Sir, after the Foreign Affairs Vote has been disposed of today, we shall proceed to deal with legislation as it appears on the Order Paper. On Monday the Labour Vote will come up for discussion, and after that Vote has been disposed of, we shall deal with the Interior and Information Votes. The Bantu Administration and Bantu Education Votes will be discussed for the remainder of the week.

Mr. Chairman, when one looks at world affairs today there is indeed, much cause for concern. In Cambodia and South Vietnam communist aggression is causing infinite suffering to millions of people at this very moment, while no Western nation as much as lifts a finger to try to prevent it. In Western Europe, the cradle of our Christian Western civilization, the doctrines of Karl Marx are superseding the doctrines of Christianity. Mr. Chairman, unless something unforeseen happens to quell the side of Marxism, Western Europe could within the next decade fall an easy prey to Communism. In our own continent, Africa, there is hardly a single stable Government outside South Africa’s borders. It is calculated that more than 300 000 people have been mowed down by famine in Central and East Africa in the past few years. Furthermore, Africa is chastised by underdevelopment and lack of food, by a lack of initiative, lack of know-how and lack of capital, by illiteracy, drought and pests, by official murders and the brutality of public executions, by uncontrollable terrorism and inroads of Chinese and Russian Communism, and by the probability of a fierce and lengthy civil war in Angola.

Mr. Chairman, while all these and many other things are happening in our present-day world, causing uncertainty and concern for the future, the United Nations Organization, which was founded on the lofty ideals of fostering and promoting peace and goodwill amongst all men and all nations, has found it necessary to devote the major part of its time and energy to discuss, contrary to the stipulations of its own charter, the internal policy of a member State, that member State being South Africa, one of the very few countries in the world where there is stability and peace and progress and where real independence and self-determination are growing into reality for several smaller nations.

Mr. Chairman, while the United Nations Organization has found it necessary to suspend South Africa from the proceedings of the General Assembly, South Africa who was a founder member of the United Nations, who took a major share in shaping the United Nations charter, who has always had a very exemplary record in U.N. affairs, who has always paid its dues promptly and has consistently held out a hand of friendship and co-operation to all developing nations, was illegally and summarily cut off from General Assembly participation. But, Sir, never a single note of protest was heard in the chambers of the United Nations against communist aggression and cruelty in South-East Asia, or against communist violation of solemn international agreements, or against the oppression of millions of people in the Russian satellite States, or against the bloodshed and oppression of minorities in Africa, or against the brutalities of public persecutions and public hangings in certain African States! Mr. Chairman, this is the world in which we live. This is the world in which we have to try to secure a continued peaceful existence for our children. We, who believe in the sound values of our Christian heritage and in our system of free enterprise, may not lose courage or faith. I think the time has come, Sir, when the peoples who place a high premium on these values should stand together. It is in this regard that I wish to make a plea again today for closer co-operation between South Africa and the United States of America. Sir, I firmly believe that there is no other nation in the world with which we have so much in common as the United States. Not only did our ancestors emigrate from the same European countries, but there is also a very close similarity between the histories of our two countries. The covered wagon of the American pioneer played the same important role there as the “Kakebeenwa” of the Voortrekker played here. It has been their task and ours to cultivate and civilize a vast uncivilized continent. For many years now it is their national policy and their firm conviction that no other State has the right to interfere in their domestic affairs. We also believe in the policy of non-interference in our domestic affairs. They have a colour problem which they are trying to solve in their own way, namely along the lines of integration, and we have a colour problem which we are trying to solve in our own way, namely along the lines of the development of separate nationalities. Both South Africa and the United States have a long and happy history of close co-operation, not only in the fields of science and research, but we also fought side by side with them through two world wars and again in the Korean war. We also have in common with them the fact that our two countries form part of the New World, a new world with a different task and a different duty towards mankind. There are signs that the Old World is passing by and that the New World has to take the lead. But, Sir, most important of all, we stand together side by side with the U.S.A. in their struggle against Communism, which is endangering and bedevilling their lives as it does ours. The U.S.A. is today generally accepted as the dominant country of the free world and as the undisputed leader in the struggle against Communism. Of course, it must be admitted that the U.S.A. has had serious setbacks recently in its role as protector of the free world. After its failure in the Middle East and after the Vietnam debacle, the question is being raised whether the U.S.A. is still the leader of the free world and its protector against the onward sweep of Communism. One observes signs of a move towards isolationism amongst U.S. congressmen, which is not surprising after the Vietnam tragedy in which 55 000 American lives were lost. However, I personally believe that the U.S.A. is a great country with a great people who will not falter or hesitate when a task has to be performed. We have appreciation for the more positive and realistic approach by the State Department towards South Africa. We have appreciation for ambassador Scali’s realistic speeches in and outside the forum of U.N. We are sorry that through no fault of our own we are no longer allowed to play a role in that organization. It must, however, be borne in mind by our friends that we also have a feeling of national pride, and until such time as there is a change of heart in U.N., it could surely hardly be expected of us to go back, cap in hand, asking for more humiliation and degradation. That, of course, is my own personal view. The time, however, is ripe that a solid base for co-operation between the U.S. and South Africa should be encouraged. This would be to the infinite advantage of both countries, because ultimately friendly relations between States are determined by facts and by national interests and not by sentiment.

The fact is that after South-East Asia has been conquered, the communists will undoubtedly turn towards Africa. Already there is the enormously expanding communist arms build-up; in African countries. There is, for instance, the naval and military concentration in Somalia at the horn of Africa. There is also intense Soviet interest in the southern part of the Indian Ocean. These are hard facts which cannot be denied or disputed. Communist domination of the Indian Ocean and of the Cape route poses a serious threat not only to South Africa but also to European countries and also to the United States, since one by one the possible theatres of war are being occupied by pre-emptive Russian action. There will come a day when it will be too late to act.

Sir, I should like to conclude by saying that the time is ripe for the U.S.A. to shake off the domineering and the bullying of the communist-inspired majority of the U.N., and for its own sake to declare itself prepared to sell to South Africa the arms we need to safeguard the Cape sea route.

Mr. Chairman, before I deal with questions that have been put to me, I should like at this stage to express my sincere thanks for the appreciation expressed on both sides of this House for the work which has been done by the hon. the Prime Minister, myself, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and my department. I can assure hon. members that everything which has been achieved was the result of excellent team-work. A great deal of hard work was done by the team as a whole. I can also assure hon. members that the support of hon. members on both sides of this House means a very great deal to us. In the second place I want to express my sincere thanks for the fact that all the members on both sides of the House responded so splendidly to my request and plea to be careful in their statements in regard to Africa. When I made that appeal to hon. members, I realized that there was a danger that, this could lead to a colourless debate, a debate without any fireworks, but I think hon. members will agree with me that this was not the case at all, and that the majority of the speeches which have been made up to now, were constructive and also useful. For that I want to convey my thanks to members on both sides of this House.

One of the few discordant notes that was sounded, came from the hon. member for Sea Point. That is regrettable, for otherwise that hon. member made a useful and constructive contribution. I am not much older than that hon. member. Nevertheless I think that I should speak to him like a father this morning. By continuing to try to play off my good friend, the hon. the Minister of Defence and I against each other the hon. member is harming his own image. It makes a very poor impression. The hon. member should rather ask himself where South Africa stood with détente and what the future of us all—both his children and mine—would have been if the S.A. Defence Force had not, under the present Minister of Defence, been developed to that degree of preparedenss and striking power which it has today. All this has been done under the guidance of the present hon. the Minister of Defence, in spite of the fact that the U.N. is attempting to enforce an arms boycott against South Africa. Therefore I really hope that there will be an end to the pettiness of this hon. member.

The hon. member also enquired about the alleged recruiting of mercenaries in Johannesburg who, according to report, will be used in Mozambique. I must say that the reply to this question is in fact obvious. The Government’s policy in regard to the recruiting of mercenaries has been very clearly stated, inter alia during last September in this House by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence, and by myself. We stated unequivocally that we are opposed to such a practice and that we shall not allow it. This is still our policy today. This newspaper story has been thoroughly investigated and my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Police, has informed me that it became apparent during the investigation that the story had no substance whatsoever. If attempts should be made in future to recruit mercenaries, strict action will be taken against them.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised objections to the use of the word “non-White” in the 1974 edition of the South West Africa Survey. Surely it is sometimes necessary to distinguish between the various population groups of South Africa and of South West Africa.

Not on basis of colour.

Sometimes it is absolutely necessary. This is also being done at the U.N. If the hon. member were to take the trouble to read the notes which I made available to him and to other members in regard to the recent session of the U.N., he would find that many of the speakers—Americans and others—also use that expression in speeches quoted in the survey.

They refer to “Blacks”.

If the hon. member were to take the trouble to read through his own Hansard of the past, he would see that he himself has repeatedly used that word here.

Yes, but internally.

Of course, but apparently the hon. member is not aware of the fact that a very close study is made of our Hansard in the outside world as well. I think the hon. member is being over-sensitive, completely unreasonable and unpractical as far as this matter is concerned.

The hon. member also made the allegation that not all political parties have full participation in the process which is now taking place in South West Africa. He quoted, I think, from the South West Africa Survey, Vol., II, 1974, page 27. But what is stated there relates to the situation which existed at the time when South, Africa made contact with the Secretary-General and his representatives. It deals specifically with the freedom of political activities. The freedom of political activities still exists in practice, on the basis set out in the quotation which the hon. member used yesterday. What is happening there at present, is something else. The leaders of the various population groups—not the parties, although some of the leaders are brought there by political parties—are at present holding talks.

The hon. member also complained that there was insufficient information on the future of South West Africa. Does the hon. member not realize what is happening in South West Africa now, or does it not suit his purpose to admit what is happening there? Surely the inhabitants of South West Africa now have to work out their political future themselves, and all options are open to them. How on earth could the department which compiled this survey have stated in 1974 what was going to happen there in future, seeing that all the options are open? Surely that would have meant that we would have been prescribing to those people, who are seated around a conference table, what they should do. That is not our interpretation of self-determination. Then we would have been doing precisely what we say we ourselves and others should not do.

The hon. member also referred to the next session of the Security Council. Our actions in this regard are a matter to which, the Government is constantly giving its urgent attention. I think hon. members will agree with me that it will not be advisable for me at this stage to anticipate the Government’s actions. This House will of course be fully informed in due course on the Government’s actions. However, I want to remind that hon. members that the hon. the Prime Minister said in this House last week that good progress was being made in South West Africa with the consultation among the various population groups themselves. This is in fact relevant here.

The hon. member thinks that we can refer our problems in regard to the United Nations to the World Court. I have already caused this matter to be thoroughly investigated by the law advisers of my department. In the first place this is impracticable on a juridicial basis. The World Court may only be used if a dispute arises between two members of the United Nations, and both members subject themselves to the authority and jurisdiction of that court. In the second place the World Court may be approached for an advisory opinion, when this is requested by the U.N. organ concerned. A member state itself cannot do this. Even if this had in fact been possible on legal grounds, which is not the case, of what avail would it have been to us? In view of our experience of the court in the past, it would be futile to go to this court again with our difficulty.

The hon. member referred to our relations with Lesotho. I and all of us on this side of the House also regret the recent actions of Lesotho. It is very regrettable, for this is not conducive to sound relations between South Africa and this neighbouring state of ours. We have sought to maintain sound relations throughout, and shall continue to do so. As regards the charge made by Lesotho pertaining to interference on our part, I can only say that in that respect South Africa has a very clean record. Lesotho would do well to consider examining its own conscience in this regard.

The hon. member for Vasco suggested that I should seek out opportunities to hold frequent talks on foreign relations with the Bantu nations. I have already done this on occasion, inter alia with representatives of the Coloureds, as well, but in the past such discussions did not take place regularly and systematically. I think that the hon. member has made a good suggestion, a suggestion which could be followed up in consultation with the hon. the Prime Minister and the other Ministers concerned.

The hon. member for Yeoville advocated inter alia that we should strengthen our ties with South America. We on this side of the House agree with him one hundred per cent. I could just remind him of the fact here that we have recently established diplomatic relations with a considerable number of Latin American States, so that we already have diplomatic relations with approximately a dozen States in Southern and Central America today.

†The speech of the hon. member for Pinelands continued, like the speech of his leader, several constructive elements. He made the suggestion that like last year we should again include as members of the delegation to the United Nations non-White South Africans. I can assure him that this will again be considered at the appropriate time, and that the experiment which we made last year was certainly worthwhile. The hon. member also put questions about the training of non-Whites as diplomats. I can inform the House that this matter has been finalized to the point where we can shortly proceed with the recruitment of non-White members for the diplomatic service. The hon. member also pleaded for more unofficial contacts with Africa. This is actually already taking place in several fields.

The hon. member for Von Brandis and several other hon. members stressed the importance of South Africa’s continued membership of the United Nations.

*The hon. member and other hon. members should realize, however, that there is a world of difference between withdrawal on one’s own initiative, for whatever reason —for example, because one is dissatisfied with the organization, because it is not serving its purpose, or because one is not being accorded proper treatment there—and the situation South Africa has had to deal with since the last session of the General Assembly. This is a situation in which the U.N. is making it impossible for us to practise our membership. This also affects the question of our contributions to the budget of the organization. I do not know whether the hon. member for Pinelands wants us to make our contributions in spite of the fact that we are not at present able to participate in the proceedings of the organization. South Africa’s standpoint in regard to its membership of the U.N. has been stated very, very clearly and unequivocally here and elsewhere. We want to remain in this organization as long as this is possible, in practice, and our future relations with the U.N. will therefore depend on further developments in practice.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to refer to a few remarks made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in this debate. He referred, inter alia, to the gravity of the situation in Rhodesia and pointed out the difficult position in which South Africa would find itself should terrorist activities flare up in Rhodesia once more. This is where he stopped, and now I should like to know from him what, according to his party’s standpoint, South Africa should do in the event of such terrorist activities flaming up in Rhodesia. It is very easy for him to deal with problems such as these without his stating his party’s standpoint.

Tell me what your standpoint is, then I shall tell you what ours is.

I am asking the hon. member what their standpoint is. He did not ask for ours, and I am now asking him what their standpoint is.

The hon. member gave a very true description of the success of guerrilla warfare in the world during the past number of years. I nearly want to go as far as saying that he sang the praises of this success. He is correct, because it is really pathetic to see how the powerful West reeled against the onslaughts of guerrilla warfare. I think, however, he omitted to say one thing, which in my opinion, must be said in the times in which we are living in the world at the moment. To be specific, the hon. member omitted to say that all the guerrilla onslaughs were aimed at colonial authorities. He omitted pointing out that the principal key to their success was the fact that the men who were used to fight them, had no attachment to the country they had to defend. I think we must make it perfectly clear to the guerrillas, terrorists and subversives that if they were to touch South Africa, they would find themselves in a different situation to what they possibly experienced elsewhere in the world, and that the people of South Africa are a nation who bought this country with blood and tears and that we are definitely prepared to retain in this country for ourselves. I do not want to argue with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I just think that he should have added this and that it would have been a very good thing if this had come from his side of the House.

There is a third point to which I want to refer in connection with the remarks which came from that side of this House. The hon. member pleaded that we should not terminate our membership of the U.N. Actually the hon. the Minister has already referred to it, but I want to ask those hon. members what their standpoint would be if the United Nations were to make it impossible for South Africa to exercise what they called South Africa’s right of membership. Do they want us to keep officials at that body who may not enter into the council chambers, who cannot fulfil any function there and whose presence there will cost a tremendous amount in addition to the membership fees we have to pay? Furthermore, if the treatment experienced by South Africa at the United Nations were to be of a kind, as the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister has already said on previous occasions, that it would be so humiliating to South Africa as a State that it could take it any longer, would they still want us to remain in the United Nations under those circumstances? Do they want us to allow South Africa being trampled upon? Do they want us to crawl in front of the United Nations? I put these questions to them and they can now answer me by way of interjection. What would their standpoint be in that event, if we were to be faced by such a situation? Sir, I want to tell them that my standpoint is this: If the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Prime Minister were to decide in that case that South Africa should terminate its membership of the United Nations, I should not hesitate for a single moment to say, “Well-done”. I should also add, “It is high time”.

I also want to say something with regard to Dar-es-Salaam and I should like hon. members on that side of this House to agree with it. They reacted very positively on the successes of our Prime Minister and our Minister of Foreign Affairs in Africa, but in Dar-es-Salaam one thing was said which I want to reject with contempt, and that is that this whole exercise with Africa supposedly was a clever move on the part of South Africa to bring about division in the ranks of the Organization for African Unity. I think this should be rejected categorically with the contempt it deserves. I believe that the debates in recent times in this House of Assembly and the speeches by representatives of the people very clearly revealed the attitude of the South African representatives of the people towards the hand of peace and friendship extended to Africa by the South African Government. I think it would be a good thing if this aspect, this insinuation of a clever move, were to be categorically rejected by hon. members on that side of the House as well, because they see the South African Government, they know the hon. the Prime Minister and they know the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, they are in a very good position to say to Africa, “It is nonsense”.

