security. Sound race relations is the basis of achieving security in South Africa for us all. The Coloured people have rejected separate development and they have also rejected parallel development. I should like to quote an interpretation of the reason for this—

*The hon. member says the United Party people say this. He is mistaken. I proceed …

†These are not the words of United Party people or of Government critics. These are the words of a Nationalist newspaper, Die Vaderland.

The Coloured people want full citizenship and they want representation in this Parliament. These demands need to be answered clearly by the Government and they need to be answered now. I should like to deal specifically with the political rights of the Coloured people. If we accept that the Government’s policy is to allow all groups in South Africa …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to read his speech?

I hope the hon. member is not reading his speech.

I shall now … [Interjections.] … pick up my notes. [Interjections.] If we accept that the Government’s policy is to allow all groups in South Africa to exercise sovereignty over their own affairs, the Government must tell us how the Coloured people will do this. It is not enough to talk about local self-government, of more power to the Coloured Representative Council. The question is how will the Coloured people have a say over foreign affairs, over defence, over police, over national roads, over railways, etc.? These are all matters of sovereignty. The Government has five courses open to it. Firstly, it can maintain the status quo, establish a fully elected Coloured Representative Council, with more powers, but give the Coloured people no say in the matters which the CRC cannot handle.

Harry, did you write that yourself?

This is a negation of the principle of self-determination, of having a say in the determination of your own destiny. It will not be acceptable to the Coloured people.

Secondly, the Government can create a federal structure, as we in the United Party see it, where the Coloured people will participate in meaningful rights and in sovereignty. This the Nationalist Party has rejected. Thirdly, they can create a Coloured homeland, an impractical solution rejected by at least the majority of the Nationalist Party, but quite clearly not by all of them. Fourthly, they can create a body linking this Parliament and the CRC to deal with sovereignty matters beyond the CRC. If this is merely a consultative or advisory council it will exercise …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to disregard your ruling that he may not read his speech?

Who is in the Chair?

The hon. member may proceed.

May I have injury time too, Sir?

If this is to be merely consultative and advisory, it will exercise no sovereignty, and if it has statutory powers binding on Parliament, then it will in fact be in line with federal thinking which the Government has rejected. In the absence, therefore, of the so-called unique, unspecified and unknown solution mentioned by the Minister of Defence, there is only one other answer, and that is the representation of the Coloured people in Parliament. The Coloured people have asked for this, and in the light of Nationalist rejection of any other realistic solution, what moral justification is there for the Government’s refusal? Sir, the Prime Minister has indicated that this is not Nationalist policy and that it would be necessary for party congresses to change policy on this point. I do not want to comment on what his predecessor did in giving a policy lead, or on the power which we have the confidence to give to our leader on policy issues. But, Sir, there is a higher policy-making body to turn to, and that body is the people. The issue of the Coloured people, their citizenship and the exercise of sovereignty by them, was not a direct issue in the last election. In any case, Sir, if the unique solution for this issue, which the Nationalists are still looking for, was not known, how could the electorate vote on it, because you cannot vote on what is not known to you. I believe that the White electorate, if called upon crisply to decide this issue, would support the concept of representation for the Coloured people in Parliament. A call is therefore made to the Government to hold a referendum on this issue. The challenge to the Government to hold such a referendum is unanswerable. It is a test of White South Africa’s willingness to face the challenge of tomorrow. Sir, are we going to comply with the requirements of the modern world and take this meaningful step to ensure our security? Events are moving fast and courageous action is needed. The Prime Minister has the power today to negotiate with the Coloured people for this representation in Parliament, and he can do it now without a referendum. If he wants to test White opinion, or if he wants the backing of the Whites for such an action, the door is open to him and he can do it.

Sir, it has been quite incorrectly stated that the presence of Coloureds in this House would not be acceptable to the United Party. Sir, U.P. policy requires the Coloured people, like all other groups, to be represented in a federal assembly. It accepts the logical conclusion that such Assembly would have to exercise meaningful sovereign powers, as otherwise the concept would be a fraud and merely disguised “baasskap”. The policy allows for groups to come together, and our leader has said that the United Party will work to bring White and Coloured people closer together. The presence of Coloured people in Parliament would merely mean that they would form part of the regulating body which would transfer power to a federal assembly; there would therefore be no difficulty in implementing United Party policy if we came into power. But, Sir, we are not in power and we have to be realistic; we have to do everything that we can to encourage this Government to take steps in the interests of South Africa to reach an accord with the Coloured people, because South Africa’s interests come first and not the petty political interests of any political party, whether it be the Nationalists or whether it be ourselves; South Africa comes first. The suggestion that we should wait for the Theron Commission to report is also without substance. As the Prime Minister has said, policy is not determined by a commission, and a reference to Hansard clearly shows that. Sir, time is running out, and this issue is one which must be decided by the Whites and the Coloured people now; it cannot be left to a commission to make recommendations to us. The commission can deal with the social and economic upliftment of the Coloured people; it can deal with matters of that sort, but the political decisions must be made by the Coloured people and by the White people. Sir, there is a further matter, and that is that the days of paternalism are over. This is no time for small gestures. Citizenship is a term which must not be used in a casual manner; it must be meaningful and we must know what the implications are of giving citizenship to the Coloured people. Sir, it means true equality of opportunity; it means a real effort to remove the disadvantages which history has imposed upon the Coloured people, and that is what the answer must be from this House. [Time expired.]

Sir, whether hon. members opposite take it amiss of me or not, I am not going to discuss political policy directions. I am here to represent the administration and the running of this department. But you will forgive me, Sir, if I make one remark arising out of the speech that has just been made and about certain others last Friday, too. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, made the remark, inter alia, while arguing why he wanted the Government to do certain things which his party did not see its way clear to doing, and which the Progressive Party actually wanted to do, that the question of political rights was not an election issue during the election. But apparently the hon. member must have gone through the election with his eyes and ears shut tight. I also just want to refer to a statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the other day which was repeated here this afternoon, namely that it is that party’s standpoint that via the federal policy, the Coloureds must be accommodated politically in a federal parliament, a term which, up to a few weeks ago, hon. members opposite did not want to accept as allegedly constituting a federal parliament. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further and said that since this Government was in power, and he advocated a unitary policy, the only solution was that direct representation here be given to the Coloureds. But then the hon. member went on to argue that if the two communities were to grow towards each other, they could eventually be accommodated together politically. In this connection he made this illuminating point—

†Now, if we should be working in that direction, why propagate another policy? Why propagate the federal policy? Why do you not start off immediately with this particular policy?

*The other day, the hon. member for Maitland said that the Coloureds did not know what the Government’s standpoint was on their political future. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself made that remark. Now I want to tell hon. members that this is in fact a debate that concerns the administration of the department. He has already had three opportunities during this session to discuss that point with the Prime Minister. But there will be yet another opportunity this afternoon. My hon. Minister will deal with the matter here. But I want to tell this to hon. members. When they reproach us on this side, as the hon. member for Maitland did, of talking to the two million Coloureds and not with them, then I do not think that that is a valid reproach. In contrast, hon. members on this side who took part in the debate spoke very responsibly. But what is more, thanks to the machinery for consultation established over the years in terms of the policy of this side of the House, discussions from the lowest to the highest level are conducted daily between the authorities in question and Coloured leaders and Coloured authorities. In recent months the hon. the Prime Minister, together with the hon. the Minister, has conducted discussions with leaders of the various Coloured political parties and has put his standpoint to them clearly. At other levels, too, discussions take place regularly. If one looks at the past five years, at the way in which the management committees and the advisory committees have grown in numbers, to the extent that today we are almost at the point of establishing the first true Coloured municipalities, then that is surely evolution, surely discussion is taking place in an orderly manner, and surely there is progress.

And not only at those levels, but at other levels too, discussion is taking place, and at all levels there is opportunity for Coloured leaders for consultation, as the hon. the Prime Minister called it recently, with the Whites concerned. I could just mention for the information of hon. members opposite that as regards the composition of advisory committees, advisory councils of technical institutions, of training colleges and of special Coloured schools, the request made by the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council was that the number of Coloured representatives on those specific bodies, which was two in most cases, be increased to three. I can also tell hon. members that this department has already approved the increase, not only to three, but to only one less than half. I can also point out to hon. members that in important commissions, such as the Theron Commission, Coloureds are engaged in consulting with Whites on the future of the Coloured. It has already been approved that a larger number of the members of the Council of the University of the Western Cape will consist of Coloureds. I could spend a lot of time giving the committee examples of this kind so as to point out how progress is being made under the policy of this Government by way of consultation, of dialogue.

In his speech the other day, the hon. member for Malmesbury, in contrast to hon. members on that side who have spoken, evinced a personal, intense interest in this matter. I am aware that the hon. member even acts as chairman of a local labour committee in his constituency and has done outstanding work in this connection. It was in the course of discussions with him in his constituency and with other gentlemen serving on the local labour committee for Coloureds that the idea occurred to me that the time had come when we could take a further step forward in this direction. Hon. members will recall that committees of this kind were introduced some time ago by the then Minister of Coloured Affairs, the present Minister of Defence. At the time, provision was made for a Cabinet committee, an inter-departmental committee and a public committee which could consider the situation over a broad field, and also for local labour committees charged, in particular with activating and motivating the Coloured so that his labour could be turned to best account in order among other things, to replace Bantu labour in the greater Western Cape.

That will be the day.

The hon. member says “That will be the day”, but the work of those labour committees has had such success that in the case of the State and local authorities in the Western Cape, as employers, from 1962 when the committee was announced, to 1973, the number of Coloureds in the employ of bodies in the Western Cape increased by 28 764 while the number of Bantu in their employ increased only slightly. It virtually remained constant. From this it is clear-as the hon. member for Malmesbury rightly said, that the task entrusted to those committees has been completed and that new tasks await them.

Has their task been completed and the Bantu removed?

If the hon. member will be quiet a little, I shall point out to him important progress in this sphere. It is clear that the Coloureds in the Western Cape are today virtually fully employed in posts the conditions of service of which are steadily improving, and that their salary structures are steadily improving. It is therefore time to give attention to the task of the local labour committees and to consider additional spheres of activity to be entered upon by institutions of this kind. Many of the committees have in the meantime ceased to function owing to the completion of their initial task, but what is important, as the hon. member for Malmesbury said, is that in the course of the deliberations of the committees, it became clear that there is a real need for contact with Coloured leaders at a local level in order to discuss problems with the White committees and resolve them locally on a mutual basis.

I can announce today that because the recognition of human dignity is one of the basic principles of the policy of separate development, in order to ensure, as far as possible, the peaceful co-existence of population groups with their own cultural patterns of life, it often occurs, under the pressure of a programme that is over-loaded daily, that there are disturbances at the level of local relations. A large percentage of the country’s domestic problems can be ascribed to misunderstandings and friction in the sphere of relations between the local population groups. Bottlenecks that one often comes across at the level of personal contact, in particular, are often fastened upon as being symbolic of the South African situation or pattern of life. For that reason the department has considered it advisable to give these committees a new name and a new task in order to act as public relations committees in local communities with a multitude of tasks. These would not, in the first place, be concerned only with labour, but would be concerned with a wide variety of matters, for example the establishment of better relations between the various groups in that local community, and the advancement of especially that group among the Coloureds that has lagged behind, in other words, how they may be assisted at local level in achieving higher ideals. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, what have we had from the Opposition in this important debate on the Coloureds? We have had a spectacle of pessimism and defeatism. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition took the lead with a speech larded with prophecies of doom and dangerous language. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about crisis upon crisis, about “catastrophe”, “desperation”, “The position is ugly” and “threatened violence”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said ugly and dangerous things, but we did not hear a word from him about the wealth of good things which the Government is doing for the Coloureds in this country. Every time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stands up in the House, he tries to outbid the Progressive Party, and every time the bait he offers is bigger and better. The hon. member for Maitland said that he wonders what a Coloured, if he could attend the whole debate, would think of this.

Yes.

The Brown man is now asking what he can expect next from the United Party.

What about the Government?

They are asking what the United Party is going to offer the next time Parliament convenes. Since the United Party is constantly changing its policy, the Coloured is justified in asking what the United Party would eventually offer if it were ever to come to power. All the bidding is aimed at outdoing the Progressive Party and silencing the Young Turks, but none of this will help. The Coloureds know these people too well already.

What people?

The United Party has a poor record as far as the Coloureds are concerned. One day they want the Coloureds in this Parliament and the next day they want a federal parliament for the Coloureds. Now they are back to their old policy again. Now they come and tell us that we might as well bring the Coloureds back to this Parliament. What are they going to tell us to do about the Coloured the day after tomorrow? Probably that will only depend on which group in that party wins the marathon in-fighting in the United Party, the Young Turks or the Old Guard. Let us inspect the record of the United Party in regard to the Coloureds in this country. The United Party has fought election after election, court case after court case and they have fought through night sittings in this House to keep the Coloureds on a common voters’ roll. They did this, as they said at the time, to keep to their so-called word of honour which they had given the Coloureds. Subsequently, however, we had the biggest political somersault in the history of the country. After that bitter struggle, they threw the common voters’ roll overboard and accepted a separate voters’ roll for the Coloureds. By doing so they threw their word of honour which they had given the Coloureds, to the political winds. Now the United Party is a party without a word of honour. What right have they to expect the Coloureds to believe them again? What right have they to expect the Coloureds to trust them in this matter? Under United Party rule, the Coloured people was a forgotten population group that was lagging behind. Many lived in slum conditions and were used as voting cattle, but I do not want to go back to that old history. The road of the United Party is scattered with pieces of broken promises to the Coloureds. Under them the Coloureds were, socially and economically, a neglected population group and now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is again retreating towards that untenable situation. Once again he wants us to give the Coloureds inferior representation in this Parliament. He stated this here on Friday. We are not prepared to follow the path that leads to the downfall of both White and Coloured in this country. The National Party is engaged in seeking self-determination for the Coloureds, but progress will not be made as long as the Coloured allows himself to be influenced and as long as some of them believe in a false idea, namely that self-determination will be achieved by way of integration. The intentions of those Whites who propose integration with the Coloured, like my hon. friends of the Progressive Party on that side, are not honest, because they know that they would treat the Coloureds as third-rate integrated people.

That is nonsense.

They would treat the Coloureds as third-rate people with insufficient merit or money to swim in the Sea Point swimming bath. We want a better dispensation for the Coloureds than that.

As the Senator in charge of the interests of the Coloureds in the Free State, I was concerned with their problems for more than four years. I drove from town to town to view conditions and I addressed the children in classroom after classroom. I sat with their leaders around a table and listened to them and talked with them. What did I find? I found that the conservative, responsible Coloured had a great deal of confidence in this Government and in our Prime Minister. In the hon. Mr. Voster they see a just leader with an honest approach and they believe that he will not leave them in the lurch. They realize that their salvation lies with the Whites. They tell one frankly that they fear the day that White rule in this country founders. More than one of them told me on occasion: “You Whites really must not leave us in the lurch.”

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that the Coloured is becoming estranged from the Afrikaner. What has my experience been in this regard? The struggle and success of the Afrikaner has made a very deep impression on the mind of the Coloureds in this country. For many of them it has also become an ideal to work themselves up from an inferior position as the Afrikaner did. Nowhere did I hear that the Coloured pinned his hopes on the Opposition. The crisis speech made here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not make an impression on them. The Coloureds with a sense of gratitude know that this Government has given them a platform on which they can put their case and that the Government has given them the opportunity to establish their own political parties and to have their own Parliament and channels of communication which serve as open doors to discuss the future and to plan the future. They know that their future in this country will depend largely on what the Nationalist Government is going to do for them. They have confidence in the Nationalist Government because they know that the Nationalist Government will create just as good a future for the Coloured as it desires for itself. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose, in the short time available to me, to go into the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North in any depth, other than to say that as far as my recollection serves me, he represents a party which can in no wise criticise anybody else in regard to their attitude to the Coloured people. Within my own period in this place I recollect statements by the late Dr. Verwoerd and assurances that the Coloured representation which they had in this House would not be taken away. I recollect commissions or talks in the years 1967 and 1968 when the overwhelming tenor of the evidence was that those people should retain their representation in this House. I believe I am correct in saying that when that representation was finally done away with by the Nationalist Party, it was not even as a result of a reference to or decision by any of the National Party congresses.

What was interesting in the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North is that, in my view, it typifies what has been the worst aspect of this debate, namely a total refusal by hon. members opposite to face up either to the urgency of the times or to what is demanded of a debate of this kind in this House. Where did this debate begin? It began with a speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a speech of greater gravity and dignified authority than I have ever heard him make in this House, on a matter which is on the lips of every serious-minded person in South Africa today, namely that we can no longer go on with a policy and an administration in respect of the Coloured people such as we have at the present time. Indeed, nobody has pointed that out more starkly than the hon. the Minister of Defence. What did he say? He said on a number of occasions that we must seek a unique solution to this problem. What does that mean? I quite agree with the Minister to an extent. This means in respect of my party and the federal policy it stands for that he sees no answer in that regard. I do not agree with him there, but that is what he said. But it means quite equally in respect of the policy of the National Party, namely the policy of apartheid or separate development, that he sees no solution there either. If he did we would not be asked to seek a unique solution.

Let us come back to this debate. We have had from speaker after speaker on the Government benches reference to matters such as education, the number of teachers that are employed in Coloured education, the number of schools that have been built, the advisory committees that have been appointed, the fact that additional Coloured representation is to be placed on the council of the University of the Western Cape and so on. In normal times, these would be matters of importance to be discussed, but in our current situation they are, with respect, totally irrelevant. They are irrelevant, because the debate in the country today is not whether we are building enough schools or whether we are training enough teachers for the Coloured schools. The debate today is the destiny of the Coloured people, and the destiny of the Coloured people is not a matter for commissions of inquiry but for politicians. It is a political question and it is a matter for inquiry, discussion and debate in this House. That is what speakers on this side of the House have endeavoured to do over and over again for the last two days. But this does not constitute a debate, because however good the speeches from this side—there have been outstanding speeches on this very subject—the ball never gets thrown back because there is a studious refusal by hon. gentlemen opposite to come anywhere near a discussion on the destiny of the Coloured people, that is to say the political question of the day. What is the danger in this? The danger in this is that this House becomes increasingly irrelevant in that one sphere in which it should have supreme relevance. Hon. gentlemen opposite are making this House and this Parliament, in the field of the destiny of the Coloured people, irrelevant.

That is running away from your duty. It is shirking your responsibility. It brings about a greater danger: When once this House becomes irrelevant in an important field of public affairs, as my hon. friend for Maitland put it so graphically, the future of two million people is at stake. When once this House, in their eyes and in the eyes of others outside, allows itself to become irrelevant, other authorities might take its place. Other action might take its place, which will flow from a feeling of despair. As long as we debate it and keep the initiative in these debates here, there can be no feeling of despair outside. But if we allow it to go by default by our refusal to debate these issues, there is a danger that outside there will be a feeling of despair. From despair flows action very often that is afterwards matter to be regretted.

I believe that sums up fairly the total inadequacy of the debate we have had here during the last two days. It sums up that total inadequacy—I say it again—because of the studied refusal, which must be part of a plan, by hon. gentlemen opposite to debate the destiny of the Coloured people. There is one person who can save this debate from wreck. There is one person who can restore the relevance of this House on a matter which has reached, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, almost crisis proportions. That is the hon. the Minister. There is one person alone who can save this debate and this House from total irrelevance, and that is the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs. I hope that when he comes in at the conclusion of this debate, he will restore some relevance to the proceedings by debating from the Government benches for the first time the destiny, as he sees it, of the Coloured people in South Africa. As I say, that is the work of politicians, of Ministers and of statesmen; it is not the work of commissions.

I had hoped during these ten minutes to deal with one group of Coloured people who have not so far been dealt with in this debate, and that is those who happen to live in the province which I present, Natal. However, in the few minutes that are left to me, I would like to touch merely on a number of points. Because of this refusal to deal with the political destiny of these people, there is so much greater hardship attendant upon the lives of many Coloured communities in Natal than elsewhere in South Africa. I need only mention the destiny of those who live north of the Tugela, who are still living under the cloud of uncertainty as to whether they are to continue living there or not. These communities live in settled areas, such as Sunnydale. The hon. the Minister knows the area. They are living there in terms of freehold tenure of their properties. They have to live there by permit, because their future is not settled. I refer, for instance, to the Dunn community, whose land at last is apparently to be given to them, having been promised to them since 1934. The hon. the Minister is nodding his head. I am very glad to have seen that. However, I wonder if the hon. the Minister realizes—I believe he does—that amongst the descendants of the Dunns there are some persons who are now registered as Whites. Are they to be permitted to inherit their land, which is rightfully theirs, simply because they carry a card different from the others in the community in which they are to live?

[Inaudible.]

I wish to refer to the inability of many of these communities to raise bonds to build houses, because it is not known whether the land upon which they are living at the present time is in future to be theirs. I am thinking of the future of communities such as those near Harding, who are engaged in agriculture on their own farming properties, but who are threatened with eviction because of consolidation proposals in respect of KwaZulu. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. member, I should like to tell him that I do not want to anticipate the hon. the Minister but there is something that is causing us on this side to wonder what is going on on that side. This is that the hon. member again came along with the point that we should decide on the political future of the Coloured today, something he could have done on three previous occasions this year. We are to react to a proposal coming from his hon. leader, while we do not understand everything it involves. Does it involve the federal policy of the United Party or does it involve something else which he said he would also accept and in the direction of which, he said, we should really be moving? [Interjections.] I should be very pleased if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would tell me which of the two apply to his party and himself. He announces one and he states that he would also accept another one and he added that we should really be moving in that direction.

I want to come back to the matter I was dealing with a short time ago just before my time expired. I want to tell hon. members that favourable attitudes and local human relations are not things one can provide for by means of legislation. They rest on the development of an inner attitude and form part of a process of education and evolution that necessarily demands time and patience. To that I want to add that this demands from both sides a preparedness to co-operate. It does not require that one side only should do every thing. To stimulate this process of education and evolution and place it on a more ordered basis, the intention is to establish committees at certain places in South Africa on which both Whites and Coloureds will serve and which will make it their aim to operate in spheres where friction between the two population groups may develop. The idea is that these committees, by means of regular deliberations, could collectively consider steps to eliminate cases in their midst where relationships were disturbed. The purpose of these White /Brown committees is not to serve as a platform to air grievances but to serve as a means or instrument by means of which mutual relations can be reciprocally promoted. In this field the committees are undoubtedly facing a new, important and major task.

You want them on these multi-racial committees but not in this Parliament.

These committees as far as the White representatives are concerned may comprise, for example, a representative of the municipality, divisional council or religious denomination, a headmaster or a member of a farmers’ association, welfare organization, Chamber of Commerce or Sakekamer. On the Coloured side it would perhaps be the local member of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, a member of the management committee of the local religious denomination, a local Coloured headmaster or inspector of education, a member of a welfare organization or a person doing welfare work and also, where these already exist, a member of a Chamber of Commerce or Sakekamer. These committees will be empowered to co-opt people as they see fit. The committees will be recognized by the State and the members will be ministerially appointed. These committees will operate under the control of the Department of Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs. The idea is that these committees will meet quite often, at least four times annually.

I also want to mention the spheres of activity in which these committees will operate. Because the situation varies from town to town or from community to community, the spheres of activity in which the committees should operate cannot be clearly specified at this stage. The following matters could serve as a basis: Labour matters, wage structures, conditions of service, welfare matters, housing problems, education matters, recreational facilities, transport facilities, etc. The committees themselves should determine in which spheres of activity they should operate in local communities. With the agreement of the hon. the Minister of Justice, the magistrates of the various towns will be relied on in this regard to find suitable persons to serve on these committees and also to undertake the launching of these committees. The Department of Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs is at present giving attention to aspects of detail and a further announcement relating to this matter will be made as soon as possible.

Sir, I listened attentively to the announcement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do not think anyone could have any objections to this form of liaison. It will perhaps serve the purpose of eliminating mutual misconceptions. The question which arises, of course, is what powers such a committee has. Perhaps I could illustrate this against the background of the governing party’s policy in respect of effective participation in political institutions by the Coloured population, and that is the policy of multiple liaison at as many levels as possible. What does this liaison amount to, Sir? In effect this liaison, too, merely amounts to precisely what the hon, the Deputy Minister has said. In other words, it is consultation; it is conducting dialogue with each other; it is an attempt to afford the Coloured population an opportunity, in so far as they are making use of this machinery, of being able to tell the real powers that be what their problems are and then to make requests and hope that something can be done about them. The real point here is effective participation. I have noticed that there is a tendency on that side of the House to draw a distinction, especially in respect of the Coloured population, between political matters on the one hand and socio-economic matters on the other, as though it would be possible for one to say to a population group. “Now go ahead and uplift yourselves; improve your socio-economic, social and educational circumstances, but do so without effective participation in political institutions.”

What is our policy?

Our policy is very clear; it is not necessary for me to repeat it now; my time is limited. Sir, surely it is very clear that this is not happening anywhere else in the world. If we look at the history of the Afrikaner in South Africa in particular, it is clear that there was a period, especially the period of urbanization and the period of the depression, when the Afrikaner undoubtedly experienced tremendous socio-economic hardships, and when he, as it were, uplifted himself by means of entering into and participating in the available political institutions of this country; the one is as closely bound up with the other as one could wish. Without that effective participation no upliftment or development can take place. Sir, this is strikingly illustrated by the very reaction of all the members of the Coloured population serving on these liaison committees, from the highest down to the lowest levels. Time and again they come back to the Government and say, “It is no use; we must have clarity; what is the nature of the effective executive power we have on all these levels of government? If we cannot take decisions which are enforceable to the extent that they will have a real effect in changing our circumstances of life, then we are taking part in a political ritual which fulfils no function in respect of our own upliftment.” This is actually the cul-de-sac in which we find ourselves at this stage now that we have in fact established this machinery, and now that everyone is aware of the necessity of the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloured population. I do not think there is any quarrel about that on this side of the House. This side of the House does not resent the Government for building houses and making schools available to the Coloureds; that is not the point at issue; there is unanimity on that, also as far as all other non-White population groups in South Africa are concerned. Sir, the point at issue is this: When will this population group have effective access to political decision-making? Sir, if one does not spell this out, it serves no purpose. This is not what I am saying; this is being said by all the leaders of the Coloured population who are making use of these institutions. They have been telling us this clearly. At the recent meeting of the Federal Party they themselves said that they had reached a stage where they had come to the conclusion that it no longer availed them to speak in terms of the policy of separate development; that they wanted effective participation in the institutions of power of this country, and this, Mr. Chairman, must be replied to; and why is a reply not being given? Sir, I want to suggest a possible reply. One reason why there is no reply to this from the Government side, is that there are real doubts and conflict in their own ranks. Let us not try to conceal it; it is very clear from the pronouncements we have had. That is why I cannot help agreeing with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Especially in this debate one really gains the impression of irrelevance when listening to the reaction from that side of the House. Why? Once again because all the attention is being absorbed within their own caucus in deciding what course they want to take as far as the Coloureds are concerned. It is very clear. The hon. member for Waterberg is laughing at me. He is one of the problems in that caucus, and he knows it. Just ask the hon. member for Moorreesburg; he knows precisely what it is about. But what does it actually amount to? It means that the Coloured population and the whole of South Africa now have to sit and wait until a few verkrampte members on that side of the House have eventually seen the light and are prepared to make concessions which will strengthen the hon. the Minister’s hand so that he may take a particular course. Sir, I just want to sound the warning that we shall find ourselves in a situation where that side of the House is still going to be debating this matter in their own ranks, at which time it will be far too late and they will be overwhelmed by circumstances which have become completely beyond their control. And now I am not speaking lightly, Sir. It is clear to me, through the limited measure of contact I have had with Coloured leaders and the Coloured youth, that there is increasing dissatisfaction, that there is a feeling that they have, as it were, become a political football in National Party quarrels, and that their future has to depend on the outcome of those quarrels. Sir, I want to make an appeal to that side of the House to settle those quarrels as soon as possible and to decide on what course to adopt, for we cannot take part here, year after year, in a Coloured debate in which nothing concrete is said in connection with the political future of the Coloureds.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat and his party constitute the second official Opposition, and the fact that we have an official Opposition and another opposition today, as we have had to hear so many times over, is the very consequence of division on that side of the House in connection with this very important matter we are debating today. If the hon. member is waiting for division on this side, or if he wants to suggest that we are playing a waiting game so as to obtain the concurrence of certain people, he is making a very big mistake. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that, when the hon. Cape leader, the hon. the Minister of Defence, spoke about a unique solution at a youth congress, he was most decidedly not thinking of the United Party solution, for that solution has been offered to us in a great variety of forms over the years. [Interjections.] On Friday we had it once again from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said—

That was their old idea, until just recently—

So, in one breath the hon. member abandons his old policy and says: “If you do not agree with it and do not want to accept it, I now offer you a new policy.” [Interjections.] It is as someone said one day, “Those are my principles, but if you do not like them I have some others.” [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville made the statement, “We do not reject the Coloured people”. Would he be insinuating that the Government or members on this side reject the Coloured population? If that is what he is insinuating, I say it is a very malicious insinuation. If we are seeking the solution to this population issue along the road of parallel development, separate development on the pattern of parallel development, we are definitely not rejecting the Coloured population. On the contrary; I want to tell the hon. member that this in fact pre-supposes, in respect of the Coloured population, a different situation to separate development in respect of the Bantu peoples of South Africa.

Another form of discrimination and another form of supremacy.

If he does not understand it, he should do a bit of reading and research in connection with what the leaders of the National Party have said about this matter over the years.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred most respectfully to the speech of his hon. leader and the large measure of earnestness and dignity with which it was made here. He came along with the idea that “the destiny of the Coloured people is a political question and must be discussed and decided in this House”. I think it is only the Leader of the United Party who can announce a new policy from time to time without his consulting his congresses in advance. Where would it get us if the policy statements made here were not backed outside by the population groups concerned. The standpoint and policy of the National Party are that the congresses of the National Party decide on policy and that they give direction in determining policy.

Was this also the case in Dr. Verwoerd’s time? [Interjections.]

I must point out that the United Party’s experience of congresses is very bad, for at congresses they have usually become divided or have usually been unable to reach unanimity.

May I put a question?

Yes, if the hon. member does not speak for too long.

At which congress, prior to the 1970 election, did the National Party request permission for the abolition of Coloured representation in Parliament?

It was decided beforehand that this would happen, and it was debated and decided at various congresses. [Interjections.] I can tell the hon. member that it was decided at various congresses, and earlier requests of this nature had been addressed to the Government by various congresses too.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made the complaint and the hon. member for Rondebosch expressed the idea that the hon. the Deputy Minister made certain announcements about progress in this or that direction, but that the political dispensation and situation were in fact of paramount importance. I want to point out, however, that the political situation and the granting of political rights are in fact the difficult and dangerous aspects of this situation, for it is the political situation which can dominate the economic and the social aspects. In applying one’s mind to political rights, one therefore has to do so with due regard to the implications thereof. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition proposed direct representation, but the Whites and the Coloureds and even the Coloured leaders would very much like to know what content the proposal of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has. His proposal sounds very nice, but does he want to make room in Parliament for two, six or eight Coloured representatives or does he want to make provision for 20, 40 or 60? Does he accept by means of his proposal a motion which was before the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council that those members should all come and take their places here? This is, after all, a proposal which came from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but can he not give some content to this fine proposal of his which has to find a response and be taken further? Can he not show that he has the courage of his convictions and at least say whether he is making provision for 20 or 40 Coloured representatives? [Interjections.] The speeches or policy statements of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are always of this nature. Anything is possible in any direction and one has to ask him to give indications. What is of importance and what this is about, is the following: Will the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council be abolished and will room be made for full political representation of the Coloured population in Parliament if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s policy announcement is implemented? Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition give us a reply to this now that he has consulted with his hon. Chief Whip? [Interjections.]

Order!

I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still has to lean over to the side of the hon. member for Yeoville; perhaps he has the key idea. I repeat the thought that before this proposal or suggestion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can be considered seriously, he will have to give us more particulars. He should at least give an indication of how many representatives of the Coloured population group he envisages will have sitting in this Parliament as direct representatives of the Coloured population. [Interjections.] This is a difficult question. The hon. member simply set a cat among the pigeons and it is difficult to get down to details at this stage, for the United Party’s policy has always been a broad policy without details.

I want to say that consideration is being given to the political situation and that it will be given further consideration by the National Party from time to time. I want to state, and with that I want to conclude, that there are other matters affecting the Coloured population which are just as important and more dominant than the political situation. Hon. members must not tell us that the Coloureds have no say today. Through the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and the executive they are participating actively in not only political life but also in their own socio-economic upliftment today. I want to tell hon. members today that the housing situation in South Africa in respect of the Coloured population is far more important and far more urgent than the political situation. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that he should take a bus or his car and go and have a look at Klipriviersoog near Johannesburg …

Yes, I have been there.

… at the conditions under which thousands of people are living in South Africa.

After 26 years of National Party policy.

I told the hon. member that that was the remains of integration. Those are what are left of the slum conditions which prevailed under the old dispensation.

They have a United Party city council.

What is more, it is well known that the Johannesburg City Council, who are people over whom the United Party has influence, has over the years obstructed the Government’s policy of making provision for non-White housing. There is no doubt about that.