In the very short time I still have at my disposal, I want to refer to a matter which I raised in the debate on this Vote as far back as 1968. It is always with joy that I take cognizance of the growing interest showed in South Africa by foreign countries. During the past few months in particular, there has been an intensive increase in this interest. During the past few months there have been several trade missions from Europe, from South America, and also from other parts of the world. It seems to me as though this is going to increase. I think the reason for this growing interest in South Africa is the confidence in South Africa which has been created by the hon. the Prime Minister, which improved the image of South Africa, confidence in our stability, both economically and physically, and in our security. We say to these interested parties that we welcome this. In our communications with Europe, it is going to become necessary for us to be able to communicate with those people in their own language, and that will be a good thing. If we have knowledge of an additional European language, it is not only in that particular country that doors will open to us. Indeed, many doors over the whole world are opened to us through a knowledge of French, Spanish, German or whatever language. I think it will be a good thing if we were to stress in our schools and educational institutions or wherever, that we South Africans, young and old, will concentrate on learning European languages in addition to the languages of Africa, which we either know or are learning. It opens the hearts and doors of those people and it promotes the interests of one’s country when one is able to communicate with those people in their own languages.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s desire to give me fatherly advice and I accept it in the spirit in which it was given. However, I do think the hon. the Minister is far too sensitive. I merely said that I believe that it was a good thing for South Africa that the present hon. Minister was Minister of Foreign Affairs and not the hon. the Minister of Defence. I said this because I have a very high regard for the hon. the Minister’s ability in this specialist field. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I want to make this point quite clear. I have no desire to cause embarrassment nor do I derive any satisfaction from any embarrassment that might be caused to the hon. the Minister by referring in this House and elsewhere to the outbursts of the hon. the Minister of Defence. However, I have a duty when issues relative to the detente situation and to foreign affairs are raised to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and this House to such matters. I do not believe that the outburst of the hon. the Minister of Defence in relation to an objective analysis of a certain Government document in this House the other day was conducive to good relations in Africa. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs because I believe that he is objective and that he is backed by an objective department. I ask him, please, to take the Chapter in the “Handleiding” dealing with “Bantoe-beleidsrigtings”. He will see that it draws very heavily on policies being adopted in Angola and in Mozambique.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I wish to ask whether the matter which the hon. member for Sea Point is now discussing is at all relevant to the Vote which is now under discussion?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to put something to the hon. the Minister. I hope he will accept it in an objective way. Here we have a “Handleiding” which draws considerable inferences from policies being applied in Mozambique and Angola and in Rhodesia. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to analyse this and to consult with the hon. the Minister of Defence in order to have it withdrawn. I maintain that it is out of date. To the extent that it constantly asserts that there is violence where there are Black majorities. I also believe it to be out of tune with the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister who went to Liberia and said that in Rhodesia the Government should be a civilized government irrespective of race. I put it very seriously to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he should examine this document and that he should ask the Department of Defence to withdraw the document and recast it in the spirit of the détente that has been initiated by the hon. the Prime Minister and by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, the debate on this Vote generally has covered a wide field but there are still a number of issues on which I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some information when he speaks again. In the general outward movement of diplomacy there have been a significant number of new contacts which bring hopeful situations but which also bring some dangers. One of the countries that has adopted a disturbing attitude towards South Africa recently, if newspaper reports are to be believed, has been Japan. While there has been an improvement in relation to a significant number of countries, I am distressed to find that there has been a formal statement to the effect that in regard to visas for cultural, educational and scientific exchanges, Japan will no longer issue visas to South Africans. In relation to the international conference on nutrition visas for South Africans were withheld. At the same time the Foreign Minister of Japan has been in Africa and has said that it is the deliberate policy of his country gradually to withdraw from trading and business links with South Africa. We would like to know whether the Minister is aware of the situation and whether he has been in touch with the Japanese authorities both in relation to the question of visas for South Africans wishing to go to Japan and in connection with the stated intention of Japan’s Foreign Minister to reduce her trade links with South Africa. I raise this because of the important motor-car industry and because of the importance of the export of iron ore and other base metals.

Mr. Chairman, there is increasing evidence of contacts between the South African Government and the Governments of a number of Arab States. This is quite clearly important for South Africa, both because of our location and the question of oil and because of the strategic position which the Arab States occupy in the whole international field. To the extent that it is our policy to have increased contacts with other States, we are in accord with it, but I would like to point out that we are now moving into an area of diplomacy which involves tremendous international tension. I would like the hon. the Minister to give this Committee the assurance that the contacts that we are having with the Arab States will in no way impair the traditional friendly relations which have existed between the South African Government and the State of Israel. I believe that this is perhaps an appropriate moment to suggest to the hon. the Minister an up-grading of the Consulate-General representation that we have in Tel Aviv. At the moment the State of Israel has ambassadorial representation in South Africa, whereas South Africa is merely represented by a consul-general. Is this not an appropriate time to upgrade our representation in Israel to either ministerial or ambassadorial level?

Sir, on the question of Angola and Mozambique, we have had consulates during the Portuguese régime. This will continue in Mozambique until 25 June, and we have had a consulate in Angola until November. We would like to know whether the hon. the Minister has been in contact with the new interim régime in Mozambique with a view to seeing that we will continue to have this consular representation when Mozambique gets its full independence in only two months’ time. We believe that it is very important that this representation should continue. Mr. Chairman, there have also been a number of agreements between the Portuguese Government and the South African Government involving our relationship with Mozambique for as long as it was a province, but once it ceases to be a province there will be a number of matters which may have to renegotiated. We would like to know whether we can anticipate that successful negotiations with the new interim régime are likely to be concluded in such matters as the recruiting of mine labour. We would like to be reassured that the whole question of integrating the power from Cabora Bassa into the South African power grid will not suffer any setbacks. Then there is also the question of the continued use of Lourenco Marques as a harbour and a rail link to the Reef. There is the question of the trade agreement that we have had with Portugal, which has now been transferred to the new régime.

I think it is a matter of regret—and I think the Minister will accept this—that at this stage, at any rate, we have no formal representation in the three neighbouring Black territories—Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland. I think it is a matter of regret that while Malawi, some 2 000 km to the north, is represented in South Africa, these three neighbouring territories are not. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is pursuing this matter, whether he is taking this seriously, and whether as a result of the new détente situation he believes that there is a possibility in the future of greater formal representation between South Africa and these three countries than has existed in the past.

Finally, Sir, on the Rhodesian situation. Initiatives have been taken by the Prime Minister and by President Kaunda in order to bring people to the discussion table in Rhodesia itself. But I wonder whether the South African Government, either on its own or in association with other Governments, has considered what role it may play or could offer to play in a post-settlement period. This is important because there will be people in Rhodesia who will be concerned at the post-settlement situation, with the whole question of economic aid should there be a settlement and once the international boycott has been lifted, and whether South Africa had made offers to play a special role in providing economic aid and making capital available to Rhodesia to replenish some of the capital goods which have not been able to be replenished over the last 10 years. The second one is a defence agreement. Here the question is whether there is an offer or a suggestion of an offer that should the Rhodesian issue be resolved, South Africa together with other African territories bordering on Rhodesia would enter into a non-aggression pact, or whether we will agree to protect that country during a period of transition from any incursions from outside. I believe that it is important to détente exercise that not only should we bring people to the conference table too, but also that South Africa should indicate that if discussions reach the position where relationships are normalized, South Africa would do everything in its power to see that in the years that follow, Rhodesia would be enabled to recoup its economic situation and that minorities within that community will feel safe should there be any further terrorist attacks from outside.

Sir, there is of course a specific reason for the sensitivity displayed by the hon. member for Sea Point as regards the hon. the Minister of Defence; it is the fact that the hon. the Minister of Defence, without beating around the bush, spoke very seriously to that party which is represented in this House by the hon. member, concerning its standpoint in regard to subversion in South Africa. The hon. the Minister had good reason to andress that hon. party—and I do not want to emphasize the word “honourable” too strongly—because—and I address these remarks to the hon. Leader so that he may take note of them—the hon. member for Pinelands made a speech from his back-bench last year which was calculated to be theological and Christian justification for naked pacifism, and this after the conference at Hammanskraal, which, by that time had already become notorious. There was a reason why the hon. Minister of Defence had to speak to that party in regard to its standpoint in connection with the security of South Africa.

Now you are talking nonsense.

Yesterday the hon. member for Sea Point also referred here to certain organizations concerning themselves with the interests of Rhodesia. It is not my aim to concern myself with the domestic and political affairs of Rhodesia, but the hon. member referred to certain organizations and he mentioned certain names. He mentioned Sascon. I myself have studied a publication issued by Sascon and after taking note of its contents, came to the conclusion that I did not want to be associated with it in any way. I do not want to be associated with that organization. But the hon. member for Sea Point, lacking adequate discretion, went ahead and included a number of names, and here he dragged in by the hair no less a person than Dr. Koot Vorster, in the same breath as the Herstigtes and others of the extreme right. Sir, in this instance he dragged in a man who is very highly respected in clerical circles and in cultural circles, a man whom I have the privilege of calling my personal friend. He is not in a position to defend himself in this House. Not that I think that he needs to be defended; he is quite capable of doing so himself—in fact, he can do so better than I.

Nevertheless, I think that for the sake of the record something should be said about this here. I say that it reveals a certain lack of discretion when someone is simply dragged in here forcibly and associated with extreme rightists. From what point of view are extreme rightists attacked in this House? I have to take it that at least those who are to the left of that right, and possibly also left of centre, do so. Sir, as far as Dr. Koot Vorster is concerned, I just want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point that he is definitely not leftist. In the second place, he is definitely not a friend of communists and he is definitely not a person about whom there is doubt concerning his standpoint on subversive activities in South Africa. I also want to say of him that he is a person who is definitely senstive to any onslaught being made from the left on the spirit of people and particularly on the spirit of a people and the will of a people. He is definitely sensitive to that. It was against that background that he paid a visit to Rhodesia.

I want the hon. member for Sea Point to call to mind again something that he knows. This is in regard to a certain degree of involvement with Rhodesia on the part of people in South Africa. We have a very strong cultural and religious involvement with a great many people in Rhodesia. If we do not interfere in the political sphere, and this is our definite policy as stated and faultlessly carried out by our hon. Prime Minister, there is no doubt that cultural links exist over the Limpopo across the political borders. What is wrong with that? There are religious links, too, and what is wrong with that? The point I want to make is that owing to the links that exist, discussions take place repeatedly. If we get people coming here from the Netherlands owing to the cultural links with people in that country—cultural links that are sometimes extremely embarrassing to us—then no one complains about that. These people often come and say things in South. Africa which we do not like. Prof. Vercuiel was here and he said: “Breekt de muren af.” (Break down the walls). We had him climb over the wall to come to South Africa. I do not know whether he will be so eager to return here, because it is possible that he might be tarred and feathered. Nevertheless the point I want to make is that a man like Koot Vorster went to Rhodesia against that background to meet our people. He met many people besides merely the ordinary John Citizen; he also met people in high places.

In any event, he was not engaged in underground matters. Against this background I think we should be careful not to do what is popular in certain circles, viz. simply to deal out blows to rightists while we can identify a few rightists as being opposed to the Government as well as to the Progressive Party. We must be careful not to group certain people with rightist opinions together with others and then want to put them all against a wall and shoot them.

Surely, too, the background of the matter is, firstly, that there have been voices in South Africa urging that South Africa should dissociate itself from Rhodesia. In saying that, they do not mean that South Africa should only dissociate itself as regards religion and culture, but politically too, and that Rhodesia should stew in its own juice. There were such voices, that described Rhodesia as a stumbling block for South Africa and as a stumbling block for the détente policy of our hon. Prime Minister. The standpoint adopted by our hon. Prime Minister and his actions in regard to Rhodesia, and similarly as regards other states in Africa, attest to the fact that we do not have a negative attitude towards Rhodesia nor do we want to use it against other countries in Africa, but we do not want to be written off as people who want to leave Rhodesia in the lurch or want to condemn it as a stumbling block in these discussions concerning détente politics.

There is a further factor which we must take into account as background to our discussions concerning a country like Rhodesia, viz. the existence of inherent situations that make matters extremely difficult for those people who have religious and cultural links with us. I want to say at once that this does not apply to White people only, but to a large number of Black people, too, who, through the ministrations of the Afrikaans churches from South Africa, have been converted to the Christian faith. The interests of those people, too, are a matter of major importance to us.

There are many of them in Kenya, too.

The reason for mentioning this is the fact that there are factors in Rhodesia that make matters extremely difficult for these people and that cause us to view the developments in that country with, a great deal of interest. If— as is the case at the moment—it is the position that an organization like Zanu has in fact no intention of associating itself with peaceful negotiations with the Government or anyone else, then these are the matters we have to consider, because then there are people who have cultural and religious links with us in South Africa, and who are involved in a situation of this kind. If it is true that 38 people have been killed since the ceasefire in December, and that the murder of those people can be laid at the door of an organization in Rhodesia, then these are matters which engage not merely our vague interest, but which cause us to be extremely concerned and worried.

There is another matter we could take note of. Before I come to that, it may be interesting to refer to the statement issued by the presiding officer of the special court in Rhodesia—a statement which hon. members have probably also had the opportunity of looking at—in which reference is made to the aims of Zanu. The final clause of the statement of unity issued by Zanu together with other movements reads as follows—

This, therefore, is an organization that has committed itself to armed struggle, and it is as a result of this that since December, the date when this document was published, there have been 38 murders—a few Whites, but the majority non-Whites. What is important is that our involvement in Rhodesia is proved by the fact that our Police are there and are there for the sake of Rhodesia and the mutual interests of South Africa and Rhodesia.

I do not want to go into detail, because we have put it clearly that we are not interfering in Rhodesia’s domestic affairs, but we have also said, so that the world may know, that South Africa and Rhodesia have often conferred together. South Africa and Rhodesia have given each other advice in the past. From time to time we have considered everyday realities. We have made contact with Black African states, and Rhodesia has been involved in that. However, we all accept that Rhodesia is not a country subordinate to any other country. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that you want to tell me that my time is up. I think I have said enough and I thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg save to say that I do not think that he really understands the tremendous change which is taking place in the attitudes in Africa over, let us say, the last nine years. UDI and the revolution in Portugal are two tremendous watersheds in our political history and I think one day that when historians write about this period of history they will accord these two instances a tremendous significance. UDI was a White reaction against the increasing decolonialization at that time. That is why that was important. The revolution in Portugal was the final death-knell of colonialization in Southern Africa. In this period of nine short years, attitudes not only throughout the whole of Africa, but here in South Africa as well, have changed radically. The hon. the Minister has been Minister of Foreign Affairs throughout that whole period and I think he will agree that there has been a tremendous change in attitudes during this period. In order to analyse that change of attitude one has to look at Hansard at the time of UDI to see the way we were then thinking in South Africa. If one does this one finds it quite a fascinating experience, because one can see the extent to which we have revolutionized our thinking on African affairs. If one goes back to the debates of 1966, just after UDI was declared, one sees how frightened—I think this is the correct word to use—we in South Africa were of this whole process of decolonialization. I want to quote two passages to indicate how White South Africans were thinking at the time. The then Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, reacted to a suggestion that the Government was not interested in the Whites of Rhodesia and said the following during the no-confidence debate in 1966:

Then he went on to say:

Then let us take a quote from what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said during the same period, while discussing the same crisis of that time—

He was talking about the consequences if the Rhodesian Government were to collapse—

Then he goes on to discuss the speech of Harold Macmillan, the famous “winds” of “change” speech. I think these two speeches illustrate the thinking that was generally held throughout the whole of the White electorate, there was a tremendous fear. Our whole policy and our whole attitude to Africa was an introverted one. It was controlled by fear. We were frightened of what was going to happen and we had very little trust in any form of decolonialization and any Black Government then present or which we expected to come in the future. Our attitude today is absolutely, completely and totally different. We have heard it in this debate. The attitude of South Africa today is very forward-looking and outward-looking as against the fear and the tremendous trepidations that we had then. Today I think we can look forward with a certain amount of confidence to our future in Africa. I think that we have realized—in fact, it has been stated in this House many times during the course of this debate—that our future is in Africa and that we are of Africa. I think that the whole détente programme is the exact opposite of the feelings that existed at that time. We were then frightened of what was going to happen in the future. Now I think there is a great degree of positiveness in what we see in the future. We see a tremendous advantage for us at the end of the rainbow and it is not a matter of sacrificing A or of sacrificing B or of having to do a deal with A or B. It is simply a complete change of circumstances and a change of attitude. And it is not only we in South Africa who have changed our attitude, but also other people in other States of Africa. Everybody is realizing that the necessities of this situation demand détente and the success of détente. We do have problems, and I think that these problems we must expect, because it is unrealistic to expect us to go through this total revolution without experiencing problems. I want to say that I am absolutely confident that we will see this through. The stakes are too high no to. At the present moment we, like other States in Africa, are groping with the changed circumstances, because we are getting contact and the feel of it. As we have been through this tremendous revolution over the last nine years, I am quite sure that we are going to go through another revolution over the next four or five years. It is not something that we can determine now how we shall deal with it. But I think there are certain things which we have all accepted by the Government and by everybody in this House and by everybody in Africa—inter alia, that in the new dispensation there can be no room for race discrimination. We have made that public, and we also have to work for the concept of equal opportunity for everybody. That is generally well known. Thirdly we believe—and I think that we have seen the success of it—that problems have to be solved in South Africa, in Southern Africa, by the people who are concerned with those problems without any undue influence from any outside party. I would agree absolutely with the hon. the Prime Minister where he says that it is absolute nonsense to suggest that there has been any interference by South Africa in how Rhodesia must sort out its problems. It is totally against the way the whole situation is unfolding in Africa today.