Give the City Council the money and they will build the houses.

I want to conclude by making a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. It is a more serious question how we can solve the housing problem of the Coloured population or help them to solve it themselves.

You must first put a stop to removals.

I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister with a view to a possible reply, for I expect nothing from the hon. member for Yeoville. I doubt whether we in South Africa will ever be able to solve the housing question of our Coloured population without the active and united support of the Coloured population itself. We do not have the manpower and we do not have the capital to do so. For that reason I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Government to consider establishing a system of national service for Coloureds, a system of national service which, in the first place, should be adjusted to making thousands of young Coloureds available annually, young Coloureds who can help to build houses. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the previous discussions which we have had in regard to the Coloureds in South Africa and in regard to relations with the Coloureds, have always followed a stereotyped pattern. They were always dominated by a tendency on both sides to score political points, and the harder the dig and the more vociferous the protest on the opposite side, the greater the jubilation on one’s own side. I must say that I was somewhat disappointed that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who occupies a very responsible place in our political community, once again took the lead on Friday in respect of this kind of political speech on the weal and woe of a population group which is not directly represented here. He was followed by other hon. speakers who then became embroiled in a continuous fight, a fight of give and take, of meting out and being on the receiving end. I do not want to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude, for I can also plead guilty to a certain extent to having also, in previous debates, indulged in this type of debating tactic. However, we cannot keep on talking at cross purposes on important matters such as these, each defending his own point of view. Discussions in such a spirit, particularly on our Coloureds, should disappear for the sake of the future of the country. Hon. members must realize in the first place, and this is an actual fact, that whatever happens in the immediate future in respect of the political future of the Coloured community and whatever changes they may be visualizing, these can only come about with the assistance of the Government and with the assistance of National Party supporters. I agree with a columnist who observed a little while ago that this placed a terrifying responsibility on the shoulders of the National Party Government. This is true. There is no doubt about the mandate which this Government received at the last election. Hon. members should not try to gloss over it by saying that it was not an issue, for it was a very clear issue which was thrashed out on every political platform. A policy of separate development was decided on as far as the Coloureds were concerned. This is an actual fact.

But no one knows what it means.

Perhaps you do not know, but there are other people who have a better understanding of Coloured politics. It is an actual fact which no honourable Government can suddenly lose sight of and deceive the voters. Other elections may entail other mandates. It was and still is implicit in this policy that it will not remain stagnant, but will be developed to greater clarity and to better acceptance, especially by those people in respect of whom we are carrying out this policy, for without the consent of a significant portion of those people, whether they have been correct or incorrect in their judgment, one will never be able to achieve success with this policy. In addition, the idea that a policy can continue to be negatively enforced regardless of changing circumstances, the demands of the times and a greater understanding of the policy in a time such as this, is not really relevant as far as the Government is concerned, and therefore need not even be debated. We are in agreement on that score. I want to say to the hon. members that this Government is the instrument, and will be the instrument for further and even dynamic changes through orderly adjustments.

It is necessary at the outset quickly to clear the air in regard to a little matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised. Apart from his criticism of the Government’s policy—and I concede that he has the right to criticize it—the hon. the Leader in my opinion really displayed a little too much piety on Friday with his offer to the Government to support us provided we had achieved a consensus with the Coloureds when the hon. the Prime Minister and I addressed the Coloured political parties on 5 September of this year. You will recall that I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by way of an interjection why he had not informed us of this. I had really meant to ask him why he had not informed us of this in advance. However, he caught my meaning and replied—

Hon. members should note that he said “the day before”—

Then he proceeded to attack the development of the Government’s policy. Why am I furnishing these details? I am doing so for a specific reason. This has a bearing on the attitude which we display when we adopt a pious attitude in regard to the Coloured policy. The first newspaper report which the Prime Minister and I set eyes on which dealt with this offer, appeared the evening after our discussions had been held. It appeared in The Argus of the Afternoon of 5 September. It came to our attention for the first time that evening, and in addition to the attention of the public for the first time. Even the Coloured leaders did not know about it. They, too, found out about it for the first time that evening. The statement “the day before”, seen in the light of what the hon. the Leader had in mind, namely to make a big issue of his offer, does, as far as I am concerned, call his credibility in question. Perhaps he could explain this matter to us again by way of a newspaper report. The method which he adopted was, to say the least, unworthy of him. One is forced to think that the nature of this statement and its timing was aimed at camouflaging the full reversal of the policy which he had still been describing only a few weeks before as a “mistake”, so that Whites and Coloureds could see it in retrospect as a noble attempt to prevent a deadlock. If the hon. the Leader had supposedly wanted to be so earnest and sincere, what was wrong in discussing such an important matter with the Prime Minister in advance and informing him of it in advance? I can assure him that it would have been appreciated, for the two of them have come a long way together. But what do we have now? The United Party is prepared to make any policy switch, despite its policy statements to its voters. As a result of a climate of tension which is being generated, together with crisis thinking, he is now prepared to have direct representation for the Coloureds in this Parliament, but this he states in carefully chosen words, which is once again indicative of ambiguity. He stated it as follows—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is unfortunately not present here, stated the matter in even wider terms by saying that “the method of giving the Coloureds a co-say on the highest level could be discussed”. He mentioned as an alternative to a confederation; a federation of a unitary system as possibilities. Surely it is correct to say now that the United Party, with all its ifs and examples, is making way even for the policy of the National Party. In fact, they are making way for everyone’s policies. All that I am asking them in all sincerity today is that if they really want to give the Coloureds representation here, they must also spell out to those people precisely what this entails, so that they will themselves have clarity in this regard as well. All our people need to be educated, not only the Whites and not only certain Coloureds. The Coloured Labour Party, which at the recent election obtained a majority by a few votes in the CRC, are requesting immediate direct representation, based on a general voters’ roll without qualifications. Hon. members may analyse the newspaper reports; that is what it amounts to. Hon. members cannot bluff them with any of the qualifications or reservations with which they think they can bluff people in 1974. That party need have no doubt at all about that. But if the United Party decides otherwise and decides first to reach a consensus with the Government and subsequently approach these people, we must receive an honourable indication of this. We will then know where we stand with the United Party. I should now like to leave this matter, for I have said what I wanted to say now, and have got it off my chest.

Since the Opposition has indicated through the hon. the member for Port Elizabeth Central that “the stakes are too high and too urgent to try to make political gain out of this issue”, I want to request the Opposition to put such objectives, regarded at their face value, into practice. The Government would welcome this; it would be in the interests of the whole of South Africa, of White people as well as Brown people, if our political parties ceased to use Coloured policy for political gain and preferably placed this above politics once and for all, for any party which bears the responsibility of government—today it is this party—has to deal with difficult, practical situations. I do not have a great deal to say about the responsibilities which I bear, but we are dealing with a factual situation which is not easily reconcilable with the theoretical solutions which we always have to offer in this House. I can assure hon. members of that.

I should like to refer now to contributions made by hon. members to this debate.

†Perhaps I should start with the hon. member for Yeoville, who spoke first this afternoon. The hon. member stated that party and policy must take second place to the interests of our country. I cannot agree with him more. That is so. As a statement of fact, I have no fault to find with it. This is precisely not only what this Government has always had in mind, but it is actually what we are doing and the goal we have set ourselves in the future. I want to tell him this: Clichés, emotions and speeches that might not intend to incite but do nevertheless, are of no use. They do not aid us in coming to conclusions.

[Inaudible].

If the hon. member wants to ask me a question I am quite prepared to answer it.

If the hon. the Minister is sincere in what he is saying now, why has he spent the last ten minutes attacking the Leader of the Opposition when he made a sincere endeavour to help in solving the problems?

A sincere man does not harbour feelings within himself; he clears the air. I cleared the air; that was all I did.

With a lot of unpleasantness.

There was no unpleasantness at all. I did not even read any unpleasantness on the face of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Were you doubting his credibility?

Well, in that case, there is ample opportunity for him to correct that. I may be under a misconception in that regard. As I said many of these problems mentioned by the hon. member cannot be solved by these clichés and the speeches we make, problems that have accumulated over 120 and more years, not within one or two years. For that we need á lot more understanding. I do not want to be derogatory towards the hon. member. I accept his sincerity, but he must not become panic-stricken about the present situation. It may be serious but it is not necessary to go about making decisions in panic.

Now I come to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. This hon. member always applies himself to the problems which confront him in the area he hails from, and I appreciate that. I have a letter in the post for him about the White Dunn people, and I have already sent out a letter regarding the position of the Dunn properties. I think he will receive it in due course. If there is anything my department can do as a liaison department—let us get it clear that we have no legal right or functions as far as these matters are concerned—we will be only too glad to assist. I shall attend to all the requests he may make to my department as a liaison department. I can also agree with him when he said that the Coloured people’s destiny called for a political decision. That is so. Even that will have to be arrived at in a certain way. There are procedures to be followed. It is not to be arrived at in a haphazard way. We have our procedures as democrats; we have our rules, and so on. But there are many people who are ignorant about the Coloured people or the Coloureds as a society, but who nevertheless so easily come forward with opinions about the solution of a very old problem. My advice to the hon. member for Yeoville also applies to this member to a certain extent.

*Now I should just like to inform the hon. member for Piketberg—the hon. member for Bloemfontein North made a very fine contribution, But I do not think he expects me to react to it—that the idea of national service for our Coloureds is of course a matter which is not my responsibility. It is, however, an idea which could be taken up with the Minister of Defence. There are many problems with regard to national service for the Coloureds. What we do in fact know, is that there is a large degree of status attached to the corps which have already been established for the Coloureds.

The hon. member for Piketberg, and many other hon. members, adopted a realistic tone during the debate on Friday. In general what I found quite striking—apart from the cross-fire—was the sympathetic attitude of members with regard to this problem and also their sympathetic attitude to the idea that White people and Brown people should in future walk the road together. I want to associate myself with that. The hon. member for Piketberg emphasized for example how important it is at this stage for us not to anticipate the findings of an important commission such as the Theron Commission, but that the commission should first complete its work. Once again I want to endorse this. It will not avail to aggravate the tense climate to such an extent that the members of that commission are unable to do their work under peaceful conditions. I have good reason to expect, and I can say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that long before a year has elapsed I shall be in possession of the findings of this commission. It is not letting the grass grow beneath its feet. The hon. members for Oudtshoorn, Namakwaland, Mossel Bay and Rissik, in my opinion, made constructive contributions. They brought the debate down to earth a little. If we were now to demolish all traces of the policy of separate or parallel development, what would ultimately be left for the Coloureds of what was established for them? The statement made by the hon. member for Durbanville that blatant discrimination solely on the ground of colour should disappear, which creates friction rather than removes it, is a message to our people which only the pathologically afraid still continue to ignore these days. This is something which has been brought home to the understanding of all right-thinking people in this country. But particularly important, too, was the idea expressed by the hon. member for Waterberg, who said that crisis-thinking, this tension with which one runs goes off half-cocked and has attacks of seizure, should not cause a responsible Government to panic. Even under the rapidly changing circumstances it may not allow itself to be taken in tow by this crisis-thinking. All the people who place a premium on orderly change, expect this of such a Government. Therefore, as long as we are there, it is our duty to ensure that that order is maintained and that the extra-parliamentary pressure which is being exerted does not become so extreme that one is forced to make unconstitutional concessions and to do other things.

The hon. member for Johannesburg West expressed an interesting idea and elaborated on it, namely the question of the poverty culture among our Coloureds. You know, so few people realize that when they have worked out all these political solutions in this House, we still have to deal with their practical situation as well, a practical situation which is exposed when members refer to the practical conditions, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. members for Malmesbury, Namakwaland and Oudtshoorn did. People forget these problems. You know, this poverty culture and the situation in which these people find themselves, is better understood by the Coloured poet Adam Small than by many Whites. He stated in Rapport of 13 October 1974 to a political audience (translation)—

We have been engaged in this work for a long time now, Sir. In the meantime the people are arguing about the papers. The hon. member for Malmesbury made a very interesting speech in regard to the labour committees. The hon. the Deputy Minister replied to him very effectively. The hon. member for Turffontein stated the politics of the past 25 years in its correct perspective. I shall not refer to that again precisely because we feel that we have really dealt with that aspect now. It was highly interesting, and there was also a measure of truth in it, as I stated at the outset. But let us leave it at that for the time being.

I come now to the hon. members on the Opposition side. I cannot agree with everything they said, for they made certain negative statements and they would not resist the temptation of getting in digs and trying to say things that hurt. This is probably only natural, but I do not want to commit the same sin and cause unnecessary friction. But hon. members opposite said things which hurt, and they were to an extent negative. But as far as I am concerned, more than one member opposite was sincere and zealous in his efforts to set matters straight in the field of relations without making political expediency part of their conduct. I have already referred to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He is a member of the Ther on Commission and he has therefore already acquired a good deal of experience. The hon. member for Newton Park in his speech also expressed ideas concerning the interrelated destinies of Whites and Coloureds. He set them side by side and he discussed the fact that the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council cannot be the ultimate exclusive reply to the requirements of the Coloureds. Well, I want to associate myself with that, although I cannot agree with all the conclusions he drew.

†But I do not agree at all with the hon. member for Sea Point that the Coloured Representative Council has ceased to exist. By saying a thing like that, he is perpetuating an idea among many of the Coloured people—I will not say among the majority—that this institution is useless, but although this body may not suit the policy of one Coloured political party, it is not true. In saying this I think he is breaking down many good things that have been achieved and have been done in the past, particularly in the past few years, and he is perhaps preventing many good things which can still be done or are in fact perhaps being done at the moment, because many developments are being foreseen for the CRC. The CRC can be used in a more meaningful way perhaps, but it need not be the only body by which Coloured political aspirations can be realized. And then after condemning the CRC in the way he did, we are left, according to his party, with a policy of direct representation on the basis of a qualified franchise, including the Bantu, in this institution, an alternative condemned by the vast majority of White people and, although I may not be correct, even by the majority of the Coloured people themselves.

*Very well, that is the opinion of that hon. member, but I just want to say that I differ most strongly. The hon. member for Maitland stated that as progress is made with the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloureds, their political demands would keep on increasing. But I have to agree with him, Sir, surely this is true. He was telling the truth and at the same time he was paying the National Party Government a compliment. Surely it is precisely as a result of the fact that their socioeconomic position and their political development has progressed to such an extent, separately and alongside the Whites, that they find themselves in the position today where they can come forward and state that they have reached a stage where they want more, and we are prepared to give more.

Are you prepared to give more?

Of course. This has always been the approach and the policy of the Government, and you know it. You can issue challenges to us on this score. That was precisely why it was a compliment, and I thank the hon. member for that compliment which he paid us. It was very good and honest of him. The unitary structure, the unitary system was condemned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a few weeks ago as being totally incorrect. He said it was a mistake, it was collapsing, for there could be no safeguards for minority groups in a unitary system. But I want to say this, that in the past the unitary structure also proved that the minority groups, the poorer groups, simply became poorer; the better-off brothers did not look after the interests of their less-well-off kinfolk. One does not see them as a separate group; one does not develop a social conscience which is strong enough. Nor does one have the pressure on certain groups that they should, for the sake of their own future, look after the interests of the other groups. Then how can we be so certain that a unitary structure will be the solution in future when there is still such a great deal to be done in the socio-economic sphere, so much to be done to achieve human dignity, so much to be done to achieve acceptance of the one group by the other?

Sir. I should just like to refer in passing now to fine and positive things which happened, and things which were not frequently mentioned in this debate, things which point to a different situation than the alarmistic conditions which are persistently and deliberately being linked to the events on our borders. If we were preferably to emphasize this situation and attitude and seek less sensation in areas where there is friction and where tension is building, then it could lead to the further encouragement of these people, to more support for them and to the better South Africa which we want to create for the 21st century. South Africa needs all its people. I just want to relate one episode now. Attending the U.N. meeting recently were a Brown man, a Black statesman and an Indian colleague, and they were denigrated in a humiliating fashion as “puppets” of the Government. They were denigrated in a humiliating fashion on what was for them the first opportunity they had to defend our country on an equal basis. But this Brown man, who was denigrated in a humiliating fashion, did not dissociate himself from South Africa in that climate where it was pleasant for him to associate with those people; he did not dissociate himself from South Africa, and he is not a coward; I know him. Nor did he hold his country to ransom by demanding immediately what he knew South Africa could possibly offer him one day. He does not judge his country by how it may be at present; he judges it on the prospect that there will one day be a place for us all here where we will all be better off. No, when they denigrated him. Mr. Ulster got on his hind legs, and he said (translation)—

Sir, possibly there are things about which this South African feels unhappy in South Africa, but he got his priorities straight. He knew that there were also so many good things in this country that they had to be given the benefit of the doubt when compared with lesser matters which affected him personally. Sir, we have heard here of people who are not prepared to defend this country, but this person associated himself with another South African, a person who also had his grievances—sometimes deeper grievances—and whom I know very well, who said at a political party meeting (translation)—

Sir, we want a prosperous population in this country, as far as the Whites and also the non-Whites are concerned. We want to build up a good country, in which we want to give everyone a chance, and people with an attitude such as these people have, deserve in their aspirations to full self-realization of their own people the support of us all. Sir, it is really a pity that these positive matters receive so little recognition in this debate as well. What the one says, generates a reaction in the other. Sir, I could for example have mentioned a few things to you, which are quite interesting, which have happened to us in recent years. After more than 50 years we have during the past 18 months reached the stage where the Rehoboth Bastard community for example would finally like to co-operate with us now in drawing up a constitution for them with a view to self-government. There again one has the endeavour to retain their own identity. For 51 years we were unable to succeed in obtaining their co-operation, because these people wanted to have nothing to do with the Government, and what I am saying here applies to the Hertzog Government, the Smuts Government, or to whatever party was in power; they wanted to have nothing to do with the Whites.