In the few minutes which are still available to me, I would like to mention a few words about the problems which we have recently experienced with Lesotho. I think that whilst we probably have reason to be disappointed at the recent attitude of Lesotho, there are, nevertheless, very logical reasons for this, and if we look at the reasons and are prepared to do something about them, we can not only improve our relations with Lesotho, but also perhaps pre-warn ourselves about other problems which we might experience with our other Black neighbours in Southern Africa. The first thing that we have to understand about Lesotho is that it is a very poor country and that the unemployment is enormously high—probably 400 000 out of a million people are unemployed in Lesotho.

Is that our fault?

About half of the working population of Lesotho has to get work opportunities in South Africa. This is a situation for the foreseeable future, because there is very little chance of it changing. There are two things that upset Lesotho. In the first place they feel, rightly or wrongly—it does not really matter which—that they are being discriminated against in South Africa and that they are not treated with the respect which they should get. In the second place, they either have to starve in Lesotho or work in South Africa. If that is the problem which we have with Lesotho, it is possible that we shall experience the same problem, and to a greater extent even, with our other Black neighbouring States. Is it not in our interest to get to the key of this problem by entering into negotiations with the Lesotho Government to find out how they feel we should behave towards their nationals in South Africa, to find out what they think the problems are and how these can be bettered? I think the position should be put across to them that we are against discrimination based on race, that we are for equal opportunities, that we do believe in consultation to solve our problems and that we are sympathetic to the very real problems which they have especially in regard to the treatment of their nationals in South Africa as against our treatment of German, Swiss or Dutch nationals. If we show that we are prepared to deal with this problem and if, in fact, we do get to grips with it, I feel that not only will we be doing ourselves a service in our relations with Lesotho, but we will also be doing ourselves a service by planning ahead for problems which we could possibly have to deal with in the case of the other neighbouring Black States. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. member for Smith-field whether he heard what that hon. member had to say, or did the hon. member for Smithfield come in too late? With reference to what the hon. member said yesterday, I think the hon. member who has just resumed his seat owes him a reply. He cannot simply maintain that we are at fault as regards the dissatisfaction of the citizens of Lesotho because we supposedly discriminate against them as citizens of another country in South Africa. Surely that is not the truth.

You did not listen properly.

The hon. member and those on his side must not think that we will believe all the nonsense they tell us.

I shall not talk for very long; I shall not even talk for ten minutes and you, Sir, will not need to silence me at the end of my 10 minutes. Thus far, I have sat and listened to the entire debate and, although I have been listening to the discussion of this Vote for quite a number of years, this year I listened with particular attention. Something I find very striking has become clear from the discussion, and that is that the hon. members opposite are assiduously seeking a means of solving their guilty consciences. I want to tell the young members that they should not forget the misdeeds of the Opposition and their fathers, but should remember them. I remember how they sat here smearing South, Africa’s image, and when I say “smearing”, I mean it. I know how they regarded us as an extension of Britain. As far as foreign policy is concerned, they never looked at South Africa. They looked past South Africa and cast their gaze at another power.

Who are “they”?

The Opposition, fragmented as they are today. For years I have been sitting in the House listening to them giving the outside world the idea that there is a section here that is governing—the National Party is a small section that is governing and no notice should be taken of them.

A section of a section.

Everything we tried to do, they disparaged in the eyes of the outside world. They created an image of us which we now have to attempt to rectify through détente. How I had to sit here and listen to it! I am speaking emphatically today, because it bothers me that they now want to give the impression that it is really they who are responsible for the fact that we are now at last on the road to détente. Listening to them, one has to believe that they were really the initiators of détente. They accused us of being racists and we hear those words in Addis Ababa, Dar-es-Salaam and at the U.N. We are supposedly racists now. But that is their creation. In fact, they went so far as to say that we were a reckless gang. I think that that is in Hansard. They said that it was an irresponsible gang that was governing here. In this way they gradually created an image of South Africa that gave rise to an impossible situation for us. It is not only the Opposition that I want to call to account today, but the members of the Press sitting up there in the gallery, too. They should not wish, today, to conceal the role they have played in this regard, because we shall not forget it. They must be called to account. Already I can say that as I know some of them, as soon as détente gets into difficulties, they will throw overboard the soft attitude they are displaying towards us today and once again pull out all the stops against us. I predict this.

What is going on in Africa? I want to mention the conference at Addis Ababa for one reason only and from it I want to seek a reason. What is going in Africa? In February of this year, 42 Ministers convened in Addis Ababa. While they were convened there the sound of artillery between Eritrea and Ethiopia could be heard and human beings were being slaughtered. Human beings are being slaughtered in Uganda. In Equatorial Guinea, Nkwema has already slaughtered, killed about 10% of his people. They do not utter a word about that. While they are sitting there, a drought of extreme proportions is being experienced in West and East Africa as a result of which millions—man and beast —are dying. They are sitting there while Africa battles with a monetary emergency because while they are sitting there, the increased oil prices and the oil crisis are strangling their economies. The Arab-Israeli conflict is in progress. But they do not say a word about those things. In February 1975, at Addis Ababa, not a word was spoken about the problems in Africa. But South Africa is tackled. All I want to ask is: Why is that? What is going on? Why is South Africa’s system—its social order, its economic system and its capitalistic system of thought in which its economic and social order function—picked out? Why are we unable to make a breakthrough with the truth? What is going on? Is our diplomacy of unalignedness wrong? Is our type of diplomacy, maintaining of a low profile, wrong? Does the fault lie in our diplomatic method? No, it cannot lie in our method, because, as revealed in Africa, in the states of Africa, in Addis Ababa and Dar-es-Salaam and as it started elsewhere in 1955, their method is demonstrative, agitative and militant. As against a demonstrative, agitative militant and growing nationalism one has, after all, to maintain a low profile diplomacy and unalignedness. We have no choice. My reply, therefore, is: No, it does not lie in our method of conducting diplomacy. We must remain unaligned. We must maintain a low profile in conducting our diplomatic affairs. We may not be demonstrative, we may not be militant, nor may we be agitative. We must anchor our diplomacy to what we cannot escape. Our diplomacy, as it is conducted today, has deep roots. Africa is seeking diplomacy. Africa is seeking a method in their diplomacy that they have not yet found. A new personality is developing in Africa. It is not the personality that existed under colonial management. It is free of that. What did that colonial period mean to Africa? I have said this repeatedly because I think that it is of the essence of the matter. The colonial period in Africa implied poverty, ignorance, pestilence, exploitation and despoliation. And then they left Africa and that was the heritage of the Black men in Africa. That is how he sees the White man. And then we remain, the last remains of a Western civilization that has passed through Jerusalem, Athens and through Rome. It passed through the dark ages … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, while fully realizing the delicacy of the matter, I nevertheless want to put forward a few facts on this occasion in order to underline the correctness in international law of the Government’s policy in regard to South West Africa.

In his original proposal to the Peace Conference after the conclusion of the First World War, Gen. Smuts called the mandate system as embodied in section 22 of the Charter of the League of Nations “a temporary expedient”, which he regarded as a “stepping-stone towards self-government and self-determination”. Nevertheless, neither in section 22 of the Charter of the League of Nations nor in the Mandate for South West Africa itself were any arrangements made for termination of the mandate. No indication was given of the method in which the envisaged “self-government and self-determination” were to be brought about. In addition, no instructions in this regard were given to mandataries during the existence of the League of Nations. As long as the requirements of the mandate in regard to the furtherance of the material and moral welfare and the social progress of the population of the mandate were complied with, the realization of the aims of section 22 were left to the administrative originality of the mandataries.

When the League of Nations was terminated and the United Nations Organization brought into being, most of the mandataries, as is known, subjected the various mandate territories to the trustee system for which the United Nations Charter makes provision. However, as far back as during the San Francisco Conference in 1945 and in the subsequent meetings of the Preparatory Commission, and during the first part of the first meeting of the General Assembly in London in 1946, the South African representative reserved his Government’s legal position in regard to South West Africa and referred to his Government’s intention of consulting the population of South West Africa as regards the future form of government of the territory.

As a result of this consultation, which did in fact take place subsequently, notice was given during the last meeting of the League of Nations assembly in April 1946 of the intention of the Union Government to put its case, during the subsequent meeting of the General Assembly of the U.N., for the incorporation of South West Africa in the Union, in accordance with the wishes of the vast majority of the populations of the territory. In the meantime the Union Government was to continue to administer the territory in terms of the Mandate.

The proposal of the Union Government to incorporate the territory in the Union was in fact submitted during the second part of the first meeting of the General Assembly, but the General Assembly rejected the proposal and recommended that the territory be placed under the trust system of U.N., and in addition called on the Union Government to submit a trust agreement in regard to the territory. The point of view of the majority of the members of the U.N. on that occasion was that the indigenous population was not mature enough, politically speaking, to hold such views. Whether what they asked for would have been in their interests was clearly of no importance to certain members of the U.N. Consequently the Union Government adopted the standpoint that it was not legally obliged to submit a trust agreement and that it would continue to administer the territory in the spirit of the Mandate. Even after the International Court in 1950 found in an Advisory Opinion that South Africa was not, in fact, under an obligation to conclude a trust agreement with the U.N. as regards South West Africa, since 1946 continuous pressure has been exerted on the South African Government by the U.N. to place South West Africa under the trust system. However, the standpoint of the Government—and I say this in all humility—has quite rightly remained essentially unchanged on this score. But, Sir, let us take a closer look at the trust system of the U.N. for a moment. If we refer to the Charter of the U.N. and consider the provisions of section 76 thereof, we find the following—

and then, and this is very important—

On closer analysis, therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is evident that the aim of the trust system of the U.N. is also to lead the populations of the trust territories in question towards self-government or independence; that recognition be granted to the fact that the specific circumstances of the various trust territories do in fact differ, and that these differences must be taken into account in their progress towards self-government or independence. In conclusion, reference is made to “each territory and its peoples” and “the wishes of the peoples concerned”—a recognition, therefore, of the fact that various peoples or national groups may reside within a specific trust territory.

What do we find when we test the Government’s declared policy, as repeatedly stated by the hon. the Prime Minister and as expounded, too, in a statement made to the U.N. by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 12 December 1973? I quote it as follows—

Sir, I say that when one sets this policy against the aims of section 22 of the Charter of the League of Nations, against the Mandate for South West Africa and even against the aims of the trust system of the U.N., then it is clear that it is fully in accordance with them. We know too, that a great deal of progress has already been made, and is still being made, as regards the implementation of this policy.

The decision of the Security Council dated 17 December last year, in terms of which it was demanded, inter alia, that South Africa should immediately cease its so-called illegal administration of South West Africa and, what is more with the aid of the U.N., hand over power to the people of Namibia, is therefore an unfounded, unacceptable and premature decision and, above all, anything but in the interests of the various peoples and national groups of this territory. No, Sir, there is only one correct policy that can be followed in regard to South West Africa, and that is the policy that has consistently been followed, and is still being followed, by this Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Mossel Bay will forgive me if I do not react to what he said, as I want to complete the argument I raised in the House last night. I was referring to the situation in the Indian Ocean, and I described how an initiative by Sir Alec Douglas Home to create a security system in the area by appealing to India, Mauritius and Sri Lanka, fell on deaf ears at that time. Sir, concern was growing nevertheless in the Indian Ocean area, I think very largely in consequence of the fact that it was then known that it was definite policy to re-open the Suez Canal, and the re-opening of the Suez Canal was obviously going to make it far easier for the Russian fleet already in the Indian Ocean in that it would bring them closer to their home bases, give them greater accessibility and allow them particularly easy access to the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. It was at that time also that Sir Alec Douglas Home approached the Prime Minister of Mauritius and expressed concern about a technical agreement which Mauritius had entered into with Russia under which considerable facilities were to be given to the Russian fishing fleets. The Prime Minister of Mauritius said that he saw no harm in this agreement, that it was of a purely technical nature, and he said he would be prepared to offer a base in Mauritius, at Diego Garcia, to the British for use in order to re-establish an equilibrium in the area.

Sir, it was also in 1970, in September of that year, that the Lusaka conference of non-aligned States took place where they formalized a concept which was known as the “zone of peace” in the Indian Ocean. The resolution called upon all States to consider and respect the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace from which all great power rivalries and competition as well as bases conceived in the context of such rivalries and competition—either army, naval or air force bases—are excluded. The area should also be free from nuclear weapons. This proposal was one which was generally supported by all the States which attended that conference but it became clear that there was a major difference in approach particularly between India on the one hand and Sri Lanka on the other. They were both strongly opposed to the entry of American forces into the Indian Ocean. However, India had entered into a treaty with Russia in 1971, which appeared to establish a kind of axis between Delhi and Moscow. There was a good deal of concern that the creation of this axis would in fact introduce a degree of preference for Russian ships in the Indian Ocean and it was Sri Lanka which felt that this particular threat brought with it the further danger that there would be an increased British and American presence in order to balance the situation. India on the other hand took the view that the treaty which they had entered into with the Soviet Union was entirely a peaceful one. It dealt with mutual consultations regarding attacks or threats in the Indian Ocean and appropriate and effective measures to ensure peace. The situation has developed along these lines and there is no doubt that there is a very large naval presence in the Indian Ocean. One cannot disregard the build-up that is going on. At this stage it seems perhaps, historically speaking, too late to return to the idea of a peace zone in the Indian Ocean. It seems impractical to think of the possibility that all these ships may be withdrawn and the area declared a zone of peace. What would perhaps be the best solution is that there be some kind of balance between composite forces in order that, at the very least, peace may be maintained by a kind of deadlock, a kind of equilibrium. From the South African point of view, I think this is perhaps the best solution. What I have given is a very brief summary of the situation which has arisen in the Indian Ocean in recent years. I believe that this is an area which is of the utmost importance and an area which is deserving of the most active efforts by our diplomacy because, as I mentioned earlier, there are 26 coastal States around the Indian Ocean. Some of these are important States. There are countries which have enormous interests. Japan, for example, though it is not one of these coastal States, has enormous interests in the sea-lanes through the Indian Ocean. Then there are also Australia and Iran, and various countries along the African littoral. Then, of course, there is India itself, Burma and other States, all of which have a concern in maintaining peace in this area. When I suggested that this was a vertile field for South African diplomacy, I was not suggesting that this was something that had been left undone or neglected. I believe it is a new task of enormous proportions and enormous difficulties. As I said at the beginning, I believe that we have a ministry of Foreign Affairs which has quite considerable talents. A task of this gravity and a task of this difficulty is one which deserves the attention of that department as a new task of diplomacy. There are certain areas of co-operation in respect of which we in South Africa are excluded from the international scene because our interest is no more than a general or universal one. There are other areas where we have special claims because we have a particular geographic or other interest. One has in mind, for example, an area like Antarctica where South Africa does participate because of, amongst other reasons, its proximity to the Antarctic continent. There are questions such as international nuclear safeguards where South Africa’s interests cannot be disregarded because South Africa is the possessor of uranium and of advanced technology. I believe that the Indian Ocean is another area where South Africa’s presence is essential, where it has a right to participate, and in respect of which nobody can reject advances on a topic which is of such obvious importance to the coastal States of the Indian Ocean. Therefore I believe that the Indian Ocean is indeed a fertile area for our diplomacy. It is an area in which we have a natural right to participate and an area in which we can make a major contribution, not only in our own interests and in the defence of South Africa, but also in creating a zone of peace, of freedom, not necessarily through the withdrawal of all maritime forces, but through the maintenance of a degree of equilibrium in this area to the benefit of all countries which surround this critical strategic area of the world.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis made three contributions during this debate, two of which, which, were very important, concerned the U.N. The hon. member for Brentwood discussed the same subject and also made a sound contribution. The hon. the Minister has already replied in that regard. While I was listening to that, the idea occurred to me that our foreign policy and all the aims we are striving towards are, in my opinion, outstanding ones and fully in accordance with all the finest and most lofty ideals of the international community. I admit, of course, as the hon. member for Brentwood has also done, that there are certain indications and there is a certain amount of proof that the U.N., particularly at certain sessions of this organization, has deviated from its Charter to a certain extent and that members have not always kept to the praiseworthy resolutions of the original architects of that fine organization. Nevertheless, when I read this charter, I believe that it embodies certain principles and aims that really compel my admiration and which, in my opinion, are indispensable to world peace, to the establishment of orderly and peaceful relations between countries and so as to assist developing countries to a certain degree. What I find particularly striking is the remarkable correspondence between the principles and the aims of this charter of the U.N. and the principles and aims of our own foreign and even domestic policy. To support my statement, I want to quote from section 1 of the charter—

That is precisely what we are trying to achieve through our foreign policy. This is particularly the case when we consider that the hon. the Prime Minister has extended his hand to African states and offered to conclude a non-aggression treaty with each of them. This shows that we as a White nation have no urge for conquest and that we have no desire to act as aggressors. Section 1(2) of the charter reads as follows—

Here the word “self-determination” is emphasized. This is a lofty aim of this international organization and I want to say here without contradiction that it is also the lofty and comprehensive aim of our domestic policy, of our relations policy, to place these people—in the charter the word “peoples” is also emphasized—on the path of development on which they can realize all their potentialities. We guide them towards self-realization and towards eventual self-determination. I also want to quote from section 73A, the definition of the principle of trusteeship. This is of particular significance in regard to the implementation of our policy here in our country and in South West Africa. I quote the following—

It is very clear to me that if I am not mistaken, this charter elsewhere describes the principle of trusteeship as “a sacred trust”, as a very valuable pledge entrusted to us. It is virtually a calling to us as a White nation in respect of the non-White nations and if one considers the terminology, then it is the same terminology that reflects our relations policy, too, to a large extent, because the principle of trusteeeship comprizes nothing but our policy of autonomous development. We are dealing with the historical situation in South Africa, where a certain philosophy has developed, viz. the policy of trusteeship as a relationship between us as a White nation and the wards, the non-White nations, which are entrusted to us as a “sacred trust”. We are doing exactly as the U.N. says. To be specific, we take into account the profound, underlying, ethnic, cultural civilizations and differences in development, do we not? To a large extent, trusteeship depends on the position as regards economic and political power while, we, on the other hand, take into account the profound differences. This is the sociological basis. At the same time we are also the bearers of the Christian religion. The hon. member for Pinetown who is looking at me like that, now reminds me that when he stood there …

Pinelands.

Pinelands … he said that we were shackling certain people and put this forward as if our policy of trusteeship were something permanent. No, it is not permanent. However it is temporary, and that is what is so outstanding about our policy. The hon. member can see, therefore, that he has an entirely mistaken image, because it is our policy that is in harmony with the sections concerned in the Charter.

What about Waterberg?

What about the hon. member for Waterberg? The hon. member should rather concern himself with the water at Sea Point, because there is a bit of hot water there that you have landed in. [Interjections.] I want to put it very clearly today that we believe in an international organization. I am one of those people who believes that we should do everything in our power to remain a member of this international organization. I am in agreement with, the hon. member for Brentwood in that he pointed out the deficiencies. However, what is lacking in this organization is the necessary attitude, because whereas we are dealing with a world that is today going through the greatest and most difficult period as regards human, race and national relationships, there must be an international organization that can neutralize the shocks between nations. If one wants a new mechanism of this nature to function smoothly, then the correct attitude is the oil, but such an attitude is unfortunately lacking today. We sincerely hope, therefore, that this fine organization will be reviewed once again. We established it after the Second World War, because we were afraid of a third world holocaust. We were afraid that civilization would exterminate itself. It was then that a new world order came into being and the U.N. was established. South Africa itself was one of the architects of this international organization, and consequently I hope that they will not make it impossible for South Africa to remain a member. After all, it is not only in regard to our own people that we have a calling, and surely it is not only in the African context that we must see South Africa. We are part of the world, too, and it is not only here on the altar of our own people that we must make a contribution. We must also make a contribution on the altar of humanity. We must also think in international terms, and consequently we must have an international organization which I could perhaps call the meeting place of the world where there can be an exchange of ideas, where there can be consultation, where countries can learn to know each other, in order that an attitude may develop from this which will enable us to achieve the fine, lofty ideals harboured by such an organization and which were at the time expected of the League of Nations, too, of the Kellogg Treaty and now the United Nations as well, viz. to maintain peace and at the same time to bring about orderly and peaceful relations between all the States and to assist under-developed peoples. To show how right the hon. member for Brentwood was, let us consider the reaction of Mr. Scali, the representative of the United States. Mr. Chairman, Has my time expired?

No, the hon. member may still continue for a while.

I am very grateful. I just want to quote what the representative of the United States said at the United Nations in this regard—

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

Mr. Chairman, we have reached the conclusion of the debate and consequently there is only time for me to reply to the few speeches in which reference was made to us. I can agree with the hon. member for Carletonville to a certain extent that we are at present living in a world in which there is very little interest in what kind of government a specific country has, whether it is a dictatorship, or whatever other form of government it may be, because all the attention is concentrated on human rights. This is the problem we have to cope with today. Before the Second World War the White man dominated the entire world— including Asia and the whole of Africa— but after the war a radical change occurred. The entire Black and Yellow world became liberated and developed a sensitiveness, and today the attention is focused on two things in particular. The one is opposition to colonialism and the other is opposition to racism. All the Western countries are faced with that opposition, and therefore there is no conspiracy against South Africa alone. All the countries which, in the eyes of the majority in the world, are guilty of colonialism and racism, are in the dog-box. That is precisely the situation in which we find ourselves, and unless we, like the other countries, are able to get away from what is seen—I stress the word “seen”— as colonialism in our control over South West Africa, and are able to get away from racism—which the rest of the world regards apartheid to be—we will continue to be in trouble. In a nutshell then: This is the situation we must face up to.

The hon. member for Waterkloof put certain questions in regard to Rhodesia. I must say that I was surprised that he put these questions, for we on this side adopt the attitude that this is a particularly delicate matter and that consequently we should not go into it too deeply. What I drew attention to when I was speaking was that if the negotiations in Rhodesia should happen to fail and this is, as is being envisaged, followed by a resumption of terrorist activities, and these develop into a large-scale guerrilla attack with the support of the OAU, then we, with our Police there, are involved. My standpoint is that we will then be faced with a very critical decision, for we know what large-scale terrorist activities mean, of what long duration they are and how difficult it is to put an end to them without their spreading over the entire continent of Africa.

I drew attention to that, and now the hon. member for Waterkloof has asked what our standpoint is. The policy of the Government at present, as I understand it, is that it will withdraw the South African Police as soon as there is a cease-fire. However, this is the extent to which the Government was candid with Parliament. The Government has not yet told us what its policy will be in case there is no cease-fire. We on this side do not know whether we are under an obligation to Rhodesia to remain there. If that is the case, what is the nature of that obligation? Therefore the hon. member should not put those questions to us.

These are questions which he should put to his own side, for his party is in office. If we become involved in a large-scale guerrilla war over the affairs of Rhodesia, I ask further: What will our motivation be if we are involved in it? Will our motivation be to try to maintain the status quo there? Is that going to be the motivation? The declared policy of Mr. Smith is majority government. Majority government is the official standpoint of Mr. Smith. He explains it by saying that he does not stand for White majority government or Black majority government; he stands for the principle of majority government on the basis of equal merit. What will the Government’s notivation then be if we were to become involved in large scale antiguerrilla activities in Rhodesia? [Interjections.] I repeat that we regard this matter as being a very delicate situation, particularly now, when there is a possibility of negotiations. Now the hon. member for Waterkloof is asking questions of this kind. If there is one side which has the right to put these questions to the Government, then it is our side, and not the hon. member for Waterkloof.

You have information at your disposal …

If we had had the information on what obligations the Government has, and what its motivation would be if it were to remain, there is no doubt at all that we would express our opinions in this regard. It is for the Government to decide whether it will reply to the questions raised by the hon. member for Waterkloof.

The hon. the Minister also said I am sensitive about the use of the word “non-White”. I think the hon. the Minister missed the point entirely. We are in fact using the word “non-White” internally, but I do not think we want to continue to do so. I think we have reached a stage where we want to try to get away from that term as well. There were times when we used the word “Kaffir” in this Parliament, but we stopped using it. The words “Native” and “Bantu” have been used here, and today we are using the word “Black man”. Even the Coloureds object to the word “Coloureds”. They do not object as strongly to the word “Brown man”. But we must realize that the word “non-White” is negative. It has the connotation of a “non-person” and of White superiority, and it is attracting unfavourable attention overseas. That is why I told the hon. the Minister that although we are still struggling to find another word as far as our own usage at home is concerned—and I think we shall have to find one; there is no doubt about that—I do not think it is sensible to use the word “non-White” conspicuously in publications which are intended for overseas consumption, and which are in fact intended for the attention of the United Nations. That was my point. I repeat that it is being seen as an example of White superiority. It is regarded as another word for “non-person”.

The hon. the Minister also referred to South West Africa and said that he could not prescribe to the people there. Sir, no one is asking that we should prescribe to them. The entire concept of self-determination is counter to prescription. Self-determination means that a decision is taken by the people themselves. Our side was in fact the first to advocate the idea of self-determination for South West Africa. We did so long before the Government. Therefore we are not advocating that we should prescribe to South West Africa in regard to what is to happen to it. However, we must bear in mind that we are the administering power. We have the responsibility in the outside world in regard to the future of South West Africa. We have the final responsibility, and we shall have to help solve that problem. We cannot simply leave it to the people, for the machinery has not yet been created. We have to create the machinery which will make it possible for the people of South West Africa to implement self-determination. That was the point I submitted to the Minister.

Surely there is machinery for that purpose.

There is no machinery for that purpose. Sir, I could put questions to that hon. member to which I am certain he would not be able to reply. There is considerable ambiguity. Take for example the speech made by the French ambassador to the Security Council, which appeared in the White Book which the hon. the Minister submitted to Parliament. He was referring to a statement made here by our ambassador, and he said—

This refers to the Government’s policy of self-determination—

In other words, as a whole—

There is as yet no certainty on the question of whether territorial integrity is accepted and in what way the concept of self-determination will be applied. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as far as Rhodesia is concerned, the Government’s position has been made very clear, and I do not think it would serve any good purpose if I were to go into it any further. The hon. member said that he meant that we should elucidate how the machinery in South West Africa is going to be created to enable the various population groups to decide on their future. That is precisely what the hon. the Prime Minister did in this hon. House. We are creating that machinery so that it will be possible for all the population groups to have machinery at their disposal which will enable them to say: These are our spokesmen; these are our representatives; they may, with the necessary authority, have their say in these matters, together with the representatives of the other population groups.

The hon. member for Waterkloof emphasized the value of proficiency in languages for the promotion of international relations. My department is also thoroughly aware of this. Proficiency in languages is an essential requirement for entry into the diplomatic service, and the department also goes out of its way to help members of the department to improve their proficiency in languages when they are already in our employ. The Government is also aware of the importance of the knowledge of foreign languages with a view to our international relations. As a result of a decision recently taken in this connection fey the Cabinet, my colleague, the Minister of National Education, and I personally, were instructed to go into the matter of promoting a knowledge of French at our high schools. We have certain plans and proposals which we shall discuss with the educational authorities in the various provinces, and I am very certain that the result will be a considerable improvement in the availability of facilities at our high schools.

The hon. member for Sea Point referred to the instructional guide which has already been discussed under the Vote of my colleague. The hon. member has now urged me to read the instructional guide myself. I think I could benefit by reading it myself. I have every confidence in the judgment of my colleague and his department.

†The hon. member also wanted to know about the refusal of certain so-called cultural and scientific visas in the case of Japan. I can assure the hon. member that we are in contact with the Japanese authorities in this connection. As far as other visas are concerned, tourists for all other purposes are still being freely admitted to visit Japan.

The hon. member also referred to certain statements about our trade with Japan. In this connection I can assure him that there are no problems in our two-way trade with Japan.

The hon. member wanted certain information in connection with the future policy of the authorities in Mozambique. He referred to the continued use of the harbour, etc. I can refer him to public statements by spokesmen for the authorities in Mozambique. These spokesmen have indicated in public that they will be prepared to continue providing the facilities which we are using at the moment. I am afraid, however, that the details regarding those facilities will have to be worked out when Mozambique attains self-government and independence in the course of this year.

The hon. member also referred to the absence of diplomatic representation in the case of our three neighbouring territories. I can assure him, as I have done before in this House, that I am in favour of it. I hope the time will come when it will be possible for us to implement our policy in practice in this connection. The hon. member must, however, remember that this is a two-sided matter.

The hon. member wanted to know whether we had given any assurances of a special role that we would play in the case of an independent Rhodesia. I think our first objective in the case of Rhodesia is that a satisfactory solution should be arrived at. It should be crystal clear by now that if Rhodesia should become fully independent, South Africa would be prepared and willing and glad to play her part in co-operation and in supporting them in whatever way should be necessary, just as we are prepared to do in the case of our other neighbours.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when the debate was adjourned I was discussing Rhodesia. I said that it would serve no good purpose if we were to speculate here on South Africa’s attitude or reaction in case certain situations in regard to Rhodesia were to arise. Nevertheless, I said that if Rhodesia’s independence were to be recognized, Rhodesia would be able to rely on co-operation and assistance from South Africa. Anything of that nature is obvious; it is, after all, our declared policy. But what I meant of course and should really have said, was that if the Rhodesians themselves find a solution to their problems and if Rhodesia’s international position is normalized, they will be able to rely on our support and assistance. By this time everyone ought to know this.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis stressed the importance of developments in the Indian Ocean. I can assure the hon. member that we share his views on the importance of this area. This, incidentally, is one of the explanations for our large expenditure on defence. However, apart from the defence aspect, I can assure hon. members that the Government and my department have not neglected this issue in the past and will not neglect it in future. What is more, I am confident that our efforts in this connection will become increasingly more successful as détente gains momentum. We are making efforts in this direction. A reassuring aspect of the matter is that other members of the free world are also becoming more concerned about the increasing Russian presence in the area.

*Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me a few minutes more to convey my sincere gratitude and appreciation, together with the gratitude and appreciation which have already been conveyed from both sides of this House, to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and his staff. It is probable that the task resting on their shoulders has never before been so exacting in our history. To give you an idea of what is happening I can tell you that during the past 12 to 14 months the Secretary for Foreign Affairs has been out of the country approximately 30 times. Seven of those 30 visits were to overseas countries. I myself, in one week, undertook two journeys to two different, distant countries in the heart of Africa. The head of the Africa Division of the department, and other senior officials of my department and other departments, made literally dozens of journeys to the rest of Africa. You will agree with me that this work by the Department of Foreign Affairs, as well as other departments, is of the utmost importance in these times of contact and communication, dialogue and détente. They have to create the channels along which communication between Governments can take place. Apart from that they have other important functions as well. The Department of Foreign Affairs has to advise the Government on our foreign policy, and consequently it is part of its duties to study the position throughout the world, including the situation in countries where we have no representation. They have to keep the Government informed on that as well. Another important function of my department is to ensure that all foreign relations on the part of South Africa are co-ordinated. It has to ensure that all government bodies that have anything to do with, overseas countries adopt a uniform approach. Unco-ordinated action could lead to confusion among those with whom we make contact and with whom we hold talks. Unco-ordinated actions could undermine confidence in our Government and frustrate proposed actions. Therefore it is a fact that in practice anyone associated with a South African mission abroad acts under the umbrella of the ambassador or other person in charge of the mission. He is responsible for everyone associated with his mission abroad.

The diplomatic service of course calls for special qualifications and special training. One of the principal qualifications a diplomat is required to have is that he should be absolutely honest. He should always walk a straight path. For a good diplomat there are no short cuts. For diplomats there are no instant solutions. Diplomats cannot simply rush into a situation, although the temptation to do so is present at times. No one expects a diplomat to rush into a situation. Even the Government with whom he is accredited, does not expect this of him. The diplomat must realize that normally he does not come into the limelight in the execution of his duties. It is an old profession, and there are many traditions attached to it, traditions which have become clearly defined over the centuries. There are many unwritten rules. It is a fine profession, but it is also a very difficult profession, particularly for South Africa’s diplomats and their wives who work alongside them. I can inform the hon. members that our present diplomats are, in a very excellent manner, upholding the fine traditions created by their predecessors.

Therefore I am pleased and grateful that hon. members on both, sides of the House have expressed their gratitude and appreciation to my department.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned I was saying that there was a similarity between clauses 1 and 2(c) of the Bill before us and section 16 of the Bantu Laws Amendment Act, No. 70 of 1974. Section 16 of that Act reads, inter alia, as follows: The investment corporation, a development corporation or a corporation may, with the prior approval of the Minister, indemnify any person with whom such corporation enters into an agreement in terms of which such person undertakes to establish an industrial, commercial, financial, mining or other business undertaking in a Bantu homeland, against any loss which such person may incur in connection with such undertaking while such contract is of force and effect, and which, in the opinion of the Minister, is not insurable and in respect of which, in the opinion of the Minister, he has no effective right to damages.

The provision here is similar inasmuch as it provides—

1. (i) the financing by such company or other person of any other company or other person; or
2. (ii) the entering into any contract by such company or other person.