Sir, hon. members referred here to the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council which was supposedly useless and to which we had supposedly given nothing that it had asked for. What is the real position? Out of 89 resolutions adopted by them, the position four months ago was that we had in the case of 30 of those resolutions, either satisfied these people or within the process of satisfying them, even if this was only in part. Subsequently further representations were received from them, which we were able to meet. Recently I held discussions with quite a number of those people who voted for the abolition of the CRC, but they subsequently paid special visits to me in my office because they felt that they were on a level where they were representing their people and where they were able to do something positive for their people. But, Sir, could all of them have representation in this House? When I say this, I am not referring to them derogatorily. They themselves realize this. The picture is therefore not really as terribly black as it is being painted. We have argued for years about the question of non-White diplomats at the U.N., and we have now reached that stage. There is a time for everything. Sir, I also want to mention to you what is happening on the level of local government, where we are dealing with matters which affect the everyday lives of people. What is happening in this sphere, will demonstrate whether our people can co-operate, coexist, grow together and eventually govern the country together alongside one another, each in his own sphere. On the level of local government we find these days that these people are of their volition establishing liaison committees; we are finding this today in the Free State. What this led to was that in a period of three months, where it would otherwise have dragged on for months, accommodation problems and numerous other problems were solved. This could only happen because the people learnt to get together and work together. A delegation consisting of a few Coloureds and a few Whites who served on managing committees, including even the chairman of the municipal association there, came to see me here. In other words, opportunities which were previously not there, have now developed on this level. Sir, we could also have discussed here the fine attitude which exists at the University of the Western Cape today. Problems still exist, but these people are already beginning to develop a pride of their own. Sir, the private sector can also do a great deal for these people. Look what Rembrandt has done at Paarlita Park in Paarl; this is one of the finest housing schemes I have ever seen. We would be able to solve the problems which exist today far more successfully if each of us contributed to creating a climate of co-operation, a climate of adjustment to changing times, a climate in which one abandons unnecessary, hackneyed, traditionally entrenched prejudices, and where one separates the wheat from the Chaff in one’s relations with other people. Sir, we would be far better off if, instead of always referring to it being a half-hour to midnight, we should refer instead to it being a half-hour before the dawn, as the Prime Minister recently put it so well.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I just want to indicate to you, with reference to what the hon. member for Edenvale said in regard to the future state structure, what the future ideas of the Government are in the development of its policy. I am not going to furnish you with the particulars today, and I shall also tell you why I am not going to do so. The first five years, the experimental five years, of the CRC have now come to an end. Next year a second CRC is being elected in the place of the one which has, according to certain hon. members, ceased to exist. I think the time is now ripe not only to expand the existing CRC further on the basis of the experience gained during the first five years, but also to give shape to a forum for meaningful joint consultation and agreement with the White governmental bodies—the highest level—to lead eventually to a form of citizenship for the Coloureds, just as full-fledged as far as say over its own people is concerned—and there we shall begin to discuss with one another questions such as confederation, consensus and federation, but this is not relevant now—as that of the Whites in respect of their own people. The Whites of South Africa will not relinquish the final say in respect of its own people, Sir, but the Whites of South Africa cannot, for all time, demand to have the final say over the weal and woe of the Coloureds. Sir, then there are also spheres of life and fields of work where total administrative separation is not possible or even conceivable. Certain hon. members referred here to the Transport and to Foreign Affairs; there are others as well, but I am mentioning only these two as an example. There are customs and provisions which are obsolete. There are prejudices on both sides which are ripe for deliberate breaking down. Sir, it may be said of me now that I am being one-sided in this respect, but I deplore this kind of report which appeared recently in a newspaper; I know that this journalist wrote it because he is not fond of this Government. In this report there is speculation as to whether we will also have Coloured air-hostesses on our Airways. After all, we cannot always have two Boeings fiying alongside each other. Sir, I deplore it however when people on any level give this kind of reply which I am now going to quote to you—

It is always a “spokesman” who has this kind of thing to say—

Very well, that is still correct so far. But then it goes on to say—

Is that necessary? However, it is not only the Whites alone who have this kind of thing to say; the Coloureds do so as well. When the U.P. youth movement goes out to educate people, these people who are so eager to educate the Whites should be asked to educate the Coloureds as well, for it is not my intention to quote in this White Parliament the things said by Coloureds which were derogatory to the Whites. I am merely pointing out that we are dealing here with things which will take a long time to eradicate. But now is the time to begin eradicating them, for we have to create the right climate. However, it is also part of our task to break down certain things in the correct and orderly manner without chasing after instant solutions. We must always take reality into account. From my experience of and in my interviews with Coloured leaders, which I am never eager to make known to the public mass media although it always leaks out nevertheless in ways about which one sometimes has one’s misgivings, I have found that these people want to be consulted themselves when we want to develop our policy on their behalf or for them. Even if I had another 15 minutes at my disposal, I would not give a detailed elucidation today of what we are contemplating further in regard to the Coloureds. I shall not furnish it here for it will be furnished to them themselves within the next few weeks, and in greater detail than the hon. members have ever heard it before. The Coloureds are entitled to hear this themselves, and we must show them that respect; we have reached that stage. If we wish to give these people greater responsibilities, we must bear in mind that these things are not obtained by means of revolution, nor will they be obtained by means of revolution as long as there are people sitting here who place high premium on order. These things take place by way of increments, even if it takes place rapidly. However, one must have the insight, if one gives them responsibilities, to give these to them in such a way that they will be able, with their capacity and with the experience which they have already acquired, to implement these things so that the giving of responsibilities does not result in a failure. We are going to speak directly to these people, and we shall ask them to put forward suggestions and not only to place the onus on us by expecting us to have to say that we shall do something for them and what it is. There are still aspects in respect of which we feel that the Coloureds cannot fend for themselves. We are dealing with general White opinion, and the Coloureds must come forward with proposals which are aimed at enabling them to fulfil the increased responsibility which they are asking for. This increased responsibility will bring with it a greater say. In particular I am drawing the attention of the hon. member for Rondebosch to what I am saying now. I have sketched the general outline of the principles which are involved here, but until these people have been told what we are contemplating for them and this has been explained to them in greater detail, in black and white, so that everyone can understand it. I am not prepared to participate further in public debates on the future of the Coloured population. I am asking, in all sincerity, that hon. members will respect by attitude in the two or three or four weeks which will elapse in the meantime. It is not the case that many weeks will elapse, for as far as the Government is concerned, the time is now ripe, and the need for action is imminent.

Mr.

Chairman, may I put two questions to the hon. the Minister? Firstly, is the hon. the Minister unaware of the fact that during the Pinelands by-election earlier this year I made the offer that if the Government introduced direct representation for the Coloureds we shall support it? The second question is in regard to the second statement made by the hon. the Minister. Is he aware of the report which appeared in The Argus on 5 September wherein it is stated:

And later on in the same article:

To take it further, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is unaware of the fact that to the best of my knowledge this is a report of an interview of the night before?

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. the leader’s word that he had this interview with the reporter the night before it was published. He, however, did not have any talks the day before with the Prime Minister, myself or with the people who were involved. That is most important.

I never suggested that.

That, then, is the answer to the one question. I want to refer to the second question. According to the hon. the leader himself he had a report published the day before. He did not say that he made an offer; he said that he had a report published. He said that and I took very specially notice of that.

I accept that.

Let us agree that there was a misunderstanding. The words he used were that such a statement was “published” the day before. The hon. the leader stated it like that.

That was incorrect.

Let us forget about it, because it is not so important any more. As far as the offer or rather the idea of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, it is an idea which came out in the course of his speech at that time. No specific offer was made to the Government that if they reached consensus with the Coloureds he would fall in with that decision. There is a slight difference and even the hon. the leader must agree that it is not the same.

I accept that.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 40, Loan Vote Q and S.W.A. Vote No. 23.—“Commerce”, and Revenue Vote No. 41, Loan Vote J and S.W.A. Vote No. 24.—“Industries”:

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

I should like to start this debate by taking the opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his new appointment to this very important post in which capacity he will be appearing under these Votes now for the first time. I should like to leave the hon. the Minister in no doubt whatsoever in regard to the importance with which we regard the portfolio of Economic Affairs. We regard a prosperous, strong and growing South African economy as an absolutely essential prerequisite to solving our political, our social and our racial problems and providing security for our country. The hon. the Minister has a key role to play, a role which I regard as being parallel to that of the hon. the Minister of Finance. We on this side of the House wish him well in this position. We would like him to understand that we regard the interests of South Africa as being paramount; they transcend any party political interest. The hon. the Minister will not find us lacking in support if he takes the right steps to promote the economy, but if he takes the wrong steps and if he tries to bend the economy to fit in with ideological considerations with which we do not agree, he will find that we will be critical and antagonistic and that we will offer very strong opposition.

At the start of this debate I would like to make quite clear what the basic economic beliefs of this side of the House are. We believe that in economic affairs one must keep one’s eye on the main target and not let it stray from there. The main target in economic management is to maximize the gross national product and to maximize the productivity and product of the country with the ultimate aim of providing the population with as large a per capita income as possible or to put it in plainer words, with the highest standard of living possible. We believe that this can best be done in the framework of a free, competitive, private enterprise system. In saying this, I believe that our philosophy differs in no way from the philosophy which nominally the Government itself follows. We believe that each of the elements of this framework is important. We believe that maximum freedom to entrepreneurs to make decisions is important. We believe that competitive conditions are very important. We believe that maximum scope for private enterprise as opposed to State enterprise is essential. All of these three legs of the framework hang together. We realize that some of these three tenets may have to be departed from on occasions for special reasons, and usually they are non-economic reasons, for social and security purposes. I think it is essential to realize that when these tenets are departed from, this is usually damaging to the economy to some extent. Therefore we require convincing reasons why non-economic and particularly ideological considerations should at any time override economic considerations.

I propose this evening, after the dinner break, to say something in regard to the first two legs of the framework, i.e. economic freedom and competition, and where in our view Government policies and actions have departed or are in danger of departing from these basic principles. I am going to leave it to other speakers on this side of the House to state our attitude in regard to State enterprise versus private enterprise.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when we broke for dinner, I was saying that I was going to say something this evening in connection with economic freedom, as we believe in it, and competition. As far as economic freedom is concerned, we do not believe that economic freedom should be economic permissiveness. Nor do we believe that it should be laissez faire, such as was practised in the last century. By “economic freedom” we mean freedom subject to economic disciplines, but subject to the correct economic disciplines, to ensure that the economy is managed in such a way that the interests of the people and of the nation as a whole are cared for. We believe that economic freedom should be subject to the disciplines of sound monetary and fiscal policies to maintain a strong and stable rand, not the type of rand we have at the moment, one that is depreciating at the rate of something like 13% per year. We believe that we should have economic freedom subject to the discipline of selective customs tariffs, aimed at stimulating and encouraging healthy industries. But protection must follow defined and predetermined guidelines and principles. We believe that protection is justified to encourage industries that we need for strategic and security reasons. We believe that it is justified to encourage labour intensive industries that are going to give jobs to our ever growing labour force, provided those industries are reasonably efficient by world standards. We believe that protection is justified to encourage industries which contribute favourably to the balance of payments position, in other words, industries that have a greater potential for exports than they will require themselves in the way of imports.

I think that this whole question of our protection policy requires a complete rethink with a view to making long-term and far-reaching structural changes in the whole economy of South Africa. Experience over recent years has shown us very clearly that the South African economy is at present not structured for growth. If there are two things that have been shown by recent experience, the first is that despite our wealth of natural resources, labour resources and raw materials, as soon as we experience a period of fast growth, we run into inflationary and balance of payments problems, and the second is that, when we have an export boom such as we have had in the past year, so much spending power is generated that we do not get an import boom, but we get an absolute import explosion. Most of the additional imports are required, not for direct consumption at consumer level, but by industry in the form of raw materials and plant. This is not a satisfactory long-term structure for our economy, because it means an economy that is operating on a stop-start basis. Any stop-start basis economy is not good for either confidence, investment or growth.

I believe that the answer as far as protection is concerned, lies in being far more selective in the industries that we protect and far less indiscriminate than we have been in the past few years. I do not think that we should try to become self-sufficient in this country because we are not nearly a sufficiently developed country to become self-sufficient. You have to be highly developed to attain self-sufficiency. We should aim our protection at low import propensity industries and industries that do not make inordinate demands on our supply of skilled labour and our limited supply of capital. In other words, we should aim our protection at industries that use the resources we have. Into these categories fall the metallurgical industries, which include the benefication of minerals and, to a lesser extent, the chemical industries. These are industries which can grow and as they grow they will not require much by way of additional imports; but as they grow they will create considerable additional export potential.

I think I have said enough to indicate that our belief in freedom means freedom subject to discipline and that we do not mean unbridled freedom. We believe in freedom subject to sensible discipline. But by freedom we do mean certain other things, and this is where the Government is failing. By freedom we mean freedom to employ labour irrespective of colour where it is needed and in jobs it is capable of doing; it means freedom to train labour in jobs which it is capable of being trained to do. We mean freedom of choice to locate industries where those industries can be operated most economically and productively. That means choice of location between existing metropolitan industrial complexes, the border areas, the homelands and any other decentralized areas. It means freedom to put capital to the uses where it can be most productive without the distortion of interest rate control which we have at the present time. It means greater freedom of choice of transport methods to convey raw materials and finished goods within the over-all proviso that we believe that our railway transport system must remain viable. It means the freedom to acquire and to use the latest technological methods and this entails giving every encouragement to foreign capital to come into the country whether on a direct investment basis or a partnership basis. It means freedom from unnecessary Government controls and unnecessary red tape such as is experienced at the moment with such controls as import control, price control and the administration of the Companies Act. But above all, freedom means freedom to make reasonable profits and an acceptance of the fact that it is the profit motive that is the vital driving force in the private enterprise system. I want to come back to the question of profits later.

I now want to say something in connection with competition, which is the second vital element in the free and competitive private enterprise system. If it is profit that makes people risk their capital and apply their energies in a particular direction, it is competition which keeps them on their toes, keeps them efficient, makes them efficient, protects the public and the consumer from any form of exploitation and gives the consumer the best and the squarest deal. I know that not many people in business like competition. I know that when I was in business, competition was one of the things that I hated. I hated it because it was a stern disciplinarian. It was inclined very often to hurt you and the final sanction that competition could apply was the lethal sanction of putting you out of business.

However, competition is the essential link in the free enterprise system which reconciles the profit motive with the interests of the consumer. We have heard a great deal in recent months about the huge profits that are being made in the private sector. We have heard that profits are growing at an inordinately fast rate. There has been a groundswell of demand that there should be price control to control profits and to control prices. I should like to say most emphatically that we on this side of the House do not regard profits in themselves as being a dirty word. Profits are an essential basis of enterprise, they are essential for initiative and risk-taking, they are the source of saving, they are the source of investment for up-dating plant for modernization and expansion. Without profits the economy simply goes for a loop. The dirty words in the economic sense are exploitation, monopoly, price ring and cartel because they all indicate lack of competition.

I believe that it is in this area of lack of competition in the economy where the Government is not being as active as it could be in keeping prices down. It is not being as active as it could be in ensuring that competitive conditions exist in the economy. The Government has the powers through the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act to prevent price rings and cartel arrangements and to prevent the getting together of suppliers to eliminate competition. It seems to me that it is reluctant to use these powers effectively. Even Assoc which, after all, is an association of businessmen which does not like interference in its activities, has recommended that sharpening the teeth of anti-monopolistic action is one way of fighting inflation effectively.