Then in clause 2(c) we give the Minister authority to guarantee such indemnity. When we tried last year to find out what was behind section 7A, we did not get much response from the Minister. We understood that it was necessary to give the Minister powers of this kind to facilitate or encourage certain investments in the homelands, so that was supported. I would like to know from the Minister whether there is also a political motive for the proposed section 4(e) and the proposed, section 5 bis (c.) What is the actual reason for giving the Minister these powers? Are the reasons similar to those given to us last year by the Minister when we raised that issue? Sir, I am very pleased to see on the Order Paper that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs intends moving an amendment in the Committee Stage to clause 2(c) to limit the amount to be indemnified by the Minister, because quite clearly these indemnities are just as onerous as actual loans and there must be some kind of limitation to them. Sir, one thing to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister is the wideness of the wording, “any loss or damage”. That could mean anything; it could mean a capital loss; it could mean a loss of profit, or any kind of loss. We shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister can give us some indication as to why he wants this clause to be so wide.

Sir, the other aspect of creeping socialism or Government encroachment into the private sector has been dealt with, especially by hon. members of the Opposition, and I do not want to go again into the arguments put forward by them, but I would like to back up their arguments with two quotations. One is a quotation by Dr. Martin van den Berg, who is well known in business circles, who said the following on this question of Government interference in private industry—

Here is another quotation by Dr. Jan S. Marais, warning about the same problem—

This is a very real problem, Sir, and I think the fact that so many speakers on this side of the House have raised this matter shows how tremendously concerned they are about this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randburg put to the hon. the Minister certain questions with which the hon. the Minister will certainly deal in more detail in due course. Some of those points can best be discussed in the Committee Stage. Therefore, I do not want to attempt going into the arguments raised by the hon. member. What I want to do, however, is to return in general to the discussion we have had up to now on this particular Bill. I want to refer to the “yes, but” attitude of all the speakers on the opposite side who have participated in this debate up to this stage. Now I have to say at once that one really hoped that there would have been a more positive approach from that side of the House to a Bill which has one aim, and that is to enable the IDC in a positive way to perform its task very effectively. But in this debate we have witnessed once more the inability of that side of the House to distinguish between what should be criticized and questioned and the things that should have their blessing. I really think that as far as the IDC is concerned, the praises which the IDC deserves, are not sung loudly enough here or outside. I want to say that the monuments which have been erected in the sphere of industrial development by the IDC since 1940, cannot be broken down by the actions of either the United Party opposition or anybody else. Therefore, I want to say that the IDC does not deserve to be on the receiving end of the continued questioning, to use a euphemism, by the Opposition of what it is doing, and I feel that we are serving no purpose by doing so. Not only the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, who participated in this debate earlier on, but more particularly the hon. member for Johannesburg North, came back in their speeches to the role which State corporations play and with reference to this legislation they tried once more to make out a case for casting suspicion on the role of the State corporations and for assuming that all was not well as far as the operation of these corporations was concerned, because they allegedly interfered with free enterprise in South Africa. For that reason I think it is a good thing to focus the attention in a discussion such as this on what is being done by the IDC, for the necessity and the desirability of the amendments proposed in this Bill should be seen against that background. Now I am best able to do so in terms of certain conditions laid down by the hon. member for Johannesburg North in terms of which the IDC should supposedly conduct its affairs. He asked the hon. the Minister for certain assurances. He said—

I feel, of course, that that assurance which was asked by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, is totally outrageous and presumptious.

It is just nonsense.

Yes, to put it plainly, it is just nonsense. What does, in fact, happen, is that the IDC steps in where need exists, and I can illustrate this best with reference to the most recent annual report of the IDC. I shall not have time now to go into this in detail but if one simply looks at page 8 of the most recent annual report one gets an idea of the work the IDC is doing Here we see the following under the heading “Scheme for financing of export capacity”—

In the light of the condition laid down by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, viz. that the IDC should invest only in enterprises in which the private sector is not prepared to invest, or in which they cannot invest, I want to say at once that his argument, request or demand does not make sense. If one looks into this matter, what is there which prevents the private sector from undertaking such a scheme? So why does the private sector undertake it? There are various reasons for that. Sometimes the reasons are of a practical nature. The most important point is, however, that if the IDC had not entered this field— which is open to the private entrepreneur —South Africa would have been prejudiced. I want to quote more from the report:

Surely it is in the interests of South Africa that this be done. So how can a condition be laid down that the IDC should be restricted to fields in which the private sector cannot or do not want to operate? The IDC is making an important contribution to financing for the export of capital goods. In addition it is also making a contribution to import financing and industrial decentralization. I can continue in this way to mention what the IDC is doing. It is also rendering assistance through its small industries division, which, after all, is pre-eminently a field for the private sector. Sound arguments could probably be advanced why the IDC should not act in this field as this, too, is a field for the small man, the individual entrepreneur. I say again that if the condition were to be met that the IDC should be confined to the field into which the private sector cannot enter, it would mean that one would literally shut out the full sphere of our economic spectrum. Is that what the hon. member wants?

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

Unfortunately my time is limited and I have received an instruction from the Whips that I have to deal with these matters very briefly. [Interjections.] He need not worry; the hon. the Minister will bring him to book very thoroughly. He can prepare himself in the meantime. I can continue in this vein. There are still other fields in which the IDC rendered assistance, but unfortunately I cannot go into more detail. There is, for instance, the South Atlantic Cable Company which is an undertaking which lends itself pre-eminently to yielding a profit, so why has it not been undertaken by the private sector? Then there is the heavy minerals project, Foscor and Sapekoe, all of them companies in which the IDC has invested. In this way there is a whole series of spheres in which the IDC has interested itself in the past for very good reasons. A sound argument can be made out that these spheres are meant for the private sector, but it is simply impossible and outrageous to say that the activities of the IDC should be curtailed and limited to certain reject spheres of our economic activities in which nobody else is interested. It is outrageous and I really hope that the hon. the Minister will not take any notice of requests and demands which have been made.

There is a second guarantee which the hon. member for Johannesburg North wants. He wants the IDC to be prepared to sell its share in these enterprises in which it has invested as soon as they are being run at a profit. If this has to happen, it means in practice that it is expected of the IDC to undertake those things in which nobody else has shown an interest, and that it has to develop an enterprise by means of its know-how and financial support, as it did in the case of Sasol and Foscor, and that it should approach the private sector as soon as an enterprise has been developed to a profitable level and say, “We have done all the work; we have run the risk and we have shouldered the responsibility for major capital expenditure. The project is profitable now. Ladle off the cream for yourselves”. I think the roots of the hon. member for Johannesburg North are too deeply planted in our economic life in South Africa not to agree that it would be bad business, from a business point of view, to do something like that. I think it is more correct to say in these enterprises in which the IDC has taken an interest, the benefits, financial benefits as well, resulting from that shareholding of the IDC, can best be re-utilized to the advantage of South Africa. I want to deliver a sincere plea here not to effect a change in this regard.

As far as the proposed amendments themselves are concerned, these simply make provision, in the light of changed circumstances, for making the activities of the IDC more streamlined as we are living in different times. After all, there is a world of a difference between 1975 and 1940 when the principal Act was placed on the Statute Book. The hon. the Opposition will not differ from me when I say that one has to and may expect a dynamic Minister and a dynamic Government to effect changes, where and when necessary. The only thing the hon. the Minister is doing, is to effect essential changes so as to enable the IDC to do its work more effectively in 1975 in the light of the circumstances. That is all, nothing more and nothing less. Because this is so, surely we can say to the Minister on behalf of the whole nation of South Africa that we support this legislation without any hesitation whatsoever because we have faith in his judgment when he has to take decisions, and because we have faith in the management and staff of the IDC and especially in the board of directors of the IDC whom we have come to know over the years, as people who act very conservatively when it comes to the acceptance of obligations and responsibilities. After all, it is a good thing in my opinion to pay some tribute on this occasion to the board of directors of the IDC, which is made up of the very best financial and economic experts in South Africa. They are people who stand squarely in the everyday economic activities of South Africa. We may rest assured that they will not want to contribute to the suppression of private initiative in South Africa. Under these circumstances it is my privilege to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. member for Springs, because I am going to identify myself with other speakers on this side of the House who have expressed their doubts about the manner in which the IDC is entering into undertakings which could possibly be done, and possibly be done better, by private enterprise. I will come back to this subject a little later.

This afternoon I want to deal with two aspects of this Bill which is before us. The first one is in relation to clause 1 which gives the IDC the additional power to what it already has to issue indemnities against loss in certain circumstances. The IDC at present may “guarantee any undertaking given in relation to the financing of any company or the performance of any contract by any company”. This Bill will, in terms of clause 1, enable the IDC, as an alternative to guaranteeing the due performance of contracts, to indemnify against loss or damage in respect of similar circumstances. As I read the Bill, this is an alternative power and not a power that will be exercised in addition to guaranteeing.

Not in the same case; this is an alternative power.

In other words, the IDC is now being put in a position where it can decide which is the better method, because it can either guarantee the due fulfilment of a contract or indemnify the company against loss. I think that with the increasing part being played by the IDC in the financing of imports and exports, but particularly in the financing of captial exports, this is a very necessary and desirable addition to the powers of the corporation. I think in practice it is often the case that when imports or, more important, exports are being financed, an indemnity against loss to the party that is providing the finance is a more appropriate means of facilitating the finance than a guarantee of due fulfilment of contract.

I have already said that I have my reservations, along with the other speakers on this side of the House, in respect of the role which the IDC is playing in the industrial development of South Africa, because there are undoubtedly instances where the IDC is doing what private enterprise can do and can do better. Nevertheless I do believe that the role which the IDC is playing in the financing of exports, and particularly in the financing of capital exports, is a very valuable and a very necessary one. I think in order to do this job most effectively it does require this power to indemnify against loss. One has only to look at the growth of capital goods exports which have been financed under the IDC’s export finance scheme to realize this. Since 1970 authorizations of export finance under the scheme have risen from R76 million in that year to R181 million in 1974. In fact, last year, of the funds which became available to the IDC, no less than 42% was applied to the purpose of financing capital exports. It seems to me that the corporation is fulfilling a very desirable function in this regard.

I think we have to realize that the availability of long-term credit is an important competitive weapon when it comes to securing export business in capital goods. South Africa has to compete with exports from other countries which are supported by export finance schemes and export guarantee schemes some of which, I might say, are subsidized and we simply cannot stand back in this direction and not do likewise. For that reason I support what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has said in this regard. We regard this as a desirable feature of the Bill and I must say that in this respect I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North was a bit off the mark in not realizing what the purpose was of this provision to allow the IDC to indemnify against loss.

The second aspect of the Bill which I would like to deal with is the provision which allows the Minister to increase the amount of loans raised outside the Republic of South Africa which may be guaranteed by the Government without Parliamentary approval from R30 million to R200 million. In this respect I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North was again off the mark. This provision does not increase the IDC’s borrowing power by R170 million as the hon. member for Johannesburg North seemed to indicate. It merely raises the limit in respect of which the Government may guarantee loans raised outside the country by that amount. The actual borrowing powers of the IDC are governed by section 4(f) which, is not amended by this Bill. They, of course, are limited to three-quarters of the issued capital of the corporation. As I calculate the position, the unused borrowing powers at the date of the last balance sheet of the corporation amounted to R47 million, which is the amount by which the corporation can increase its borrowing without going to its shareholders for additional approval.

I would say that, bearing in mind that the amount of R30 million which is provided for in the existing Act was set as long ago as 1940, the amount of R200 million is a fairly reasonable figure taking into account the depreciation of the value of money in the meantime, the expansion of the industrial activities in this country, and some of the new and justifiable spheres of activity into which the IDC has moved. I hope that this amendment allowing the Government to guarantee foreign loans to a greater extent is going to mean that the IDC will be able to borrow abroad to a greater extent, that it will be able to attract more capital to South Africa and that it will be able, in the process, to improve our balance of payments. Here again I would like to associate myself with other speakers on this side of the House. If this increase in borrowing power is going to be used for increased investment by the corporation, I hope the Minister and the board of the corporation are going to bear in mind the objects of the corporation. These objects have been quoted in this debate and I will not quote them again, but I believe that, with the background we have in South Africa of a private enterprise economy, these objects of the IDC should be interpreted as confining the activity of the IDC to areas where private enterprise fails to do the job. Unfortunately, I cannot say that this is or has been the case, and here I would cross swords with the hon. member for Springs. To my mind there has been an undesirable participation in private enterprise, for example, the participation of the corporation in banking. I see no reason why the State, through the IDC, should participate in banking; the private sector is perfectly capable of providing a complete banking service.

They always have been.

I see no reason why the IDC should concern itself with running widely diversified investment companies, such as National Selections and Industrial Selections. These are surely areas which should be left entirely to private enterprises. Having in mind the fact that the Government does appear to be aware of the need to hold a tighter rein on the participation of State corporations in the economy, as it is evidenced by the fact that a committee has been appointed to watch over the activities of State corporations, I do hope that now that we have a new Minister of Economic Affairs, he is going to follow a strict policy in regard to the activities of the IDC in relation to the objects laid down.

A more economical Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat at the outset that I have pointed out that in the modern business community, national and international, in which we have to compete and in which the IDC has to play its part, two specific needs have arisen. These were, in the first place, that the amount it was able to guarantee in respect of loans raised abroad was too limited and that it had to be increased. I just want to say at this stage that bearing in mind the fact that the limit of R30 million on the amount was imposed as far back as 1940, there is sufficient reason for this amount to be increased. The second factor to which I should like to refer is the need which exists for the right to indemnify, over and above the right to guarantee. I want to say at once that I appreciate the support given to these two facets of the Bill by the hon. members for Cape Town Gardens and Constantia. I think that in this regard the hon. gentlemen hit the mark, something they have seldom done in the past and are unlikely to do very often in the future, and I may tell them to continue along these lines; they have done well in this particular regard.

Before I come to the arguments themselves, I think there are certain general statements that I should make. The hon. member for Johannesburg North, with the limited support of the hon. member for Randburg, took this opportunity of using the Bill as a vehicle for propagating certain philosophies to which he subscribes. Amongst other things, he used this opportunity, not to discuss the part and participation of the State directly or of public corporations in the economy, but to discuss at once the interference of the State in the economy through the corporations. In his speech he made two statements, inter alia, which were totally unfounded and in my opinion totally unmotivated as well. The hon. member said that the moment one referred to the legislation, or to what the legislation before us is intended to authorize, the whole question of State expenditure, direct as well as indirect, through public corporations, should be investigated. He made two assertions in this regard, but in my opinion he said absolutely nothing to prove those assertions. Those assertions were merely platitudes and generalities. Firstly, he said that the expenditure, including expenditure through State or public corporations, was of an inflationary and a less productive nature. I tried to find something in his speech to prove those statements which he made, but I found absolutely nothing to substantiate them. The second statement which the hon. member made was that this legislation implied further interference, to use his words, in the private sector and in spheres proper to the private sector. The hon. member conceded in general that the State has a part to play in a mixed economy such as the one we have. But he did not show himself to be willing to quantify the part which the State has to play, as he conceded in principle, and to say what its nature should be and in what spheres it should be played. He was not prepared to take this statement of his any further. But having made this profound economic pronouncement, that the State does have the right to participate in the economy and to recognize its mixed nature, he proceeded to condemn the direct or indirect participation of the State—quantitatively and qualitatively. The question now presents itself to me, and I believe it to be a reasonable question, what the hon. members’ motivation is in adopting standpoints such as these. The hon. member for Yeoville said that we had a capitalist system. No one is denying this and this is not what I am arguing about. In fact, the hon. member for Johannesburg North conceded that we had a mixed economy and that there was a need for participation by the State.

That is my standpoint as well.

I shall deal with it. I do not want to be drawn into a dialogue with the hon. member for Yeoville, however, for I am not dealing with him at the moment. But if what I said is applicable to him, he may as well take a seat next to the hon. member for Johannesburg North right now; he need not postpone it. Arising from the two assertions made by the hon. member, which, as I have said, he did not prove, he said that he wanted two assurances from me as Minister of Economic Affairs. In the first place he wants to have the assurance from me that the Industrial Development Corporation will invest and operate only in those sectors or segments of the economy in which the private sector is unwilling or unable to do so. This is important. In other words, before entering a particular field which has not been entered in the past, the Industrial Development Corporation is to ask the private sector whether or not it is willing to enter that field itself, and not whether that field needs to be entered in the national interest. Implicit in the assurance which the hon. member asks me to give …

May I ask a question?

I first want to finish my argument; then the hon. member may ask his question. Implicit in the assurance which the hon. member asks me to give is a premise, and that is that if the private sector has entered a particular field, no matter how limited its participation, the mere fact that the field has been entered by the private sector will absolutely prohibit the IDC from entering that specific field. In addition, a second premise is implicit in the assurance which the hon. member asks me to give. This is that even if the competition in the private sector is as limited as could be in a specific field, the State will still be under no obligation to enter that field and to make the competition more competitive. If this is what the hon. member is asking me, I am not prepared to give him that assurance.