It seems to me that the main activity of the Government in regard to monopolies and in regard to action under the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act has been to look at retail price maintenance agreements. However, that does not go to the root of the problem. Not only does one have to look at lack of competition at retail level, one also has to look at the lack of competition at producer and supplier level and at all levels between producer and consumer. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that if the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act is not an effective weapon to fight monopolies—and I believe that it is a clumsy and slow-moving measure—this weapon should be given sharper teeth. If the hon. the Minister decides to take effective action against monopolies he can count on the support of this side of the House in his efforts.

It seems to me that the Government is relying far too much on price control and using it either directly or threatening to use it in order to try to keep prices down. Price control is no substitute for competition. It may put a ceiling on a price, but it only puts that ceiling on temporarily, but whenever you put a ceiling on a price you are putting a floor under the price too; you are preventing the price from going down as much as you are preventing it from going up. Competition is the driving force to efficiency and price control tends to protect suppliers from competition; it is no promoter of efficiency. I believe that price control is something that should be used sparingly and not as generally as the Government appears to be using it, and it should be used only in conditions where goods are actually in short supply and where there is a situation where the consumer can be exploited, or where an actual monopoly exists that cannot be broken, that is to say where there is only one supplier in the market of a particular commodity.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he approves of the way in which the commercial banks get together in the commercial banks register of cooperation, which fixes minimum charges for banking services by way of ledger fees and commission charges. Is this cosy position in the banks conducive to efficiency? Does the Minister think so?

What does Harry say about that?

I agree with the hon. member.

The hon. member for Yeoville is not a commercial banker. Does the hon. the Minister approve of the way in which the trust companies get together and fix their fees for administering investments and raise their fees for administering investments, all in concert with one another at the expense of the people who are getting benefits out of those investments, people such as widows? Does he approve of the arrangement whereby newspapers raise their prices in the same area on the same day by the same amount—a hefty 40%—clearly in consultation with one another? I know that he allows retail price maintenance in the sale of newspapers, but is it advisable to allow a price ring amongst newspaper publishers? I would like to ask the Minister whether he approves of the lumber millers’ ring, which eliminates price competition amongst lumber millers completely and which has had the effect of forcing less acceptable sizes of timber on timber merchants, which in turn has had the inevitable effect of reducing efficiency in the building industry.

And pushing up costs.

I would like to ask the Minister whether, with a view to a Board of Trade investigation, he has examined whether price rings exist or whether there are tacit price fixing arrangements in the packaging industry, in the tea and coffee industry, in the confectionary industry, in the biscuit industry; whether these things exist amongst flour millers; whether they exist amongst the producers of small meat products such as bacon and sausages; whether they exist amongst chicken producers; whether they exist amongst hardware merchants. Mr. Chairman, I have mentioned a few instances where either cartel arrangements are known to exist or where there is good circumstantial evidence that they may exist. Where they do exist, they exist for one reason only and that is to eliminate competition, and you can rest assured that if they are effective in eliminating competition, the chances are that they axe doing so at the expense of the consumer. I would like to say to the Minister that the public must know whether these practices are in the public interest. The Government has a heavy responsibility in this regard, and I say that there is little evidence that it is playing the part that it should be playing in promoting competitive conditions.

Finally, I should like to say to the Minister that if the right steps are taken to encourage freedom of decision amongst entrepreneurs, unhampered by unnecessary restriction but subject to disciplines, some of which I have mentioned, and if there is sound competition in our economy, then I say to the Minister that we will have gone a long way towards laying the foundations for sound growth and prosperity in our economy and we will have taken some of the correct decisions to fight inflation.

As usual, one enjoys listening to the hon. member for Constantia, for what he says normally has a great deal of substance. It is not always so easy to follow the hon. member since one cannot hear what exactly he is saying. If I heard what he said correctly, the hon. the Minister can, as has always been the case in the past, derive sound advice from it. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member had half an hour and I have only ten minutes, and in order to shield him these chaps around me are creating such a din that I cannot proceed. Sir, if these hon. gentlemen would give me a chance, I should just like, in the few minutes at my disposal, to touch cursorily on what the hon. member said here, and then I want to say a few things of a general nature.

The hon. member for Constantia—and I have been sitting here for a number of years—is a worthy successor to a former hon. member for Constantia, a person whom the late Mr. Blaar Coetzee described as “sad-faced Sid”. I am referring to Mr. Sidney Waterson. He was succeeded by a very pleasant hon. member, the hon. member for Park town, so pleasant in fact that he later earned the name of “Sunny Sonny”. Now this hon. member in turn wants to proceed in heavy-hearted vein. What has he just said here that is new? He accuses the Government and this hon. the Minister of having a “stop-start” government.

More “stop” than “start”.

I want to tell the hon. member, and I shall return to it in a moment, that this is a hackneyed story, this “stop-start” story. The fact of the matter simply is that this National Government started under various Ministers in 1948 and they have not yet stopped. It seems to me these hon. members simply cannot understand these things very well, so I want to elaborate on them to some extent.

The first point the hon. member made is that he said—and this the hon. member did in conjunction with his colleagues, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and the hon. member for Von Brandis—that we should never try to become self-supporting in South Africa. I ask you, S is this new? It is the same old story of their great leader, Gen. Smuts, who said we should never start anything in this country. We can quote his words in this House in 1926, 1927 and 1928, for example, at the time that Iscor was established when he said we were absolutely wrong, foolish and crazy. And yet, it was proved to them that they were wrong. I shall come to the establishment of Sasol in a moment. [Interjections.] Do you see, Sir, it hurts when I hit them. I could just point to an example here and there. Just take the establishment of Sasol. I was here when Mr. Waterson almost burst into tears about the foolishness the National Party was displaying in wanting to establish something in South Africa which existed nowhere else in the world. [Interjections.] The National Party said it would cost R18 million, but it ultimately cost R48 million. Today, however, it is the only industry of that magnitude in the whole world which produces that particular product. We are in fact setting an example to the whole world. However, the hon. member states that we should not be self-supporting. Do you know what they are doing? They are once again paving the way for something else. The Government said that we would establish a sophisticated motor industry in South Africa. We did so, but the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens wants to have a fit about it because those vehicles will be more expensive than they would have been if we had not been self-supporting. I concede as much, but I believe that the Government will not make a volte-face. We shall make ourselves as self-supporting as is humanly possible with or without the help of the hon. member for Constantia.

Do you know what the hon. member is pleading for? To me he sounds like one of those great Frenchmen, Rousseau for example, who spoke about liberty and fraternity, for he too is pleading for liberty. He is pleading for liberty in respect of labour. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon.member for Pietermaritzburg North must restrain himself.

I do not have time to go into everything, but what, inter alia, did he refer to? He referred to the Physical Planning Act. Really, may I just point out to the hon. member that the Federated Chamber of Industries has told us that the Physical Planning Act does not bother them at all? They said that there had indeed been a measure of uncertainty when the Act was being applied initially, but there was none at present.

You are talking nonsense. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Constantia says I am talking nonsense. The hon. member referred to when he “was” in business, but I am still in business. [Interjections.]

Yes, you are in monkey business.

Well, I am still giving credit where credit is due. The hon. member is pleading for labour freedom, but I want to point out to him that the Federated Chamber of Industries is perfectly satisfied. The hon. member also pleaded for freedom of transport. Oh, there are quite a number of other freedoms I would have been very pleased to have, but one should, after all, be practical too, and one should make sure whether something is feasible. Under this Government’s labour and transport policies which I shall come to in a moment—no, I think I should come to them at once. The hon. member is pleading for all these freedoms, but if they were to be granted, the situation might possibly border on licence. The hon. member suggested that we in South Africa had nothing but problems as a result of the lack of these freedoms, but in this regard I want to call the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to witness. Last year the hon. the Leader of the Opposition held Japan up as an example. He pointed out the growth rate of Japan and he also praised the growth rate achieved in England in spite of difficult circumstances. The hon. member can go and have a look at his Hansard in order to see to the growth rates of which countries he referred. As far as South Africa was concerned, he said that South Africa’s growth rate had dropped to below the target growth rate. He said that South Africa, on account of the Government’s policy, would be on the verge of collapse, and that we would no longer be able to make the grade. Tonight, in the year 1974, we find that the growth rate of Japan has dropped to virtually nil, while South Africa’s growth rate stands at 7,1, possibly a bit higher, possibly a bit lower. The growth rate of South Africa, however, under a Government which allegedly causes a lack of freedom and allegedly follows a “stop-start” policy, is the highest in the Western world. This is what we achieved whereas the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said last year that we did not stand a chance.

I am very pleased that I can agree with the hon. member for Constantia on one matter. The hon. member said may it never come to pass in our country that the word “profit” becomes a swear-word. I want to associate myself with every word he said in that regard and want to add that the concept of “profit” is an important one in any capitalistic-orientated system. It is the National Party Government which sees to it that every well-managed company in South Africa has a decent profit margin. What is most important is that the profit margin will be determined by the very aspect of competition. In our dispensation sound management is the very thing which will ensure that those who render service to the particular company will derive all the best benefits, not only benefits in respect of salaries but also fringe benefits. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to identify myself with the comments made by the hon. member for Constantia in congratulating the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs who is appearing here for the first time as the Minister responsible for this Vote which is most probably the most important vote the House will have to deal with this session. Against that background the contribution by the hon. member for Smithfield was indeed pusillanimous. It must be realized that what we are confronted with today is an economic situation facing not only South Africa but the entire Western and civilized world, a situation which calls for the utmost circumspection and conservatism in analysing the problems which lie before us. The hon. member for Constantia has dealt briefly with the factors of freedom and competition in the economy while I want to concentrate on the role of private enterprise in relation to the State corporations. I think it will be realized today that we in South Africa have indeed a dual economy. We have the economy of the Whites whom we may regard as the “haves” and the economy of the Blacks whom by and large we may regard as the “have nots”. We are facing a period where change must be rapid. When we reailze that economic disaster is threatening the whole of the American economy, the whole of the European Economic Community and the whole of Japan, we realize that we have very few options open to us. The one option we have open to us is maximize growth within this country of ours. We on this side of the House have always accepted the maxim that one of the Government’s responsibilities is to ensure a climate which allows private enterprise the maximum opportunity to thrive and to provide a good living not only for our European population but for all South Africans. The high rate of inflation which we are currently experiencing can largely be laid at the feet of the Government, particularly as a result of its policy of heavy spending investment in order to bring about high growth. We realize that there are no options open to us. We can either have a high growth and high inflation or a low growth and high inflation. We believe that if we use the private enterprise system correctly we can maintain high growth and high inflation. The danger is that the growth rate which we achieved last year, a growth rate of some 7%—for which we must give credit largely to the fortuitous increase in the gold price—may not be maintained this year and we may be facing a growth rate which will be in the vicinity of 4%. No one will deny that at this moment a deterrent to economic growth is economic uncertainty in the mind of the private business entrepreneur. I think that both the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Minister Of Finance tend to see red when we talk about creeping State socialism being detrimental to our economy. However, this is not a viewpoint expressed only by this side of the House. In fact, just recently, on 15 May, according to The Cape Times, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut expressed its intention to investigate State encroachment on the preserves of private enterprise. This decision was reached after they were told by Dr. W. J. de Villiers of General Mining that creeping socialism in South Africa was sapping the strength of the private sector. Dr. De Villiers blamed the Government policy of excessive interference in the private sector for the present depressed spirit of entrepreneurial enterprise in South Africa. He also blamed the authorities for allowing public corporations to play an increasingly indirect role at all levels of the economy. I do not want to blame the State for all these defects but it is apparent that the proliferation of State corporations is having an effect in withdrawing from private enterprise those already scarce factors of production, namely entrepreneurial skills, capital and labour. The enterprises to which I refer particularly are Iscor, Sasol, Foscor, the Fishing Development Corporation, the XDC, the IDC and the Bantu Investment Corporation. Rightly or wrongly a strong feeling exists that the connection of these enterprises with the Government makes it impossible or at least hazardous for private enterprise to compete with these agencies in most fields of their undertakings. This type of depression amongst private business men should not be dismissed lightly. These State corporations must be seen as corporations which are clothed with the power of Government while possessing the flexibility and initiative of a private business. One of these facts that concerns the taxpayer, the electorate and private enterprise particularly, is the fact that these corporations do not account for their financial operations directly to Parliament but that their accounts of finance are examined annually by commercial auditors.

To illustrate my point I want to refer briefly to Iscor. I want to say that we do not criticize these corporations for the work they are doing in the economy; we criticize certain aspects of these corporations which are belabouring the economy. In the case of Iscor it is known not only that they are an agent of the Government but that they compete with private enterprise. For instance, they are an agent in the exporting of steel, and other private steel exporters have to make available to Iscor information which can be damning to them as private enterprises.

Then there are further shackles to private enterprise. I refer to the various Government controls which are recognized as being infinite. We have, for example, the controls exercised by sales taxes, we have price controls, import controls, profit controls, rent controls, influx controls, job reservation, control of road transportation and controls aimed at the decentralization of industries. Against these controls, we believe that if only the Government would accept the challenge of giving private enterprise free rein as is done in all countries of the world with successful economies, then, like them, we would find that our economy would bring about an enormous increase in the wealth of our country and the maximum increase in our gross domestic product.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens raised a matter about which the United Party is very concerned, i.e. State corporations. I really do not know why they are opposed to State corporations. All they have said up to now is that the State corporations are not directly accountable to Parliament for their activities. However, they have always been satisfied with the work that is being done. They join us in praising that work. It is only because their forefathers were opposed to those institutions that they are still objecting to them.

The very subject I want to deal with tonight, is the possible establishment of another State corporation. If we make an analysis of the most important raw materials required for one of the most important facets of our lives, i.e. housing, we find that we require the following: steel, timber, bricks and cement. As far as I am concerned, however, the most important of these is bricks. That is why I should like to appeal forthwith to the Minister for an inquiry to be instituted into the possibility of organizing the brick industry, too, as a State corporation. I should like to advance my reasons for saying this. In reply to a question put by the hon. member for Sea Point, who asked what the estimated shortage of housing was for each race group in each province at the beginning of 1974, the Minister of Community Development replied on 16 August that the total shortage came to 6 100 houses for Whites, 62 400 houses for Coloureds and 26 600 houses for the Indian community. If we view the matter in the light of the population growth in this country, we are confronted with the tremendous problem, which has already been mentioned here, i.e. that in the last 30 years of this century as many houses will have to be built as have been built from Jan van Riebeeck’s time up to 1970. Let us examine our brick requirements more closely. We know that approximately 40 000 bricks are required for a decent three-bedroomed house, plus a further 4 000 or 5 000 face bricks. If we calculate this at the present cost, we cannot do otherwise but regard this as a matter of national importance. For only the first six months of this year building plans amounting to R433,5 million were approved in the 18 largest urban areas, consisting of R210,5 million for houses, R253 million for flats and R 104,5 million for non-residential purposes. This amount is in respect of the 18 largest municipal areas only. If we view this against the background of our development, the question arises whether we shall ever be able to provide enough building material, especially as far as the brick industry is concerned. There are certain brick-makers who are duly able to supply the demand. Now I also want to emphasize from an economic point of view, of which I know very little …

Hear, hear!

… that one often comes across cases, as I have done, of a private individual wishing to build a house approaching some building contractor or other who might perhaps tell him, “Fine, my friend. I shall build your house for R18 000 but you will have to wait six months before you can get bricks.” Certain brick-makers say, “Very well, produce your cash, and then I shall be able to deliver your bricks in three months’ time.” These are the problems which in fact arise in practice. The reason why I am asking the hon. the Minister to inquire into this industry, is that the major brick-makers establish themselves at a certain place and then make deliveries within a certain radius. But in the course of time, as the industry develops, delivery takes place beyond that radius so that the transport costs of bricks become tremendously high. I want to conclude with the thought that irrespective of what kind of unconventional building methods are available, bricks will remain one of the basic components of housing, now and in the future. I consider the brick to be as important to the building industry as mother’s milk is to the infant.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to respond to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Brentwood, because I should like to express a few thoughts on what I consider to be a very important factor in the fight against inflation, namely the part played by the manager. The fact is that the problem of inflation does not enjoy priority as a subject of discussion in financial circles only, but very definitely in political circles as well, because the political implications of the process in which we are involved at the moment are so far-reaching that every responsible politician must take cognizance of them. So many millions of words have been spoken and written and so many international conferences have been held on the subject that I believe that all possible causes of inflation must now be known to everyone. However, because these factors occur in different combinations in different places in the world, the problem is that one cannot apply a uniform remedy. The problem is cost inflation, which is tied to the tremendous increase in the cost of raw materials on the one hand and the tremendous increase in the prices, which in on the other. Together these result in a tremendous increase in the prices, which in turn leads to wage demands. In this way, of course, the vicious circle is continued. This process is known to us all. When we examine the problem of cost inflation more closely, however, we are faced with the cost involved in processing them and the cost of distributing the final article. But throughout these three processes we may identify the invisible hand of man, of the worker. The worker is involved in the exploitation of the raw materials, in the processing, because he has to handle the machinery and other capital goods, and in the distribution process. In addition, the worker is involved in the supporting services which lie behind the whole process from production to distribution, i.e. in planning, research, management, accounting and all the other administrative functions with which we are all thoroughly acquainted.

There are certain factors over which the producer has no control, for example, the cost of his raw materials. That is a basic expense. In addition, he has very little control over the cost of his capital goods with which he has to exploit these raw materials. However, if we think of the contribution made by man throughout the whole process, surely it is logical to conclude that, in spite of the large-scale mechanization and automation of our times, man still occupies a crucial position, and that man’s productivity, as well as the present imbalance between his production and his remuneration, is one of the chief causes of the tremendous problem we have to contend with at the present moment.

If one looks about one and talks to the man in the street, one comes to the shocking conclusion that most people have long since lost their fear of inflation. With the inflation problem, where much was made at first of the need for the individual to work harder and to save, matters are now taking the same turn as in our fuel conservation effort. At the beginning, everyone showed a great sense of patriotism. People drove slowly and flickered their lights at one another, but today people are driving at high speeds again and a major law enforcement programme has to be applied in order to enforce these conservation measures. People have no personal motivation any more. The same applies to the problem of inflation. Every individual likes to think that the appeal to work harder and to save is really aimed at someone other than himself. The same tendency has been experienced by those of our hon. colleagues who used to be clergymen and who delivered fine sermons, just to discover one day that everyone who had been listening to them had found the sermon wonderfully applicable to his neighbour, instead of applying it to himself. While individuals are waiting for one another to do something in this regard, smaller undertakings are engaged in a struggle for survival in which they often try to pocket as much as possible themselves. The small countries are waiting for the great powers to take action. The underdeveloped countries are blaming the capitalist system. Great powers are caught between the tremendous momentum of their permissive financial policy, which they are now unable to keep in check, and the unrealistic wage demands made by the trade unions which are already demanding compensation for the future production of their workers. This basically means that any worker, within or outside this House, who knows that he is receiving more than he actually deserves, is discounting the future. Such a person is actually feeding on the whole economic system like a parasite. He is not playing his own part, but he is in fact feeding on production which is to be supplied by himself or by someone else in the future.

If we ask ourselves by whom the contribution should be made, we must come to the frightening conclusion that while we are all waiting for something to happen, there is no magic formula which will resolve the matter overnight. There is no law nor any fiscal measure that can be adopted by this House. The fight against inflation will be won or lost in the practical field, where the fight against inflation can be fought in respect of things such as production and the remuneration of the individual. It is time for us to realize that unless every individual starts contributing to a solution himself, there is no hope of success. As I have indicated, there is a feeling of apathy and a lack of interest in getting involved in this fight. For that reason I want to make a plea tonight to those who do not produce themselves, but who produce through others, to declare war on this public enemy number one. I am referring to every individual who occupies any kind of supervisory position, every person who supervises people; in other words, I am appealing, on the whole, to management. I believe that the manager is the only person who can see to it that the balance between an individual’s earnings and his production is restored. You know, in every job, no matter how simple, there is an element of measurable productivity and production. In some jobs this is hidden. In some cases it can only find expression by means of a joint effort. I want to emphasize, therefore, that in every job there is an element of measurability. If that manager—everyone has become a professional manager these days—is prepared to put the shoulder to the wheel and to re-acquaint himself thoroughly with the work that is being done in his factory, in his office, in the Public Service, or anywhere else—I am not referring only to the production of a commodity, but to services in every possible field where one could find a manager—and to renew his knowledge of every job under his control, in order that he may ascertain whether the individual who is filling it is earning his money or not, we would stand a chance of success. No one, no law, can do this for him. The manager must take it upon himself. Management has to take up that challenge. I am convinced that they will realize that if the manager in industry or in the Public Service or anywhere else does not participate in this fight, the parasitic effect of the inflation problem will eventually damage the whole economy to such an extent that the managers themselves will suffer. I have said that the individual is waiting for the State to do something about the high prices. Let us ask the Press, the mass media, to shift the focus from the high prices for a moment and to draw the attention of the workers to the problem of the relationship between productivity and earnings. Everyone is complaining about profits these days. Surely one should look at profitability and not at absolute profits. If a company increases its profits, it may mean that it has invested more capital, and in that case surely it is justified. One cannot rant and rave about profits if those profits are merely the fair reward of the entrepreneur who has invested his money in the undertaking.

Sir, the manager knows his people; he knows his job; he knows every individual who works under him. One would express the hope that our managers would qualify themselves properly for performing their management functions.

Mr. Chairman, one final thought: Are our universities, which are turning out great numbers of M.B.A.s, not perhaps training people for much higher positions than the ones they will occupy immediately after having obtained the degree? One cannot appoint a person who has just obtained his M.B.A. to a top management position, but one can appoint him on an intermediate management level. Is there not perhaps a great need for a business administration school for the training of staff on the intermediate management level, i.e. for young graduates to undergo this training upon completion of their university education, and then to enter the business, rather than just for an M.B.A., the holders of which may only be able to occupy a top position in five or ten years’ time? If the young man has taken this course, he will know how to evaluate jobs and how to design methods for measuring production, and he will know that if he, the manager, does not fight inflation, there is no one in the whole economic set-up who will be able to do so for him, and that he will have to accept joint responsibility for the economic disaster which must inevitably result if the present process continues.

May I say to the hon. member for Florida that I listened to his speech with some degree of interest, particularly as I regard him as one of the few aspirant capitalists in the ranks of the Nationalist Party. He certainly put forward a case for the approach of capitalism to some of the problems of South Africa today. I am not sure that I agree with everything he said. I do agree with most of what he said on the question of productivity. I agree with what he said in respect of the conservation of our natural resources, but I should like to give the hon. member just one word of warning: Some of the things that he said might well cause him to get into trouble with some of the trade unions in South Africa that might not quite like his approach. Sir, while I am complimentary to the hon. member for Florida, I have some difficulty with the hon. member for Brentwood, because if anybody rendered a disservice to the cause of private enterprise in South Africa this evening and to the economy of South Africa and to private investment in South Africa, it is the hon. member for Brentwood, who dropped a brick here this evening. Sir, there is an old saying: “Shoemaker, stick to your last.” The suggestion that the Government should interfere in the manufacture of bricks in South Africa is an irresponsible one, based only upon a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding of the problems, because the problem here is not that you cannot solve the housing shortage only because you have not got enough raw material. Moreover, Sir, it must be borne in mind that bricks are not the only things which are needed today to put up buildings; far from it. One of the main problems is the problem of finding the finance to put up buildings, particularly at this particular time. The reason why many people are without housing altogether today is that there is an inability to provide the necessary finance for the erection of housing. To talk irresponsibly and without any knowledge of the facts about nationalizing the brick industry and about Government interference in the brick industry is, I think, calculated to do harm, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will put this thing to rest and that he will do so quickly.

Sir, I want to associate myself with other hon. members who have conveyed their good wishes to the Minister, particularly because he is entering this particular portfolio at an extremely difficult time for the economy of South Africa. I believe that the hon. the Minister, together with the hon. the Minister of Finance, will have a tremendous responsibility in the next year or two. Sir, whereas we may criticize the hon. the Minister, we will at the same time try to help him because we believe that all of us have a duty to see that the economy of South Africa prospers. We wish the hon. the Minister well in his new job. In that vein I would like to try to deal with some of the fears that there are for the economy of South Africa, and I want to say immediately that I am an optimist in respect of the economy and the future of South Africa because I believe that provided we take the correct steps there is little doubt that in fact South Africa can prosper. Perhaps the best way of dealing with this matter is to try to draw a comparison between the depression circumstances which started in 1929 and went into the ’thirties and the situation as it exists today, and compare the two situations in order to make an assessment.

Firstly I think we have to accept that there are very real problems in the world, problems for which we ourselves cannot find the solutions in South Africa and for which the world powers themselves cannot find the solutions. Perhaps if we can take the visit of the hon. the Minister of Finance to the IMF and the World Bank as examples, they had no difficulty in ensuring that on purely racial grounds and illogical grounds we are wrongly excluded from our rightful place in making a contribution towards the decision-making processes in so far as they affect finance. But whereas they have no difficulty with that, they have the greatest difficulty in really applying their minds to the problems that have to be solved, and the problem that the world faces is that individual countries cannot solve their own economic problems in isolation without the world solving its problems, and the world cannot solve its problems until the individual countries apply a degree of discipline to themselves and seek in fact to get out of the morasse in which they find themselves.

The second point I want to make is that it is very difficult to create a situation in South Africa in which we are not affected by world problems. Perhaps here the example of the problems of the 1930s can be taken, in that the depression started in the United States in 1929 and affected practically the whole of the developed Western world at that stage, and we in South Africa being a trading nation, and being a nation which is essentially dependent on dealing with the outside world in many respects, cannot be completely immune from what happens in the world as a whole.

The third point I want to make is that we in South Africa in addition have particular problems which perhaps aggravate the situation for us, and I will deal with some of those in detail in a moment, and deal with the manner in which I think those problems should be dealt with. But on the other hand, while we have particular and peculiar problems in South Africa, we also have fundamental advantages over other nations, particularly in regard to the wealth of our people, the natural resources that we have, the tremendous reservoirs of unskilled manpower simply waiting to be trained, and in fact, the tremendous internal market that is available to us, if in fact we increase the purchasing power of all our people. And these are very real advantages, of which gold is only one.

Then I want to say, fifthly, that I believe that with the correct policies that can be applied, with the correct use of our resources, we can plan to insulate ourselves to a high degree against adverse world economic influences on our country, and this I think is one of the major tasks of the hon. the Minister.

The sixth point I want to make is that confidence, even though it is something which you cannot measure, something which is not tangible, is a major factor in economics, and confidence is a major factor in dealing with the future of South Africa. It is our duty not only as a Government but as an Opposition to seek to contribute towards the confidence of people in our country, both in the sense that there is a political future here and that there is an investment future, because investments cannot be taken in isolation, away from politics. This is a fact of life, and I believe it is our duty as South Africans to seek to encourage the highest degree of confidence in our country, in the stability of our country and in the future of our country.

Now I want to deal, if I may, with a number of direct comparisons between the 1930s and today. In the 1930s we had a dramatic drop in stock and share prices. We had it in 1929 and in 1930, first in America and then all over the world. What is significant is that we have again had dramatic drops in share and stock prices all over the world, and if I take figures only over the past year, in the United States there has been a drop in share prices, according to the Dow Jones index, of 32,6% over the last year. In the United Kingdom there was a drop, according to the Financial Times industrial index, of 56,4%, and in South Africa, to use the index of the Rand Daily Mail, the 100 index, the drop has been 39,5%. These are real drops and they are important drops because they have consequences for an economy.

For what period are they?

They are for the year immediately passed. I have taken my figures from, I think, 12 October a year back. In so far as the effect of the drop of prices is concerned, this does not only take money out of the pocket of the ordinary individual; it affects the buying power of people who have these assets, it affects their ability to develop, it affects the spending power of the middle classes, an important factor in spending power, and above all it affects the ability of companies to raise more equity capital and more risk capital for urgently needed development in South Africa. One of the factors I would ask the hon. the Minister to deal with tonight and to deal with for the sake of the entrepreneur in South Africa is the point of view of certain Government officials that a 15% return pre-tax is an adequate return on investments in this inflationary age. It gives you a return of less than 10% after the payment of tax. It is unrealistic and does not encourage investment, because if one looks at the Price/Earnings ratio which exists in respect of South African shares—again I go to the Rand Daily Mail index—one sees that the Price/Earnings ratio is down to 4,2%. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will excuse me if I do not react to his speech. Actually I expected the fishing industry to be a subject of discussion again, but clearly, so many fish are now being caught among their own ranks and so many nets are being spread that the prophets of doom we had formerly have apparently themselves been ensnared in these nets. It will be remembered how, in the years 1971 and 1972, disaster was predicted for the fishing industry of South Africa and South-West Africa. Wise prophets of doom predicted the general collapse of the industry. They predicted that certain towns would become ghost towns. I have in mind, for example, Dr. Lochner’s theory, a theory which found many eager ears and even willing spokesmen. I have in mind charges that were made at the time, even against an hon. Deputy Minister, charges which amounted to his having supposedly furnished the House with false figures. The 1974 season is already past and the catches have proved once again that the confidence in the recuperation of the resources was not exaggerated. As in the past, the Government and the industry chose to be guided by the Department of Industries and the Sea Fisheries Division and also by practical experience and facts. The mentioned bodies deserve thanks and appreciation for the enormous task they have performed. Their confidence and hard work has indeed been rewarded. However, I want to warn that we have not yet reached the end of the road. We should still be continually on our guard against over-exploitation. The events of the years 1970 to 1972 must never repeat themselves. It is estimated that the total resources, before the entry onto the scene of the factory ships, was about 6 million tons. In 1971-’72 it was only about 2,1 million, but in 1974 it was already estimated at 3,2 million tons. The resources are therefore showing signs of recovery and a tendency towards steady growth. The so-called split quota, i.e. the division between pilchards and other fish such as anchovies, is still in force and we know that the industry as such would very much like to have the split quota abolished. I fear, however, that this cannot be done arbitrarily. It will only be possible to abolish it if the Sea Fisheries Division, in consultation with the industry, finds an acceptable formula. If the abolition of the split quota were to lead to a further increase in the catch of pilchards, it definitely could not be considered.

We are grateful to be able to say that the industry is already displaying a growing understanding of the value of our pilchards; thus, in the 1974 season, 10 million cartons of fish were canned as against 7,4 million cartons the previous season. I want to make a plea for further research in this regard, so that this valuable product can be utilized to the absolute maximum. I fear that there is not yet 100% utilization of this product, and that even as far as our existing factories are concerned, there is room for improvement. Although the previous restrictions were lifted, and all factories may, in fact, can fish and construct fish canning plant now, we still have certain factories processing pilchards, too, into fish-meal. Indeed, the question could be asked whether it is not time for the canning of fish to be made compulsory. Can we afford to convert this valuable commodity into fish meal?

To illustrate the growth of catches of pelagic fish, I should like to furnish the following figures. The total catch for the year 1972, which was our poorest year, was 968 293 metric tons. In 1973 it was 1 171 817 metric tons and this year, 1974, during the past season, it was 1 235 808 metric tons. Calculated in terms of money, the catch of the 1973 season came to R170 million, while the money value of the catch in the 1974 season was R195 million.

I wish to point out to hon. members that tomato purée is extremely scarce and that the industry has to import virtually 60% of its requirements from overseas countries. I think that our farmers would do well to take note of this.

During the 1973 season, the last season for which we have statistics in regard to trawler catches, apart from the pelagic fish, 1 000 000 tons of trawl-fish were caught along our West Coast, viz., the West Coast of the Republic as well as the coast of South-West Africa. Ninety per cent of this fish was caught by foreign powers, i.e. only 10% was caught by South African interests. This is disturbing. I want to plead for a major joint effort to be made by the industry, the Department of Industries and the Sea Fisheries Division, to ensure that the resources of our own coast are better utilized. I want to plead for an intensive market research programme because this is an urgent necessity.