May I ask a question?

I just want to finish my argument. I shall give the hon. member the chance to ask his question.

Order! The hon. member has the hon. the Minister’s assurance. He must just be patient for a while.

The hon. member also asked me to give him the assurance that when the IDC has entered a specific field, it will withdraw from that field within a reasonable period of time as soon as the enterprise in which it was involved has become profitable. The hon. member will know that it was not always possible to withdraw at a given point of time. This is so for many reasons. I do not think there is any need for me to tell him what these reasons are. I think the hon. member should have a look at the composition of the IDC’s board of directors. With the exception of the chairman, who used to be the Secretary of a State Department, all the members of the IDC’s board of directors are people who are active in the private sector, and they are not active on their own, but they occupy the most responsible positions in their respective fields. I say that an accusation against the IDC of unjustified participation in the private sector would really amount to a motion of no confidence in the leading figures in the private sector of our country. Let us see who serves on that board of directors. The hon. member shakes his head, but I want to have it placed on record. There is Dr. W. J. A. Hurter. He is the chairman of the board of directors of Volkskas Beperk, as well as of other companies of an industrial nature. Is this a disqualification from the viewpoint of the hon. member for Johannesburg North? Another member is Mr. D. U. Benade. This should console the hon. member. At the moment he is president of the Federated Chamber of Industries, while he is also a director of several companies. Then there is Dr. J. A. du Toit, chairman of the Coloured Development Corporation, who is also involved in several companies. Then there is Dr. I. G. Halliday. I could go on in this way.

All good Nats. [Interjections.]

I do not know whether they are all good Nationalists, but if they have any sense they are sure to be. [Interjections.] Before replying in detail to the hon. member’s arguments, I believe that I should first make certain introductory remarks, just as he did. I believe that I owe it to hon. members to expose the inconsistency of the standpoints and actions of the hon. member and his party. Sir, I believe —and I am sure that hon. members will agree with me—that when in any debate the contribution of any member is evaluated, it is of vital importance for this House to determine what that member’s motives are, and, secondly, with what degree of objectivity he or his party is able to judge and whether they represent the general interest or a particular interest. Sir, this is important, because the hon. member for Johannesburg North has not convinced me of his objectivity in this connection. I am not yet convinced that he is able to put the national interest before the particular interest. I am not convinced that his standpoint, in this connection as well, is not motivated by self-interest.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove should keep quiet now; I shall come to him. Sir, when I have to answer these questions in respect of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, the question naturally presents itself—and I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North will concede this—whether, in the light of the financial and economic institutions in which he is involved and which are responsible for the fact that many of his colleagues are here and which are also responsible for their continued presence in this House, the party to which he belongs collectively and he himself in particular are qualified to judge objectively in this particular case. When I analyse the hon. member’s speech, I am not convinced that he is able to give an objective, balanced opinion in the national interest. Sir, I do not blame him. I think he finds it very difficult to distantiate himself from his involvement in these financial and economic institutions and to make an objective contribution. There is not the slightest doubt about the fact that the hon. member for Johannesburg North really has identifiable and known interests in powerful financial and economic institutions—for which I do not blame him—for which he holds a brief—I do not think he can deny this—but which in my opinion disqualify him from speaking authoritatively on national interests on the one hand and particular group interests on the other. I believe that he and his party have introduced a new element into our politics through the interests which they represent, which brought some of them to this House. Apart from the statement made by the hon. member to the effect that in a mixed economy such as ours, the State has a part to play, which seems to be merely theoretical according to him, he is not prepared to qualify this and to tell us what the restrictions or the extent of the State’s participation should be.

Let me make a second statement. No one will deny that the dividing line is a delicately balanced borderline. But he has made no contribution whatsoever towards determining what this delicately balanced borderline should be and where it should be drawn. No, Sir—and this I want to deal with—the hon. member has joined the chorus—and allow me to say at once that it is a monotonous chorus—and accused the State of creeping socialism.

Yes.

The hon. member says “Yes”. I want to ask him whether the private sector is always a sacred cow which is inviolate and whose actions must not be censured. The hon. member for Orange Grove says that he did not say that. Of course he did not say that; the hon. member merely expressed general disapproval without qualifying. But I am glad that the hon. member for Orange Grove interrupted me. Has the hon. member for Johannesburg North ever referred in this House or elsewhere to the malpractices which may exist and which often do exist in the private sector? He can assume a pious attitude and make condemnatory remarks about the part played by State corporations and by the State. [Interjections.] He can do that, but I am still waiting for him to take a stand in regard to the other malpractices. Sir, I have never heard the hon. member discuss—and if I am wrong, he must correct me and I shall owe him an apology—the tendency to form monopolistic power blocs in this country to the detriment of the national interest. If he has ever made such a speech, I should very much like to see its text.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member for Orange Grove to keep on interjecting.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not blame him for wanting to help the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Their joint effort remains just as unconvincing. I have never heard the hon. member refer in critical terms to giant corporate financial and economic pyramids which possess extraordinary power and do not necessarily serve the national interest at all times. All I want to tell him in this regard is that he has every right to do as the hon. member for Constantia and Cape Town Gardens did, and to point out that we should always be vigilant in respect of the State’s participation in the economy. But this is not what he is doing, and, with respect. I know why he is not doing it. His motivation differs from that of the other hon. members on the other side. There are other interests which he represents and which he has to propagate here.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister allowed to imply that the hon. member is motivated by personal gain?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Let us now come to the legislation at once. Having referred to it in general terms I want to say that we should consider the legislation which is now before us in the light of, firstly, the objectives which were set when the Industrial Development Corporation was established in 1940. In evaluating the amending legislation which is before us in terms of the objectives of the principal Act—the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens quoted them and I have also referred to them— we must ask ourselves whether there is anything in this legislation which is in any way contrary to the objectives of that Act. Surely this is the norm by which we should evaluate this legislation. Secondly we should look at the extent of the IDC’s powers as defined in section 4 of the principal Act. I want to ask the hon. member whether there is anything in the amending legislation we are now considering which is at all contrary to that Act. Naturally the test is how, since 1940 up to now, the board of directors of the IDC has interpreted the powers conferred upon it by section 4 and the objectives presented to it by section 5 of the principal Act. The best evidence of how this has been interpreted by the boards of directors is to be found in the annual report to which the hon. member referred. However, the hon. member seems to have read only page 24 of the annual report. He pointed out that the IDC had handled 1 636 applications since its inception and that an amount of almost R1 400 million had been involved. It is obvious, after all, that many of the amounts have been paid back since 1940 and that the amount which is mentioned in the report is the total amount involved in the applications. It does not represent the outstanding amount. If the hon. member had wanted to, he could have looked at page 22 of the report as well. If he had done that, he would have seen there how the various amounts have been invested in terms of the various sections of the Act and he would have seen that the amount invested by the IDC in private company shares is relatively small compared with the amount invested in the form of loans. If he had done that, he would have found that the investment in shares—except in wholly-owned subsidiaries —is smaller than the investment in loans and guarantees. Does the hon. member not agree with me? I should like to take this a little further because I believe this to be an important matter. Has the hon. member ever lodged a complaint with the department about unfair competition or participation by State corporations in the private sector? I ask him this question because the Government’s standpoint and policy in respect of participation by State corporations in the economy is no secret, and if anyone wants to know more about it, the procedure that should be followed and the place where complaints should be lodged are no secret either. After all, this has formed the subject of various statements by some of my predecessors and by the hon. the Prime Minister as well. Let us see what the policy of the Government is, because I think it is important for me at least to tell hon. members what it is. The Government’s basic philosophy is that the national economy can best be served by the profit motive, as embodied in the private sector. This is a general statement, but I want to qualify it. The hon. member for Johannesburg North did not qualify it. From the nature of the case, the State’s machinery is not equipped to utilize the development opportunities which arise every day, to keep the national economy buoyant and to develop a broad industrial structure which will fully utilize the country’s resources and provide jobs for all levels of the population. I readily concede that. That has always been the philosophy of this side of the House. The policy of allowing the private sector to apply the means of production is no new concept. However, there is a qualification to that: As long as it can be reconciled with the general interest and as long as it does not conflict with the general interest. The hon. member for Orange Grove agrees. We have had legislation on the Order Paper and there is more legislation on the Order Paper coming up for discussion which proposes to protect the general interest against possible exploitation by the private sector. I am referring here to small minorities in the private sector. Let me make myself clear on that, because it is important. Although I subscribe to this basic philosophy and the economic policy for the development of our industries is my specific responsibility and I intend to perform this task to the best of my ability, it will not be done at the expense of the public or national interest. Let there be no doubt whatsoever about that. The reason for the establishment of the State corporations is well-known. I am not for a moment suggesting that State corporations cannot make mistakes and I shall come back to this later. But where would this country’s industrial development have been without the State corporations? It is very easy to pay lip service to this principle and in practice to argue against everything the people do. The IDC’s record in this particular regard shows us—the hon. member for Johannesburg North quoted this from the annual report—that it has handled 1 636 applications since 1940. From whom? From State corporations? Or from the private sector? No, really, Sir, we must not be naïve in discussing these things. No one can deny that the IDC—I am not referring now to the other State corporations, because they are not under discussion at the moment—was established to stimulate industrial development and to guide that development into fields and in directions in which such opportunities had not existed before. In this way the IDC has created opportunities which are obvious. I make no apology for the fact that we are using the IDC to bring about a balanced geographical development in our country, and I wish we had more funds available to us in this regard.

I advocate further participation by the IDC in this particular regard. It could not be reconciled with our objectives if the IDC were to reserve to itself the right to use the means which are made available to it—a major part of the means consists of public funds, and I concede that—to intervene in order to deprive the private sector of its opportunities in existing enterprises. Their function is to help develop new directions. That is not in dispute between us. They have the additional responsibility—hon. members must know that this is my standpoint as well as that of the Government—of intervening, where there is insufficient competition, to create rivalry so that the situation may become fully competitive. There must be no doubt about this either.

I heard the criticism expressed by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, as well as that of the hon. member for Randburg, who is now sitting up straight again. To me it sounded very much like a prelude to agreements in other spheres. The hon. member for Randburg associated himself with the hon. member for Johannesburg North in his general condemnation of the State’s participation, and I heard him quote Dr. Jan Marais authoritatively. I could not hear the name of the other person.

Martin van den Berg.

By the way and for the hon. member’s information, Dr. M. van den Berg is a member of the Standing Advisory Committee on State Competition.

However, I want to come back to the speeches made by the hon. members for Cape Town Gardens and Constantia, and I want to say at once that I take the warning to heart that the IDC and the other State corporations should no indulge in unwarranted activity in spheres pertaining to the private sector. I want to add at once that the Government and I have no argument with hon. members on this point. I have already referred to the qualifying aspects in dealing with the speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. There have been complaints from the private sector from time to time about the actions of some State corporation in some direction, because of the competition of the State corporation sector, if I may call it that, with the private sector. To the extent to which these complaints may be justified, and the situation may exist in respect of which hon. members and the private sector allege that such actions are not in the public interest, I believe that the necessary adjustments should be made. In fact, my predecessor and I have been assured by the chairmen of the various State corporations, which as hon. members know, are quite autonomous in their decision-taking, that within the framework of their statutory powers they are aware of the Government’s policy and standpoint, as stated by me to the House this afternoon, and that they will do their best to act in accordance with the letter and the spirit of this policy and philosophy. I want to conclude by referring to this matter in this particular connection.

As hon. members know, the hon. the Prime Minister announced on 10 December last year that it had been decided in principle to constitute a committee to which complaints in this particular connection could be referred. Hon. members know, too, that I have already announced the names of the members of this committee. What is important, however, is that apart from the chairman, the entire committee consists of representatives of the private sector. I believe that hon. members will agree with me that we can at least expect impartial standpoints from this committee as a tribunal. So we have already dealt with that facet.

I want to thank the hon. member for Springs for his contribution—in fact, I want to thank all the hon. members for their contributions. They have afforded me the opportunity of formulating my standpoint and informing the House in this regard. In a general sense, too, they have assisted me. I want to point out that the hon. member for Johannesburg North indicated that although there is a limit to the amount which can be guaranteed, there is no limit in respect of the amount which may be indemnified. I am prepared to concede the validity of that argument. It is a reasonable argument. Consequently I shall move the amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper in the Committee Stage. Now the hon. member may ask his question.

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. Minister agree with me that if an economic mining deposit was found in South Africa by a foreign company who wanted to take in a South African partner …

Order! The hon. member’s question must be short.

Mr. Speaker, may I reframe my question? If a foreign investor in South Africa wishes to sell a 50% interest to a South African partner and both General Mining and the IDC are prepared to take up that 50%, does the hon. the Minister agree with me that there is no other way than that it must go to General Mining?

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member does not understand the language in which I addressed the House. I said that public interest was the decisive motivation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

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

For the sake of record I want to say that this amendment is based on the argument of the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Second Reading and the Committee Stage of this Bill have just been taken by the House and the hon. the Minister took the opportunity during the Second Reading of the Bill to state the Government’s policy in broad outline on this most important body, the Industrial Development Corporation, which has played a tremendous role in the industrial development of our country since 1940. We on this side of the House want to take this opportunity of making our position quite clear again. When the hon. the Minister is dealing with the economy of the country and introduces either legislation or amendments to legislation which accord with the general welfare of the country, we on this side of the House shall give him such support as he would normally be entitled to look for. There will be occasions when we will differ radically, but we believe that on this occasion the hon. the Minister has come to the House with two sections that had to be amended and we believe that those amendments are fair and reasonable. We accept that the opportunity which he has taken to place on record the policy of the Government, will be a valuable record which we shall study and probably draw upon in future debates.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution and I want to apologize to the hon. member for Randburg for not having replied to his full argument. To be more specific, he referred to the amending Bill which was before this House last year with regard to the Bantu Development Corporation and he asked whether there was any political motive in the legislation before us. I think that it is quite clear that there are no political motives whatsoever in the legislation before us.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this legislation will be quite incontroversial and that I will receive general consent from hon. members on the other side.

It is an important feature of the economic system in the Republic that every person is free, subject only to those restrictions laid down in public interest, to earn his daily bread in the manner best suited to him. However, according to our economic system, no one is allowed to gather wealth in any branch, of commerce and industry without competition. I therefore want to accept that the hon. members of this House will appreciate the important role competition plays in our national economy. Competition in commerce can, however, also be limited by prescribing to a trader at which, price he must sell a particular article.

With a view to assuring competition in commerce, one of my predecessors, the present hon. Minister of Transport, issued a notice in this regard in accordance with the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, 1955, on 25 June 1969. With certain exceptions the notice concerned prohibits any person from persuading or compelling a reseller to adhere to an indicated price.

†I must mention, however, that in terms of section 2(2)(a) of the said Act, the provisions thereof shall not be applied in such a manner as to limit, among other things, any right derived under the Patents Act, No. 37 of 1952. Although I do not propose to enter into the details of the matter, I may add that a certain accused party was acquitted on 10 March 1975 upon charges involving the contravention of the resale price maintenance prohibition of 25 June 1969 because the court was of the opinion that a patented article is exempted from the prohibition. The Attorney-General in this particular case intimated that he agreed with the view of the magistrate who delivered judgment in the case and that he would, therefore, not be prepared to take this particular point on appeal.

*However, it is being felt that it was never the intention that the holders of patent rights should have such far-reaching powers which may be to the detriment of the national economy in general. Therefore it is being proposed in the Bill which is now before the hon. House, that a saving clause be added to section 2(2)(a) of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, 1955.

The proposed saving clause lays down that the provisions of the said section shall not be construed if any person thereunder retained or were granted any right of enhancing or maintaining prices in any manner contemplated in section 2(1) of the Act.

This provision will have the effect of curtailing the rights of persons in terms of any of the Acts mentioned in section 2(2)(a) of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, in the sense that such persons are not excluded from the operation of the latter Act if they create a monopolistic condition as a result of the enhancement or maintenance of prices. Therefore it follows that the holder of patent rights can be guilty of contravening the prohibition on price maintenance. Furthermore, the opportunity is also taken to rectify the reference to the Act mentioned in section 2(2)(a) of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act. The proposed rectification concerned will have no effect on the existing law.

Mr. Speaker, this amending Bill seeks to amend an Act that has been on the Statute Book of our country for some 20 years. In view of the tremendous public interest which, revolves around the concept of the word “monopolistic” as to whether it is either evil or beneficial, I feel that it is only right that I should make some reference to the original Act in order that both the public as well as hon. members present here may better be able to judge the justification or otherwise for the amendment.

In the investigation that was carried out in 1955 …

Order! The hon. member must not go too far.