I believe that the authorities and their subjects realize the value of our fishing industry. In South-West Africa alone, for example, about 8 000 Ovambos are directly or indirectly employed in our fishing industry. Apart from this there are about 1 000 fishermen or seamen of whom half are Whites and half Coloureds. A large number of boats are involved. We in Walvis Bay and in South-West Africa are concerned about the shutting down of the local branch of the Sea Fisheries Division. Various reasons for this have been advanced, but I do not want to argue about the reasons now. However, the question arises whether the conservation of the resources should be subordinated to any other consideration. We could also argue that this constitutes a violation of the agreement concluded at the time of readjustment from 1 April 1969. I want us to consider certain investments in Walvis Bay. If we consider the investments of Fisheries Development Corporation at Walvis Bay, we find that the cost of the works already completed amounts to R5¼ million. The cost of works at present under construction amounts to R3¼ million. The replacement value of our fishing fleet alone amounts to R30 million and the replacement value of the factory plant amounts to a further R40 million. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider a recommendation by the Commission of Inquiry into the Fishing Industry, a recommendation which briefly amounts, briefly, to the establishment of a fisheries board, in the first place, and secondly, that the Sea Fisheries Division be divided into two parts, namely research and control of resources. This matter has been raised here before and for that reason I shall not repeat it. However, I am convinced that the acceptance of the recommendations, as they stand or in an amended form, would strengthen the position of the Director of Sea Fisheries and that it would enable him and his department to achieve still better results. I should also like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is yet in a position to tell us anything more in regard to the Caracas conference. I read in a pamphlet distributed by the American department that the American ambassador who led that delegation, Ambassador Stephenson, made specific mention of the fact that America suggested a fisheries zone, an economic zone, or an exploitation zone, as regards the sea bed, of 200 miles, subject to certain conditions, and that he was optimistic that they would succeed in having those conditions accepted. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, has talked about a subject that I honestly feel I am unable to comment on but I am sure the hon. the Minister will deal with it in his own fashion. I would like to raise another subject that has been touched upon by an hon. gentleman to my right. The hon. the Minister is responsible in some way, though not in the normal sense of that word, for the activities of the public corporations, viz. Iscor, Sasol, the IDC, Escom and Foscor. They are public corporations in the sense that they use or are financed by money paid to the Government by the taxpayers of this country. However, in another sense they are certainly not public in that, unlike other public corporations with shareholders, they are not required to justify the expenditure of that money nor their subsequent performance. They are certainly not public corporations in terms of normal objective economic criteria or disciplines to which other people are subjected. The hon. the Minister said in reply to a question on Tuesday, 8 October, that, so far as Iscor is concerned, that corporation is responsible to him in so far as policy is concerned. That is fine as far as it goes but I would like to come back at a later stage to what that means in practice. Let us be clear about the size of the figures that are involved in this grey area. These five public corporations spent in the five years to 1973, the latest for which I have all the figures, the following amounts to the nearest million: In 1969 R243 million, in 1970 R371 million, in 1971 R314 million, in 1972 R365 million and in 1973 R560 million which gives a total over those five years, as the hon. the Minister will know, of no less than R1 852 million. Nor is that the end of it. As the hon. the Minister himself has told us, Iscor is now going to spend the sum of no less than R3 238 million over the period until 1984. Escom in its latest annual report says that its total estimated capital expenditure for the years 1974 to 1977 inclusive is R915 million. Nobody is going to deny that in the main these public corporations have made a significant contribution to the economic development of this country but these are huge figures and yet there is confusion as to who is responsible for them. It is interesting when they are seen in context. The Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister’s colleague, in reply to a question on Tuesday, 8 October, stated that the total amount of income tax paid by all South Africans in the year 1973 amounted to R678 million, let us say R700 million. That means that these public corporations in the last five years have spent 2½ times the total income tax bill of this country, and they are now going to spend 8½ times that figure, taking into consideration the last five years as well. I think it is time the confusion about the responsibility for these corporations was cleared up. The taxpayers, and indeed, all the people of South Africa, will want to know, to see, and be assured that their money is being spent as efficiently as possible. It is therefore not much comfort when the hon. the Minister makes statements in the Senate such as this—

Presumably it comes before the Government for decision. Surely, Sir, the hon. the Minister may or may not agree, but I think any reasonable man should realize that that is a question of policy. Then again the hon. the Minister said in this House and in the Other Place: “Iscor is a fully autonomous organization operating on business lines”. It cannot be the case; because through no fault of Iscor’s, it has to try and produce the entire range of steel products, not made by others, and in addition, the price of its products is controlled. In those circumstances, normal economic or profit criteria do not apply. The Minister himself admitted on Friday, 6 September, that it was impossible to give a financial picture of how Iscor was going to spend R3 200 million. No other business would get away without the discipline of formulating, however difficult the task, their best estimate of how matters would turn out. Surely, that is a matter of policy.

It is not my intention to argue tonight against the domestic policies under which Iscor has to operate. I suspect its management has already done that, and sooner or later the Government will not be able to ignore the forces of the market which will catch up. It has already caught up to the extent of R130 million which has had to be paid out of the taxpayers’ money, to increase Iscor’s capital base. But when we come to Iscor’s activities in relation to the outside world, its export contract, the position is different, since the constraints placed upon Iscor’s business within our country do not apply in this sphere. It is imperative—I hope the hon. the Minister will agree—that Iscor should operate in this sphere under the same objective criteria as private enterprise. I have been doing some calculations in regard to the export of 17 million tons of ore per annum at Saldanha. If we assume that the mining cost is R1 per ton, which on the basis of comparable figures, is probably very much on the low side. We assume that the transportation costs are similar to those for the Port Elizabeth line, viz. six cents per ton mile, or R3-20 from Sishen to Saldanha. We assume that another 66 cents per ton must be added for working costs at the harbour. That amounts to a total of R4-80 per ton. Then we see that the price, to give an acceptable return after tax to be received from the purchaser, which we do not of course know, will have to be very high; because it will have to provide a sufficient margin and over and above that to pay the interest on and to service the loan capital of R480 million, or indeed R350 million, if we take off the R130 million of capital which is coming from the taxpayers’ money. If we assume that such loans have to be repaid over 20 years, the cost of servicing—that is, both interest payment and repayment of capital—will amount to something in excess of R2 per ton, and probably nearer R2-50, depending on the rate of interest.

Finally, I would like to return to the fact that this Minister stated that on all matters of policy, Iscor was accountable to him in the conduct of its affairs. The Minister himself has said that the branch lines of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line will go to the S.A. Railways. Sir, it must be a matter of policy, and indeed, an obligation upon the Minister, in order to avoid duplication and unnecessary expenditure of the public’s money, that Iscor should ensure that the line be fully compatible and inter-changeable in every facet with those operated by the S.A. Railways. But when we asked the Minister he replied that this was an unwarranted interference in the operation of Iscor. May I remind the hon. the Minister that he himself has said that this is a public corporation using public money. I would like to end by simply pointing out what the hon. the Minister refused to reply to. He refused to give the answer in regard to the voltage of the system on the line, to confirm that the system would be the same as that being operated by the Railways, that the supply voltage would be the same as operated by the Railways, and he refused to give the cost and the level of additional power required over and above that already available, and therefore it was impossible to work out what the unit cost for the four trains per day on that line would be. To put it mildly, Mr. Chairman, it does not give one confidence.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s speech has confirmed my suspicion. The hon. member flew in this morning, did he not? During the flight, therefore, he studied the speech he had fetched from there. I knew he was going to make a speech such as this one tonight. I wanted to make a great speech myself this evening, but I shall not do so. I should rather reply to that hon. member. The hon. member has occupied himself in the course of this session by asking questions about Iscor and Saldanha. I think he asked the hon. the Minister nine questions in this regard. He assailed the Minister with questions. Why? Why? Where does the hon. member’s interest lie?

With his former father-in-law!

There the hon. member for Pinelands is sitting. He had a high position in a church and then he became the labour adviser of Anglo-American. Here he has become a lobbyist for Anglo-American. Here sits the hon. member for Parktown, who was editor of Optima, Anglo-American’s chief propaganda organ.

What about me?

The hon. member for Johannesburg North, who has just spoken, is the crown prince of Anglo-American. There has never been a political party in this House which has had so many lobbyists for one multi-national organization as that party has. Then that hon. member dares to ask questions here which make one suspect that all is not well meant. This hon. member granted an interview to the Sunday Express on 6 October. His remarks were reported in this newspaper as follows—

What feeling is the hon. member referring to? I have a feeling too quite often. It seems to me that the hon. member has had a feeling here on the eve of spring. [Interjections.] Iscor has a proud record of business and success behind it. Still suspicion is now being thrown on this organization by an hon. member who says that “Iscor has strayed into the business world and my feeling is that it should proceed along recognized business lines”. Then the report goes on to say—

The reasons he advances are that the sand is allegedly not fine enough for the work, that the ocean floor is difficult to prepare and that Iscor has to enter into a military contract. Then the hon. member says—

He says this in spite of his following admission—

What more does he want?

What did Ben Schoeman say?

I am not concerned now with ex-minister Schoeman; I am dealing with Iscor and with the position as it is today. The report goes on to say—

Am I right?

He goes on to say—

That hon. member, who is the crown prince of a multi-national chain organization which controls R4 billion, dares to come along here and say—

I say here this evening that Iscor is a national possession; Iscor is our proud national possession; Iscor has a proud record as a successful business enterprise; Iscor is an example of the maintenance of labour peace and the regulation of labour relations within that mightly organization. This interview which was conducted with this hon. member by this newspaperman is meant for foreign consumption. The hon. member knows that Iscor is negotiating for contracts at the moment and that the outside world and the people who are involved in this are keenly interested in reading everything that is said here. He is not an ordinary man.

He is an economic terrorist.

He is a man who is a director of Highveld Steel; he is the chairman of the powerful LTA construction company; he is a director of Anglo-American. Therefore he should count his words in this House. I censure the hon. member severely for acting in this manner. The hon. member was speaking on behalf of a super multi-national structure in our economy, a structure which has only benefited by everything which has been done by this party, because of powerful influence in this country. He spoke in the manner of an economic strategist who controls the highlands of our economy in South Africa.

†Mr. Chairman, his rise in the financial and managerial structure of that super multi-national giant in the Republic of South Africa has been rapid indeed. He became a member of Parliament and at the same time he became a lobbyist for a super organization. However, we and many others doubt that he will ever succeed as a real effective lobbyist for big money. He makes too many blunders. Only a person who was naïve or arrogant or both, would have asked so many stupid, unwarranted questions in connection with the activities of Iscor. And if the insufferable audacity of that hon. member was not enough, he granted the interview to which I have referred. That hon. member seems to me to be blissfully unaware that Iscor has a proud record of success. He is apparently totally unaware that the same attitude he is adopting now was exposed previously when Iscor was established by this party. What did we hear at that time? We were told that it would be a white elephant; it was a waste of money; we did not command the knowledge. We were asked: What would happen to poor Britain? What would happy to our defence? Who would protect us? If one reads the debates on Iscor at that time, one finds exactly the same attitude running through it like a golden thread. It has been these capitally powerful multi-national organizations which have derived all the benefit from the actions taken by this Government over the years.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North has a great deal to learn about parliamentary responsibility.

May I ask a question?

No, I have no time to answer questions. The hon. member must be careful about what he says because the outside world is listening attentively to what is said here, particularly in regard to Iscor. The hon. member must not preach company before country. I want to plead with him tonight not to preach company before country. I may also put this question to myself: Will the hon. member ever be able to conform to these norms? I would say that the answer appears to be no. He cannot be considered either as a real South African yet or as purely multi-national. He is something in between—a breed on his own. He has a particular super-giant, multi-national, Anglo-American, crown prince, director citizenship. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by saying this: I have here a book entitled The Multinationals. If the hon. member would read this book, he will realize what I mean. [Interjections.] You have not read it yet; I was the first one to take it out.

*Sir, I want to read to you what was said by W. J. Kenyon-Jones, the chairman of Ronsons in Britain, as quoted in The Shape of America’s Challenge by Rex Winsbury—

Then he says—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think it is customary to refer to something said by the previous speaker. Sir, I want to say just one word as a very young Member of Parliament to a very old Member of Parliament, and that is that I believe that it is not in good taste to refer to a man’s employment or his background or his job when he puts a case on its merits in this House. The hon. member himself might perhaps look into his own conscience and work out whether there is anything that anybody could ever say about him if he were to speak in this House and make the same sort of attack. I think hon. members of the Progressive Party are well able to look after themselves, if they need looking after, but I certainly do not want to be associated with attacks of a personality nature when the merits of a case are being discussed here.

It has nothing to do with personalities.

Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to matters which are of more importance at the present moment. I want to deal with the comparison between the situation in South Africa at present and the situation which existed in the 1930s. I was dealing with the question of share prices. The point I would like to make is the following: Why should you invest money in a new enterprise when the spectre hangs over you of being able to make a profit of 15% before tax when you can invest on the Stock Exchange in companies that appear to be perfectly sound and that have an historical earnings pattern of 20% or 25% after tax? It is illogical. Sir, to place oneself in that position and to have that spectre hanging over one. The situation in respect of corporations at the present moment is that high interest rates discourage investment. The companies themselves have to plough back more capital in view of the shortage of money that they can borrow. This in turn affects their ability to pay dividends; this again brings down the share price and affects the company’s ability to raise new capital, and therefore one has very little new capital of an equity of venture nature being raised in these times. I think one of the matters to which the hon. the Minister should pay attention is the question of giving encouragement to the raising of new equity and risk capital in order to encourage growth in South Africa. Here, Sir, I want to echo, if I may, the words which the hon. member for Constantia used in respect of profits. I want to say here that exploitation is a crime, but the making of profits is not a sin, and it is important that we encourage the concept that profits are necessary in order to expand South Africa’s economy.

The second point I want to make in the comparison between those days and today is the question of the high interest rates. It is quite clear, if we compare the interest rates in the 1930s with the situation today, that far too much short-term money is being invested as opposed to medium-term and long-term money. The fact that there is too little medium and long-term money being invested makes it very clear that people do not have the right degree of confidence that is required, and this is a problem which exists. The use of short-term money in the 1930s. as the hon. the Minister should know, was one of the causes of the collapse of economies and of businesses in Europe and in America at the time. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he, together with the Minister of Finance, should endeavour to make more short-term money available in order to reduce the rates on short-term money so that in fact the relatively speaking medium and long-term rates will go up and you will then have a far more satisfactory position in South Africa.

There is a further matter in respect of borrowing and interest rates to which I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention. There is a great deal of agitation today that we should have more foreign borrowings. But foreign borrowings, if they are in the short term—and we are encouraging, I believe, too much short-term borrowing overseas are dangerous. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to what happened in Germany in 1928 and what developed in Austria and Germany in 1930 where the dependence on foreign loans, when eventually they were withdrawn, caused a complete economic collapse which started with the collapse in Austria of the Viennese credit bank and had dire consequences. I believe that when we borrow overseas we must borrow longterm and not short-term.

There is another matter in respect of interest rates which needs attention, and that is the disparity between the level for borrowing and the facilities for credit granting, where the gap has now narrowed to the extent that it has now become a problem for many people and a very real problem. The hon. the Minister may have seen what was said by the Motor Distributors’ Association only the other day. They made it clear that you could not sell motor-cars if in fact you could not have this kind of credit available. Whereas it may be desirable to restrict a certain amount of credit, the industry requires it to produce because it can only exist that way and it can only provide employment that way. If it cannot sell motor-cars that industry will be in dire straits. It is not only in the motor-car industry that this is happening. We have not yet had, after having raised the point again and again, an answer to the problem as to how television is going to be financed in South Africa, where the money is going to come from and at what rates it is going to become available. The dramatic fact which appears to be hitting people in South Africa is that television sets are going to become so expensive, the financing of them is going to become so expensive, that the very people who should have television, the lonely and the aged, are the ones who will not be able to afford television in South Africa. [Interjections.] Apparently the Cabinet will have television sets and that will solve all the problems.

I also want to deal with this liquidity squeeze and I again want to draw a comparison here between ourselves and what happened between 1929 and 1930 in Europe. Bankruptcies of major businesses are a danger to any community because they have a snowballing effect. I believe that where businesses are no good, where they should not exist for economic reasons, there is no reason to ensure their survival. Where in fact businesses only go under because of a liquidity squeeze or because of a shortage of money when in fact they are sound businesses, that is something which our country certainly cannot allow to take place. I believe that what should happen, with respect, is that there should be a greater endeavour to make money available for productive requirements of South Africa, perhaps away from consumer spending, but that you cannot allow a liquidity squeeze which is in fact so tight that it strangles businesses which should not be strangled.

The fourth point which is also a comparison which can be made, is the drop in property prices. We had this in the 1930 and we now have had it in other parts of the world—perhaps the United Kingdom is the best example—where eventually certain property has no price at all; you just cannot sell it because you cannot get a price for it. Now there is an endeavour, particularly in one province, at a time when, in fact, you can already not really have a ready market for stands because the property market has gone down, to knock the property market further. I believe that this is an unhealthy and unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is true that one should channel funds to the greatest degree possible to productive enterprises, but we cannot knock the building industry. Here again we had statements over the weekend that many builders are facing very serious financial problems. We cannot afford, in the present state of our economy, to have this going on.

We come to bankruptcies generally. If you look at the 1930s you see there were bank failures; there were matters which caused a collapse of the whole financial structure. We have recently had signs of this in Europe with bank failures in various countries. I want to say that we in South Africa are fortunate that, in fact, our banking structure is sound and that our banking structure is well controlled. However, it does appear that despite that, what we need in South Africa is a feeling of security on the part of the small man. Here for one thing, active steps must be taken to root out the grey market in money which is in fact causing people to lose money and is taking money away from the sectors in which it should operate. The existence of a grey market in money in South Africa will I believe constitute a danger to the economy if it is left uncontrolled and if adequate steps are not taken to deal with it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is always pleasant to listen to the hon. member for Yeoville. He does not always say the correct things, but what he says he says in such a way that one feels that he is waging a struggle with himself, that he has not yet talked out the matter with himself and that he wants to convince us even before he has convinced himself. I can honestly say that I do not want to say anything more to the hon. member for Johannesburg North than what the hon. member for Carletonville said to him. I think what the hon. member for Carletonville said is quite correct, i.e. that when one finds oneself in certain situations, one should be careful in one’s view of other matters. One should always be careful, as he said, to notice certain interests and then to be influenced by those interests so that one may pass judgment on other matters.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the decline in land prices. If there is someone who has dealt South Africa a blow or has prejudiced our economy, it is the hon. member for Yeoville. I believe the hon. member had done so unconsciously because he believes that legislation being adopted in the Transvaal at the moment could cause certain problems.

I think you agree that there are problems.

Never in my life have I agreed with a U.P. man, especially not in a public place. [Interjections.] The hon. member should not ask me that type of question, please. One should never make this type of supposition, i.e. that prices are going to drop, in this House or in any other important place. This is not so. We should not shake people’s confidence in the only commodity which has remained constant over the years.

You should tell that to your friends in Pretoria; they are causing it.

Fortunately I have friends in Pretoria and in Cape Town—everywhere. Not for a single moment do I doubt that land is still the basis. The shortage of housing can only cause the price of land to rise, and a temporary break in financing is not going to bring about a drop in the price of land. This is just a period of stabilization, and we in this House should not fan these things and proceed from the assumption that we are going to have a downward trend. We are not going to have it—at any rate, not in land. If one takes the trend over the years since 1939, one will see that the mortgages taken on land were usually between 60% and 70%. The money the buyer put into it was, therefore, usually 30%, if he had a mortgage of 60%. Even in the worst times he will only lose 10%, but because land has increased in value so rapidly, one cannot lose out on it. Nobody throws his mortgage away, and nobody throws his cash in. For that reason one only has a variation of 10% and usually an increase of 30% or more. It really is not the correct thing to talk about a downward trend in this House.

The hon. member definitely knows a great deal about banks.

Have you sold your shares?

The banks are perhaps the bodies which can help us more in these times than they are in fact doing at the moment.

Bank in land.

Yes, that is correct, bank in land. When we bury the hon. member one day, it will be in land. If one rises, one lands on land. The hon. member should remember that no matter where one might find one’s resting place, it will still be in the ground.

It is a very cheap resting place.

But I want to say a few things about inflation. A state of inflation is a far more serious situation than we usually want to suggest, because it very easily affects the social structure. Man as a social being has learnt over the years, from the French Revolution up to the present, that when the social structure is overthrown, the effects are felt on the financial level as well. At the time of the French revolution these problems culminated in a revolution. The major and most important aspect which we should consider is that selling out is not a solution in a time of inflation. I want to remind hon. members that the French experienced the greatest period of inflation of all times in 1790. The extensive inflation round about the years 1790 resulted in the Government’s foreign exchange being depleted and, as a result, in their resorting to the most fantastic auction that has ever been held, an auction of the contents of the Palace of Versailles. They sold out instead of working. They liquidated in a time of inflation. In a time of inflation one should work, live, create, and even the circulation of money should be harnessed in such a way that it brings about renewal. But one should be harnessed in such a way that it brings about renewal. But one should not sell out. One should not take fright and one should not become afraid of one’s economy, because inflation is really the depression of a businessman. It gives him a chance to breathe, and, if it is applied correctly, it creates greater advantages.

What did Dr. Diederichs do?

If the hon. member had the ingenuity of Dr. Diederichs, he would understand what I am talking about. The major requirement is that one should not give way to it. We in the Western world can never have a depression again. We may not and will not have it again. There is enough intelligence in world business circles never to allow a depression to take place again. There is in fact a danger that overheating of the economy and slackness on the part of workers, as is to be found in England, can create a situation where the social structure changes to such on extent that there is a change to communism, or to socialism of such a nature that there is no difference between the communistic view and the socialistic view. China is an example of this. In China it was given out that there was no upward trend in prices. This is splendid, not so?, if one looks at it superficially. However, there was no increase in wages either. There the jobless poor live on the farms and live from the land. Is there anyone of us who wants this situation here? In our community we simply cannot allow this. It is for this reason that one has to listen attentively to the financial experts. One of them is a man by the name of John Maynard Keynes. He said a small dose of inflation prevented unemployment.

Is 15% a small dose?

Can you imagine 15% unemployment? I want to tell the hon. member that we are not talking about bank rates now. I am only talking about unemployment. According to Keynes, the fact of the matter is that one can prevent unemployment by means of a small dose. The financial institutions should co-operate with the governments of the Western world to prevent unemployment in a world where unemployment is one’s greatest danger. Here in South Africa I have heard a great deal about frustration as a result of inflation, but even so our people are living contentedly. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have listened with particular attention to the chief spokesman of the United Party on economic affairs, the hon. member for Constantia. As a junior member of this House I should like to learn from this wise man. However, I have to tell him that I am very disappointed. What we heard was a very fine discourse on well-known economic laws. That information can be found in any text-book of university students. We received nothing new or practical which we could apply to our real structures. On the one hand the hon. member advocates the movement of the free economy, away from State interference, therefore, but at the same time he asks for vigilance against the formation of monopolies, of cartels, of price rings, etc. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens was especially critical of public corporations, structures which have played a very important role in the development of our economy. When the economy of our country was in the initial stages of its development, there was actually no free capital available and therefore it was necessary for these bodies to be created. Iscor was one of the corporations that came into being in circumstances such as these. Therefore I have to say that that hon. member really did not make a positive contribution.

The hon. member for Yeoville …

Are you summarizing the debate?

… keeps taking us back to the days of 1920 to 1930 and giving us comparative figures. I want to tell him that he cannot compare the situation in 1930 with the conditions in 1974. The whole economic structure has changed in the meantime. The concept of enshrinement is being applied quite differently to our stock exchange. These pessimistic opinions that are being expressed and these negative tendencies in economies are causing a certain speculative transaction on the exchange which we call “bearing the market”. The “bears” are those people who derive benefit from this pessimism.

Sir, I should like to point out just one interesting fact. Recently it was ascertained by way of a random test among a few thousand pupils up to the matric age group what their weekly expenditure amounted to. It was found that the average expenditure per child between the ages of six and 18 was 50 cents a week. In the course of a year this represents an amount of approximately R24,5 million. This is a significant factor in the spending pattern of our economy, in the sense that this is a population group—only White children were involved in this—which has made no real contribution to productivity. These children are dependents. They grow up with a spending psychosis. They grow up in an atmosphere of spending money. As opposed to this, it was recently established in Canada by way of an inquiry that there are 16 000 different professions or jobs available for school-leavers at the moment. That large number of professions is still increasing daily. This shows us the availability of labour for those pupils. Furthermore I want to point out to hon. members that the faculties, intelligence and potential of development of 50% of any ordinary group of people are below normal, and 50% above normal.

The Cabinet, for example?

This House is perhaps a major exception to general rule.

These indications are of great importance to us; because the time when it was possible in the business world for a messenger to advance to the position of manager, is past long ago. The young business people enter the junior or senior managerial level at a very early age, something which was also referred to by one of the previous speakers. This places a very heavy responsibility, firstly, on the shoulders of those responsible for education and, secondly on our business leaders and entrepreneurs. We have to instruct, train and educate these people in the present climate of an overheated, economy, where spending is the order of the day. However, we have to guide them towards a more profound realization of their particular place in the economy. As far as education is concerned, we have to teach them that character and the other supporting personality attributes remain valid. As far as businessmen are concerned, I want to point out that it is the task of the entrepreneurs to point out to the younger person that ample opportunities await him within this framework of the changing economy. That entrepreneur should make it clear to him what the economy may expect of him. He should guide him in respect of his participation in a full labour market; he should inspire him to fulfil his task to the full and to the best of his ability. He should first learn the simple lesson that he should first earn before he can spend. In Pretoria it was determined that the young workers there are living six months ahead on a credit-spending pattern. In other words, if they should decide to stop buying on credit today, they would only have paid all their debts in six months’ time. Our youth will have to be taught and guided by business entrepreneurs to manage their affairs correctly. I should like to quote what one of our prominent business leaders had to say on the subject “The Place and the Space of the Business Leader in the Modern Economy” (translation)—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat described himself in all honesty and modesty as not operating in the same economic field as the hon. member for Constantia. Well, Sir I think it is best left at that.

I want to deal with a subject which, although not political, is of the greatest importance perhaps to all the electorate of South Africa this evening. I refer specifically to the public accountability of State corporations to Parliament. I would use the background and the figures given to this House this evening by the hon. member for Johannesburg North when he indicated that we were dealing in terms of thousands of millions of rand which well being made available by Parliament to public corporations of a nature that are in the main private enterprise. I am not concerned with the merits of whether Iscor, Foskor or the IDC are good or bad. We have accepted that they are carrying out an operation which is essentially necessary for our economy. What I am concerned about is the accountability of their financial results to Parliament. I feel that Parliament as such should be given the greatest possible responsibility in relation to the accounts of these organizations. It is well known that the Select Committee on Public Accounts has been defined as the watchdog of Parliament and that at no time in history has Parliament itself been able to evade its responsibility as the ultimate controller of the purse in the eyes of the public. When we realize the increasing measures that are being taken year by year by Parliament to bring about greater strictures on the financial operations of private enterprise—I refer to the Companies Act, the Insurance Act and other restricting Acts—then I believe that the time has come when we should debate across the floor of the House the greater responsibility of these State corporations in their accounting to Parliament. It has been said on occasions that it is impossible to expect the managing director of a corporation such as Iscor, Foskor or Armscor to come to the Bar of Parliament and give account of its financial transactions, but I submit that this is completely illogical. After all, the Prime Minister himself spends some two days each year accounting to Parliament for his portfolio. The hon. the Minister of Finance and all other Ministers are prepared, in debates such as the one that is taking place now, to account in detail under pressure from members of the Opposition, their responsibility in the handling of public funds. Equally, when we see the glossy annual accounts which are produced each year by such organizations as Iscor and Foscor, the XDC, the IDC and the Bantu Investment Corporation, we know that we are dealing here with thousands of millions of rand. I believe it is only right that we should review this non-accountability of these private corporations and make them accountable if not to Parliament then certainly to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs can be entirely happy about the fact that, when questioned by a member of the Opposition on whether the XDC, the BIC or the IDC has shown great losses or great profits, he is able to shrug off responsibility and merely indicate that while these corporations are Government corporations brought to being by Parliament, because they have been given private status it is not incumbent upon him to account them to Parliament. This is a matter which affects the dignity of Parliament as such. In the past years we have had speaker after speaker on this side of the House appealing to Parliament to realize that the responsibility which it has to the electorate in this regard is such that it can no longer be avoided. I therefore make the plea that Parliament, realizing that it is the institution ultimately responsible for the spending of public money, should accept this responsibility. We realize the tremendously dire consequences our economy is facing. When we say this, we are not being pessimists, but we would be unrealistic if we did not admit that we were moving into difficult economic times that have been highlighted by hon. members on this side of the House. When the man in the street sees in his newspaper that R30 million is being spent on this State corporation and R300 million on that State corporation, he should be able to rely on his member of Parliament, whether he represents a Nationalist-held constituency, a Progressive-held constituency or a U.P.-held constituency, to indicate that Parliament itself is satisfied not merely that the annual reports are put on the desks of members of Parliament—where they are largely ignored—but that the Ministerial portfolios, and specifically the portfolio of the Minister of Economic Affairs who is finally responsible for these State-promoted corporations, have been brought under review and agreed to. Therefore, I submit that it is in the interests of the electorate and in the interess of more responsible accounting that we should get away from the concept that State-promoted corporations are responsible only to themselves. It must be realized that the Government in almost every instance is a shareholder and usually the only shareholder in these corporations. Just as a chairman of any corporation is held accountable by his shareholders, so I believe the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs should be held accountable for the finances, the profits or losses of private State corporations.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on the arguments advanced by the hon. member who has just sat down, but I should like to discuss certain aspects of our economy. Because of the way in which the South African population is composed, and because of the large percentage of non-Whites who are not very highly developed, we simply cannot afford to allow large-scale unemployment. Because the rate of population increase among the non-Whites is relatively high, South Africa must from the nature of the case maintain a higher growth rate than the countries of Europe, for example, could afford to do. For that reason I consider it to be essential in these times of economic uncertainty for planning to be undertaken and preparations to be made on Government level, in order that we may meet all possible circumstances and in order that we may be able to supply more work in the field of semi-skilled labour in times of economic uncertainty. In Europe, the tendency is for greater unemployment to result in the labour intensive undertakings and for more job opportunities to arise in the technical and capital intensive undertakings. South Africa, however, with its tremendous reserves of semi-skilled or unskilled workers, should ensure that growth is maintained in South Africa, in the future as well, in the event of a worldwide growth stagnation. For this reason I want to express my appreciation for the announcement made by the Prime Minister recently to the effect that it will also be possible to invest White capital in the Bantu homelands in order to make jobs available there. This is obviously being done with the co-operation and the consent of the leaders of the Bantu homeland areas. It is creating a completely new development pattern in the industrial sector in South Africa and it is creating a need for planning to be undertaken in a direction to which the same urgency did not attach in the past. The economy of South Africa is of such a nature, in view of the threat of possible sanctions in respect of strategic goods from overseas, that South Africa must endeavour, on the one hand, to develop an independent and self-sufficient economy and industry. On the other hand, it is desirable for our economy to be developed in such a way as to enable us to promote greater co-operation with our neighbouring states, for by means of this economic co-operation we shall at the same time make our neighbouring states realize that they stand to gain by co-operation with South Africa and that a political struggle against South Africa would hold few advantages for the growth of those states.

I believe that one of the factors in South Africa’s favour is the progress that South Africa has made in the petro-chemical industry. South Africa is the world’s leader in the field of oil from coal. South Africa tackled this process by means of a State undertaking and has developed it into the largest of its kind in the world. South Africa has even been able to advise the United States in this respect. I quote from a report of the South African Coal and Gas Corporation, Limited (translation)—

But particularly at the present moment, now that oil is being used as a weapon for political purposes by the Arab States, depending on circumstances, I consider it to be essential for South Africa to take the next step in the expansion of the petrochemical industry as soon as possible. This should not be done for the sake of fuel only, although that is also a consideration. In view of the fact that South Africa has tremendous coal reserves, good as well as inferior quality coal, and since it is in fact desirable for the inferior quality coal to be used for the oil from coal process, we are able to make tremendous progress in this field. For this reason I want to appeal to the Government to give serious consideration to taking the next step in the development of our petro-chemical industry in the near future. This would create additional jobs, not only on the coal-mine level, but also on the level of technical skilled work connected with the industrialized process. Then there are all the byproducts, which would provide jobs for a large number of people. I am thinking in particular of the highly essential products of fertilizer in the form of nitrogen, which is one of the important factors in the agricultural industry. In addition, extremely important plastics are being developed today as an ancillary industry to the petro-chemical industry. Furthermore, the increase in the price of oil has caused tremendous cost increases in the plastics industry. Consequently it could only be to the advantage of South Africa if we were to take the next step in the development of our petrochemical industry in the near future. South Africa has developed into an economic giant over the past few years and we must continue to use the economic strength of South Africa to stabilize our political independence in Southern Africa and at the same time to gain the friendship of our neighbouring states by making them realize that co-operation with South Africa would be to our mutual advantage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Klip River has made quite a sensible speech, and I must say this is the only sensible speech I have heard him make in this House. It seems to me that the United Party in Natal has had quite a good influence on that hon. member, and that may be the reason for the sensible speech he made tonight. I associate myself with the other hon. members who have welcomed the hon. the Minister to his new office. I have the feeling that before the hon. the Minister has had the chance to acquaint himself properly with this post, he will be moved to another post in the course of next year. If this were to happen, it would be unproductive as far as the economy is concerned, for what is the use of the Minister’s trying to acquaint himself with this post and then being moved to another one? (Interjections.] The hon. the Minister should realize by this time that in dealing with our side he is dealing with a very responsible Opposition. The problem, of course, is that such an attitude deserves mutual trust, but now we have the hon. the Minister telling us that we should repose unbounded trust in him, while his attitude is that neither the electorate nor the Opposition in this House is to be trusted to the extent to which he wants us to trust him. If the hon. the Minister speaks of Iscor or Saldanha and we ask him questions, he is, as we say in English, a reluctant bride. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is unable to tell us, for example, with which overseas undertaking he is negotiating for the construction of the semi-processing plant at Saldanha. Why cannot the hon. the Minister tell us what the construction of that plant would cost, if it is in fact built?

What do you want to do with it?

An hon. member wants to know what I want to do with it. If he listens to my speech he will find out.

†I want to make it clear that I feel the hon. the Minister is in duty bound to answer questions in relation to both Iscor and Saldanha. I feel that he is in duty bound to tell us what the cost will be of the semis plant. We must consider his failure to furnish such replies in a most serious light.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.