No, Sir. As I say, when that investigation was initiated by the then Minister of Economic Affairs, Dr. van Rhyn, the principle was established that the Government recognized that a monopoly was not an evil as such and that there were many monopolies in South Africa that were permissible. The hon. the Minister is now seeking to amend the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act in order, as he sees it, to protect the public interest. I think that this is the important argument which we in our own minds have applied in considering the actual amendment—whether or not it is in the public interest. Generally, in times of high inflation such as we are experiencing at the moment, the public is intensely conscious of prices that are maintained in any monopolistic sense of price maintenance as such.

The hon. the Minister has given us details of the thinking which induced him to introduce this legislation. We believe that his logic is correct. If he is seeking to amend the principal Act in relation to the specific incident which came before the courts, he is following a procedure which he is entirely within his rights to follow. We are not going to oppose this amending Bill. We will support it.

Mr. Speaker, we have considerable reservations about this particular amending Bill which the hon. the Minister has just introduced. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the points that I shall raise. I think he will agree that they also impinge upon this amendment. I hope he will discuss these points with his department to see whether they do not perhaps have a greater impact than what has so far been outlined.

In most countries of the world the particular Acts which are mentioned here confer certain rights which are denied to others. I refer here to the Patents Act, the Trademarks Act, the Copyrights Act and the Designs Act. As we understand this amendment of the principal Act, it seeks to remove what was previously an exception to a complete ban on resale price maintenance. These particular Acts were previously given as exceptions.

We on these benches are all against resale price maintenance and we are more than happy that it should be abolished. But I think at the same time one has got to bear in mind that there may be other consequences which will spill over on to a number of people involved in industry and particularly small retailers in South Africa. In the magistrate’s judgment to which the hon. the Minister referred, and which gave rise to this amendment, it was accepted that if a person has a patent, then he has the right to set the price for the patented article, but that he has not got the right to set the price for other things that go alongside the particular thing which, forms the patent. But, Sir, these other people under these Acts also have certain others rights. They have the right to a licence; they have the right to determine to whom their products should be sold. They have the right in law to say that only one dealer in a particular suburb may sell their product. As I understand the position, the Minister is not interfering with that discretionary right of people within these categories. He is only concerned with the question of price. But, Sir, when you consider the question of price, you must also bear in mind that there may be circumstances where, if it is simply left like this, this amendment could cause very severe losses.

If the amendment is left like this?

Yes, standing by itself. I have no objection to the amendment, but what I am trying to say to the Minister is that I think it ought to be considered in a wider context, because if, for instance, one of the well-known supermarket chains in this country used a patented product as a loss leader and sold it at a very low price, this would cause extremely severe damage not only to the manufacturer of the product, but it would deny the public the right really to get the product, because no small retailer would be able to afford to stock it. Let me mention an example.

There are certain discount stores or markets of one nature or another who are able to offer, say, 10 golf balls for a price of R6-50. Incidentally, I checked this morning. The small retailer, however, cannot buy 10 golf balls at lower than R6. All I am saying to the hon. the Minister is that we are all in favour of the public getting the product as cheaply as possible and that we are in favour of the abolition of resale price maintenance, but that it must also be seen in this particular context because in one sense what you are doing here by putting forward this amendment, without considering these other facts, is that inevitably you are going to force the small retailer out of business. In the principal cities certainly you are going to limit the supply to a small number of people.

Take the case of a tennis racket, for instance. It is well known that at certain places either here or in Johannesburg you can buy a tennis racket at a price below what the ordinary retailer has to pay to get it. What we are saying, therefore, is that while we have no objection to this amendment in the sense that it abolishes retail price maintenance, it must be looked at in a much broader context and that some consideration must be given to the protection of the manufacturer of a product or the protection of the small retailer against a much larger combine that will be able to take advantage of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the hon. member for Johannesburg North and I found it rather strange. In the first place, as I understand it, he wants the wholesaler or a large retailer to be prevented by means of this legislation from conducting his business in the manner in which he wishes to conduct his business. If he wants to sell one product at a lower price, he is certainly free to do so. I do not think that one should interfere in business practices unnecessarily, and if I understood the hon. member for Johannesburg North correctly, this is exactly what he said. The other aspect is the following. I am glad to hear that all the parties who have spoken so far, are satisfied with the idea that this Bill should be approved as printed. It is true that when one is dealing with goods other than material goods such as these, where one refers to patents and trade marks and copy rights and designs, the person who applies his brains to create something, is entitled to ownership of that particular creation of his and that he should also gain by it financially. Under the Patents Act and the particular Acts which have been referred to here, the necessary protection has already been afforded to these persons to have the full use of their creations for certain terms or periods of time, but the basic point still remains: What is in the public interest? Is it in the public interest that price maintenance should be applied without limit or bounds? Then we are all agreed that this is not is fact the position. Therefore I support this Bill as do the other hon. members here, and I feel that the problems mentioned by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, perhaps do occur in normal business practice, but this happens in business practice and people are competing there as well. After all, we are a capitalist country based on a capitalist financial system.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has one merit which I think has not been mentioned, and that is that it illustrates the expedition with which an amendment to a piece of legislation is introduced in this House after a lawsuit has taken place. I see that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations is sitting in the House. He told us some little while ago how long it takes to get a Bill of only one or two clauses dealt with by the law advisers. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations will not get some advice from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs as to how quickly you can get a Bill drafted if actually you want to do so.

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

Sir, I was congratulating the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs on his expedition. He is really quick on the job. But may I indicate a number of problems which I think arise, not necessarily by reason of the amendment itself, but by reason of references to monopolies and their relationships to patents. In the first place, I think we must appreciate that you can in fact have a monopoly which is not hit by price maintenance agreements if in fact you have virtually only one supplier. One of the problems which exists, particularly when you have patented articles, is that you may have only one supplier who is able to market a commodity, and I think that those circumstances require action just as much as price maintenance agreements, because they too have an effect on the price structure, it is very often the case in many parts of the world that price increases are caused by this kind of monopolistic conditions, which I think should be looked at. The other thing one must look at is that when you have a patent, you are not only able to determine what the price is of the product that you wish to sell, but you are able to determine who should be allowed to sell it, and this again can create a monopolistic condition which indirectly can have an effect on the price structure in South Africa. This is something also which I believe needs to be looked at.

The other factor which I think we need to look at is that we are dealing here with price maintenance agreements which do not affect the manufacturer. One of the ways in which prices can be increased is not merely by price maintenance agreements in so far as the public is concerned, but at the preliminary stage of manufacture or at the stage of the wholesaler, in respect of imported goods, in regard to which there is really no control whatsoever. This is another factor which can affect prices in so far as the public are concerned. Here we have a situation where, for example, if there is a patent and the goods which are sold under that patent have to be imported, a monopoly can be created unless there are other goods which can compete with the goods in respect of which there is a patent and which do not fall under the same patent. Let us take a camera for example. You can have a patent in respect of a particular camera but you may find the situation that there is no similar product which competes with it Take the instant-developing camera for example. In South Africa there is inadequate competition in respect of that kind of camera. The seller can virtually charge what he likes because the other cameras cannot compete with it. I am not saying that a monopolistic condition exists in respect of that camera on the market at the moment or that excessive prices are being charged, but I am just using it as an illustration to show that the question of patents is something which has to be gone into far more deeply than is the case with the present legislation. This is what I should like to commend to the hon. the Minister, because I think that it does require attention.

The final question I should like to raise is that we also get the other side of the picture. Where maximum prices are stipulated you often find, in the absence of competition, a tendency to regard the maximum price as the minimum price. There the question of competition becomes extremely important. One can perhaps comment on the role that the discounter plays in this field, where the maximum price tends to become the minimum price. The role of the discounter is an important one, but what we need to look at is what has been looked at to some extent in respect of television, but not in respect of other matters. When a product is marketed the public should have adequate facilities available for maintenance and repair. That has been covered in the case of television, but we very often find that prices are cut and that the public is then landed with goods which nobody can adequately repair or maintain. That is as much of a loss to the consuming public as are the higher prices which they sometimes have to pay.

While this piece of legislation in itself does not cover the whole field, I think it can correctly be said that the mere fact that an article is patented does not mean that the seller should be entitled to charge what he likes for it because it could in the final result end in exploitation in the extreme. For that reason we support the Second Reading of this Bill, but we do appeal to the hon. the Minister to ask his officials to go much deeper into the implications which arise from patented articles marketed in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to repeat that the effect of this amendment we are considering now, is of limited scope. Let me say immediately that I am not able to follow the argument of the hon. member for Johannesburg North in this particular regard. Perhaps I should put it differently. The legislation before us was only introduced to deal with an ad hoc situation which had arisen as a result of a court judgment. As far as we are concerned, it is basically only concerned with the question of price maintenance if and when it is against the public interest. This remains the norm. I immediately concede that there is some substance in the arguments by the hon. member for Yeoville; in fact, I just want to prove that I not only agree with him on these particular facets he referred to but also on others. It is a fact that the question of monopolistic conditions has repeatedly been discussed outside and also during this session, and that questions were raised. I remember the hon. member for Constantia asking a question in regard to paper. I indicated that I would reply to his question later. The fact is that the whole discussion on monopolistic conditions continues from time to time, here as well as else where. Many sins are of course committed when arguing over this matter, but the fact is that these discussions do take place. A second fact which is quite true, is that divergent view points are put forward in these discussions in regard to the monopolistic activities of concentrations of economic Dower which exist in the country. I am not commenting on it. All I am saying at this stage is that these discussions do take place. I want to say immediately that it still remains a problem to find an acceptable suggestion, one which is fair and reasonable and which will not impede sound growth and development, without doing extensive research on the particular subject. I now come to the hon. member for Yeoville. I personally believe that extensive investigations into these aspects to which the hon. member referred are essential, but also in general terms into monopolistic conditions in general, irrespective of what causes them. I think it must also be borne in mind that there has never, to my knowledge, been an empirical investigation into the tendency towards, for example, economic power concentrations in the Republic. At this stage—I think this will also answer the questions raised by the hon. member, for Johannesburg North, for although I cannot share his reservations, we could perhaps accommodate them —I want to say that the Government has already decided to appoint a commission of inquiry, in which the following will have representation: an outsider as chairman, four members in consultation with the Handelsinstituut, the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the Chamber of Industries and the federation of steel, and engineering industries, Seifra. This commission will investigate the whole question of monopolistic conditions. Its terms of reference will more or less be as follows: To investigate, and report on—

1. (a) the tendency towards the concentration of economic power in the Republic of South Africa;
2. (b) the advantages and disadvantages of such concentrations viewed from the angle of public interest;
3. (c) the efficacy of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, 1955, as instrument which ensures competition in the economy; and
4. (d) the legislation considered necessary to eliminate concentration of economic power or any restriction on competition not justifiable in the public interest.

In other words, I think that this widely formulated terms of reference of the commission of inquiry will accommodate the hon. member’s problems. As a result of this, we may be able to produce legislation which will satisfy all of us. Finally I should like to thank hon. members once again for their contributions.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 49—

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say one short word in reply to what the hon. the Minister said during the Second Reading debate. I think it would be generally welcomed if this commission of inquiry investigated these matters, because in my opinion the public is concerned about a whole variety of monopolistic practices. I think it should act as a reassurance to many people that, in fact, this matter will now be fully investigated. We welcome this, and I think it solves a lot of problems which I believe the hon. members on this side have.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The various professional bodies which promote the interest of attorneys, notaries and conveyancers have all, with the exception of the Cape Province and the Territory of South West Africa, been established by legislation which dates from the period prior to Union. The result is that the legislation concerned is only available in one of the official languages. As you know, it is policy to review and consolidate all legislation passed prior to 1925, particularly with a view to making this legislation available in both official languages.

However, the Bill at present before the House is more than a mere consolidation and translation. After long negotiations with the various law societies it was agreed to submit this measure. Every provincial law society and the law society of South West Africa had to be prepared to make concessions or adjustments in order to make this single measure, which will to a large extent bring about uniformity in the provinces and the Territory, acceptable. Furthermore, this opportunity was taken to eliminate deficiencies in the old legislation and to formulate a measure which complies with present-day requirements.

The Bill is self-explanatory. It makes provision for the continued existence of the existing law societies and defines anew their composition, objectives, powers, duties and method of administration.

†Mr. Speaker, to enable the various law societies to regulate more effectively the profession of attorney, notary and conveyancer, more extensive disciplinary powers are conferred on their councils by clause 18. These powers are in conformity with those of most other professional bodies.

Provision is also made in clause 21 for the prescribing of rules by the various councils with regard to the affairs of their societies and the conduct of their members. The existing provisions in this regard differ from society to society. At present rules may be made in the Cape Province, with the approval of the majority of judges; in Natal, with the approval of the provincial division of the Supreme Court; in the Transvaal, of the State President after consultation with the Judge President; in the Orange Free State, of the Minister of Justice after consultation with the Judge President; and in South West Africa, of the Judge President. For the sake of uniformity, and as a compromise, clause 21 provides for approval by the Chief Justice of South Africa, after consultation with the Judges President and, where necessary, Chief Justices of the Bantu homelands. Should the Chief Justice be of the opinion that the interests of the public would be adversely affected by any provision of a rule, the approval of the State President will have to be obtained.

*The acceptance of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, will result in the repeal of 13 existing measures. This Bill may be regarded as a milestone in the history of the legal profession in South Africa. Through excellent co-operation, legislation has now been successfully introduced which will indicate to all interested parties, clearly and on a uniform basis, what the objectives and functions of the various law societies are. I trust that the prestige, status and dignity of the legal profession will be enhanced and promoted by this measure.

Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that one feels one should express sympathy with the hon. the Minister, but I must say that on this occasion I express sympathy with him for having had to deliver the same speech on two occasions in exactly the same words. It has had the advantage, however, of enabling us to study this speech. We can find nothing that we can fault in the speech, nor anything that we can fault in the Bill. We would not, in any event, seek to find any fault in the Bill, because this is peculiarly a Bill which has been agreed to by all the law societies throughout the Republic and South West Africa. The wording of it has been agreed upon and we would not, at this stage, like to disturb one word of the Bill. It is indeed, as the hon. the Minister said, a milestone in South African legal history that the individual law societies have agreed to make certain concessions regarding the rights which have long been held proudly by them all, in the interest of finding a common platform without losing their identity and autonomy. It is in the interests of the public that there should be understanding, and a move towards practices which are uniform. I suppose that the legal profession is unique in that the attorneys and the advocates in this country may not be admitted to their profession, nor removed from the practice of their profession, except by order of court, because they are officers of the court. It is all the more pleasing that various societies have found agreement, especially on the compromise of their rules. It is well-known that for years now there has been an attempt to bring about uniformity and a consensus in respect of the manner in which the rules should be improved and in respect of who should eventually control the decisions which are made by each of the law societies. One of the problems, of course, was that some societies did not want their rules to be subject to the approval of the Government, since they were subject to the approval of—as the hon. Minister pointed out—in some cases a majority of judges, but at any rate in many cases to the control of a court. I think that the compromise that has been reached is an admirable one, namely that the approval, after consultation with the local Judge President, should be sought from the Chief Justice. If the Chief Justice feels that the matter or rule is one which may affect the interests of the public adversely, he can refuse, and only if he refuses, does the Government’s approval becomes relevant. I think that it goes without saying that if the Chief Justice feels that any rule made by any of his law societies was not in the public interest, the State President would hesitate to confirm such rule without there being a considerable amount of investigation and discussion. So, we find ourselves in a position—as I have said—that we not only approve of this measure but feel that at this stage it should not be altered in any way, being as it is a matter of agreement and compromise between the various people concerned.

I think that perhaps there is only one matter on which there might be any difference of opinion and that is the title of the Bill. It appears as if there is a difference of opinion as to whether it should be in Afrikaans “Die Wetsontwerp op Prokureursordes” as it is now stated, or “Wetsontwerp op Wetsgenootskappe”, that being the only difference that there appears to be in the ranks of the legal profession.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that is a Capetonian speaking. I know he thinks differently. That being the only difference that there appears to be, we offer no objection to the Bill at this stage. In fact we not only approve of it, we also offer the hon. the Minister the opportunity of hastening its passage through the House.

Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to say a few words about this Bill, I think it is probably well known that since pre-Union days, since very early times in South Africa, the practise of law has been what can be termed an organized profession. By organizing the profession in the manner in which the law societies and the legal profession in South Africa have been organizing it, I think we have achieved a situation that certain standards have been reached in respect of qualifications of attorneys and of legal people generally, of the discipline exercised by members of the profession and, as a result, of the quality of service offered by members of the legal profession to South Africa as a whole. In 1911, I think it was, just after South Africa became a Union, the four law societies of that time appointed a committee to go into the possibility of and to draw up draft legislation in connection with the bringing into being of an overall South African law society. For many reasons the work done in those days did not bear fruit. I think there was a tremendous amount of vested interests in business and in other professions. Also there was a certain amount of provincialism which achieved pre eminence at the time. Consequently the work of that committee was never completed. It was only in 1934 when an important step forward was taken in the creation of a more unified profession when the original Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Act was passed which governed major aspects of qualifications and of the practice of law. Some four years later, after much discussion, the overall association was founded. This was a major step forward in the founding of co-operation and liaison between attorneys all over the country. Since then progress is continually being made. De Rebus Procuratoriis which used to be the journal of the Law Society of the Transvaal, some years ago was accepted and brought into being as the law society journal for the whole of the profession. This booklet in itself has played an important role in keeping attorneys up to date in the practice of the law and in keeping them informed of new matters which come before Parliament and in discussing the substance of court judgments.

This legislation, as has been said by my hon. colleague for Durban North, is the product of the labours of the hon. the Minister, the Department of Justice, the Association of Law Societies and, I think, of the protracted negotiations which have been conducted by the five law societies in the various provinces. It is the product, therefore, of their co-operation and goodwill. I think I tend to agree with the hon. member for Durban North and with the hon. the Minister, who no doubt will feel this way, that the Bill is as it stands, should not be amended at this stage. Though allowing for provincial nuances and provincial autonomy, this Bill certainly does create a sound foundation which I think will further the unity of purpose in the regulation of the profession and in the conduct of its members. We of the Reform Party therefore welcome the Bill as being to the advantage of the efficient practising of the law and consequently to the advantage of clients and the public.

There are a few problems I would like to mention and I hope that the hon. the Minister will reply to a few of the matters that I want to raise. In mentioning these problems I want to say that I do not wish to move any amendments now. As has been pointed out, the Bill in its present form has been the subject of lengthy negotiations among various societies and it would probably create tremendous problems to go back and try to renegotiate these matters. I do want to mention these problems, however, and ask the hon. the Minister to deal with them and also perhaps to go back to the various parties and find out, if some of the matters I raise warrant it, whether they could not lead to the Bill being amended at a later stage.

The first matter I want to deal with is contained in clause 15(1) of this Bill. Clause 15 is the clause which relates to the powers of the various councils of the law societies concerned. One of the powers granted to such a council is to—

The problem I want to mention is that in other countries one very often finds people doing jobs and performing functions which in South Africa may well be the functions of an attorney, acting as a member of a law society and as an officer of the court, but such person performing those functions overseas may not in fact be an attorney. In the strict sense of the word he may not in fact even be a lawyer. I am thinking of the case of a tax adviser who may send a tax problem over to a South African attorney because in the field in which he operates in his own particular country he is dealing with a company tax problem which might relate to something in South Africa. He may then send such problem to a South African attorney. I think too of a person who in another country may deal with estates but who need not, in fact, be an attorney. He may deal exclusively with estates. I think, for instance, of a notary in another country who may send work to a South African attorney while he himself does not operate as an attorney in his own country, but exclusively as a notary. It may be correct to state that such people fall under the generic term of “lawyer” and that the use of that term will cover any problem that might arise. My difficulty is that the term “lawyer”, as it is mentioned in this Bill, is not defined at all and so I foresee problems in this regard. I would prefer that an allowance should be paid to any lawyer, to call him that, practising outside the Republic, or to any other person as may be prescribed by the council. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will take this problem back to the law societies to see whether we cannot come up with something which gives a little more clarity to the matter.

Another matter I would like to raise is in regard to clause 20. I raise these matters now because I do not intend moving any amendments for reasons I have stated. As far as clause 20 is concerned, we have a situation in terms of which when a practitioner has been convicted of some misdemeanour or other by a council, he can then in terms of the provisions of this clause take the matter on appeal. If the appeal court allows his appeal, although it is not stated here, I assume—I think that this is the correct position and I hope the hon. the Minister will confirm it—that apart from allowing the practitioner to recover the costs he may have paid to the council in respect of the original inquiry, the appeal court will also allow him to recover the costs of appeal and perhaps, in certain circumstances where it had been found that the case brought against such practitioner was a very weak one, the appeal court would be allowed to recover the costs which may have been incurred by the practitioner when he was found guilty at the original hearing.

That is covered by subsection (6) of clause 20.

I do not think it is.

In relation to clause 21, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why the Transvaal has been excluded from the provisions of subsection (3). In all the other areas with the exclusion of the Transvaal, the law societies involved have to submit rules to their members in general meeting for approval. It may well be in the interest of the council of the Transvaal, but I do not think it is in the interest of the practitioners, and I think they should be consulted.

One point, which is almost a point of principle, and which I think can be properly raised in the Second Reading debate, is clause 22. It is only a 4-line clause and reads as follows—

These are very wide powers, because in terms of this Bill a council has very wide powers. A council may acquire or hire immovable property, draw or endorse cheques and enter into insurance schemes. There are all sorts of things that a council can do, and there are all sorts of things which a council can authorize its employees to do. It is quite clear that this section does not exclude a claim being brought against a council or against an employee or an official of a council who is acting maliciously; clearly the council is still liable, but a claim being brought against the council for its negligent acts, which may in fact have been in good faith, is excluded. I believe that this prejudices aggrieved parties, because it denies to aggrieved parties the remedy of claiming damages for normal delicts. While we should certainly try to protect the council, I believe that in doing this we should not exclude the possibility of claims being brought against the council for normal delicts. In terms of the wording of this clause the council is immune from claims against it for misdemeanours committed in good faith but delictually, misdemeanours which may well cause severe damage to individual persons with whom the council enters into contracts or who are connected with the council itself. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will look at this with a view to further amendment. I do know that the other professional bodies have similar provisions in their constitutions, but I do not approve of such clauses. I do feel that people who have legitimate claims for acts of the council which may have caused them damage should be afforded the right to bring claims against the council. Even attorneys are held liable for the consequences of their acts, and what happens is that attorneys take out insurance to protect themselves. Every attorney makes mistakes from time to time, just as every politician makes mistakes from time to time.

Are you referring to yourself?

I am looking at hon. members to my right. What I am saying is that in every profession people make mistakes, but if those errors prejudice other people, whether they be clients or members of the public, and even if those errors, whether they be errors of omission or negligence, are committed in good faith, the attorney concerned is liable to his clients. Normally these people take out insurance, and I feel that while holding attorneys liable to their clients, we should not give the council immunity against claims which may be brought against them because of the negligence of their employees or officials. Sir, this is just a thought which I submit for the hon. the Minister’s consideration.

Apart from the few points that I have mentioned, this bill is to be welcomed. I think South. Africa has been served well by our legal profession with its high standards. [Interjection.] I often ask myself, Sir, why so many lawyers are in Parliament. I am not sure whether they are in Parliament because of the high, standard of the training they had, which enables them to understand the working and the intricacies of Parliament, or whether they are perhaps in Parliament because they cannot earn a living outside! [Interjections.] However, I think I am correct in saying that the legal profession has over the years done a good job for South Africa. It has provided people for the Civil Service, for the administration of companies and businesses. It has provided even some of the brains of this hon. House, and this Bill plays its role in furthering and maintaining the contributions being made to South Africa by its legal luminaries.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an uncomfortable situation in which the hon. the Minister and I find ourselves here, in that we have to agree with the hon. member for Durban North as well as with the previous speaker in regard to this Bill. But if it is unfortunate in that respect, it is fortunate in another respect, which is that we have before us here today the example of a piece of legislation—and here I want to agree with hon. members—on a profession which sets very high moral standards for itself. The result of those high standards which the profession has set for itself over the years, has in fact been that even provincial differences are in a certain sense being eliminated in this legislation. But having said this I really must rectify what an hon. member of the Other Place said, namely when he alleged that this legislation was a typical example of what we are going to find under a federal system of government. I should like to state here that we are not dealing here with a federation of law societies, but with a confederation of law societies. Perhaps it would help the hon. members on the opposite side of this House if they were rather to make a proper study of this Bill and then decide whether they are still able to refer to a federation or whether they should not rather refer to a confederation.

Sir, I have said this Bill is an example of a high professional standard which is being set. I also want to say that this Bill is an example of the very strict discipline to which the various law societies subject themselves. We on this side of the House not only welcome this piece of legislation, but think that it will serve to make the dignity of the profession and the integrity of the profession, as well as the services rendered by the profession to the community even more effective.

On this occasion I should like to convey a word of thanks to the profession for the services which the profession have been rendering so selflessly in respect of the rural areas. I think the attorneys’ profession in the rural areas is playing a special role, which I think is generally regarded as being of great value.

The hon. members, who preceded me, had a problem with clause 15 as far as allowances are concerned. This concerns allowances in regard to persons who may possibly do similar work abroad. Sir, it is a known fact in South Africa that it is only the legal profession, as a profession per se, which has a form of allowance, in terms of which another profession is compensated for services rendered to that profession. All that is now going to be regulated in clause 15 is that where functions are performed abroad by people similar to those performed internally by attorneys here in South Africa, attention can be given to giving those people allowances as well. But this does not apply to other similar professions. An overseas firm of auditors will be able to receive certain allowances from a firm of attorneys in South Africa if that firm of auditors renders certain services, while a firm of auditors within South Africa will not, if it renders the same services as that foreign firm, receive a similar allowance from a firm of attorneys in South Africa. I think we should be very careful not to deviate from the old practice, which I think is a sound practice, that allowances should only be paid between firms of attorneys on a professional legal basis. In this respect, however, I think that an exception may be made, particularly since we are dealing with certain activities which may be performed abroad. I am thinking in particular of our neighbouring states, where firms of attorneys are not always available to do certain types of work. I do not think that we should extend this tendency internally. We should be very careful in how we deal with this matter.

It is happening internally.

Yes. As far as clause 20 is concerned, the hon. member has had misgivings in regard to the question of appeal. What I and the hon. member fear in respect of the cost of appeal I think will be eliminated by section 87(6) of the Magistrates’ Court Act. Provision is being made there that the court of appeal shall always have the right to make an order which is justified in regard to the costs as well. I think that would solve the hon. member’s problem.

Does that apply to the original costs?

That will probably be the case. In any case, it will be able to recover the original cost.

Do you know about clause 17?

Yes, I know about clause 17, but the original costs …

Order! Hon. members should not become involved in arguments across the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am arguing this matter with you, but the hon. member is interrupting me. I just want to say that I do not think that the hon. member ought to have any problem in that regard. As far as clause 21 is concerned, I just want to tell the hon. member that since the Transvaal has asked not be included together with the other provinces under the provisions of this clause, it should be remembered that this is a matter which has existed in this way in the Transvaal since 1905. Thus the hon. member and I are practising under the provisions of that Transvaal ordinance. [Interjections.] No, not from 1905. Perhaps the hon. member, but not I.

Who asked that the Transvaal should not be included?

The Law Society of the Transvaal requested that the situation should be left as it was.

Were the attorneys not consulted?

The Law Society requested this. I take it they are speaking on behalf of the attorneys of the Transvaal, but I cannot state with certainty that the opinion of each individual attorney on this matter was obtained. However, it was the request of the Law Society that the situation should remain as it was. Therefore I do not think that it is advisable for us to alter the existing situation while the Law Society has requested that it should remain as it was.

Mr. Speaker, my only reason for rising is to thank hon. members for supporting this measure. This is an important measure because it is a milestone in the legal profession in that attorneys have succeeded for the first time to come together and devise for themselves a common constitution for their activities.

The hon. member for Sandton raised certain matters and if he will give me his attention, I should like to discuss these matters with him. I am referring to clause 15(1). The hon. member wanted to know whether it would be possible to effect an amendment in this respect. He proposed: “by any person who may be prescribed by the council”. In other words, what he wanted was that the councils should decide which foreign attorneys should be accepted as attorneys in South Africa. Am I correct?

Yes, but …

The hon. member should not argue now. He can get up again to make another speech later on if he wants to do so. Clause 15(1) reads as follows—

In other words, when the law societies refer to a “legal practitioner” they mean a legal practitioner in terms of the law of the Republic. This complies entirely with what the hon. member envisages in this amendment. He says the law societies should be able to lay down what kind of people shall be legal practitioners abroad, but the legislation itself refers to legal practitioners and should mean legal practitioners in the South African sense of the word. In other words, when the law societies find that it is a legal practice abroad in the sense of legal practices within the Republic, they may prescribe the fees. The Bill therefore complies entirely with what the hon. member wants.

As far as clause 20 is concerned, I think that the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke has replied fully to the argument raised by the hon. member. I think the hon. member lost sight of section 87 of the Magistrates’ Court Act. Clause 20(4) lays down that an appeal “shall be prosecuted as if it were an appeal from a judgment of a magistrate’s court in a civil matter, and all rules applicable to such last-mentioned appeal in respect of the hearing thereof shall mutatis mutandis apply to an appeal under this section”.

†Section 87 of the Magistrates’ Court Act provides for the procedure of a court of appeal. In terms of paragraph (e), the court of appeal may make such order as to costs as justice may require.

*Since the manner in which the costs should be determined is already laid down in the Magistrates’ Court Act, it is therefore not necessary to include it in this Bill.

As far as clause 21 is concerned, the hon. member wanted to know who it was that asked for their exclusion from this particular provision. The Law Society of the Transvaal is not prepared to deviate from the existing arrangement in this connection. The Law Society has had this arrangement for many years and was not prepared to sacrifice it. However, they made a very important concession. Clause 21(2) reads as follows—

The hon. member had no objection to this, but he brought it to our attention—

This is a particularly important concession made by the Law Society of the Transvaal. In my respectful submission, this is a concession which complies entirely with the spirit of that which the other law societies have. I want to deal with this matter very briefly, because my time is running out. The hon. member also referred to clause 22, which contains provisions in connection with negligence. For the sake of completeness I quote this clause again—

If I understood the hon. member’s argument correctly, it meant that when we say that anything has been done “in good faith”, it means that the persons concerned are indemnified. Is that correct?

Yes.

Furthermore, the hon. member says that if a person has been negligent, negligent in good faith, he is now being indemnified. My respectful submission is that when it comes to negligence or guilt and the exclusion thereof, the legislature would never do so unless it specifically does so in an Act. In other words, when referring to “in good faith”, it does not include negligence. Negligence implies guilt and it has to be excluded specifically. Therefore it could only be “in good faith” in respect of which there is no question of negligence. If my argument is correct, there is no need for the law societies to consider any amendment.

With this I think I have furnished replies to all the questions the hon. member put to me. I want to thank hon. members again for their support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The aim of the Bill is to amend various statutory provisions which apply to the Railways. The implications of the various clauses are explained in the explanatory memorandum which has already been tabled, and therefore I shall only elaborate on it briefly.

Although section 13 of the Railway Expropriation Act, 1955, provides for powers of expropriation with relation to the construction of pipelines, the possibility exists that the Railway Administration’s powers to construct a pipeline before all the expropriation formalities have been dealt with, may be disputed. For technical reasons it is impractical to determine the precise route of the pipeline before expropriation has been completed, and therefore it is necessary that the Railway Administration should have the power to construct a pipeline first and expropriate the servitude afterwards. Without such powers, the construction of pipelines which are urgently necessary could he delayed for a long time, something which, in certain circumstances, may seriously prejudice national interest. The amendments which are being proposed in clause 1 to 5 are aimed at placing the Administration’s powers to construct pipelines without previous expropriation of servitudes beyond all doubt.

Hon. members will probably remember that in the Expropriation Bill, introduced in the House of Assembly by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, during the 1974 session of Parliament, provision was made so as to place beyond doubt the Railways’ powers to construct pipelines without previous expropriation of servitudes. However, as a result of the decision to construct a third pipeline for petroleum products from Durban to the Rand and since the abovementioned Bill is presently being investigated by a Select Committee and will presumably not become operative soon, it has been decided, in view of the urgency of the matter, to amend the applicable Railway Act correspondingly as quickly as possible. The Railway Expropriation Act confers no substantive right of expropriation to the Administration, according to legal opinion, but only provides for the procedure which has to be followed after expropriation. Therefore it has been considered advisable to consolidate the necessary expropriation powers in the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, Act No. 70 of 1957. It is intended to repeal certain existing and related provisions in the Railway Expropriation Act at the same time or to adjust these and adopt them in the Control and Management Act in order to group all the powers with respect to expropriation and related matters together with the Administration’s other powers in the latter Act.

Clauses 6 and 9 are intended to make provision for amended scales of compensation for cattle, sheep, goats and pigs which are killed or injured while being transported by rail or while on a railway line. The scale of compensation is adjusted to place it on a more realistic level. The new amounts were recommended by the S.A. Agricultural Union and are supported by the Department of Agricultural Economy and Marketing.

Representations for the appointment of railway servants on a voluntary basis as reservists in the Railway Police Force were addressed to my predecessor in 1973 by the Railway Police staff association and clause 7 is aimed at making that provision. The intention is that the conditions of service of these reservists will be the same as those applicable to service in the S.A. Police Force. To promote efficiency, the reservists will not form a separate force and the Railway Police Force will therefore consist of permanent and reserve members.

With clause 8 it is envisaged that the compensation for the making and maintenance of a fire-break on land which borders on the Railway line be increased.

The aim of clause 10 is to make provision for the termination of a servant’s service before the date of his superannuation, after this has been mutually agreed by the servant and the Department. Existing railway legislation makes no provision for the termination, before superannuation of a servant’s services for reasons other than those mentioned in sections 10, 11 and 12 of Act 22 of 1960, i.e. inefficiency, reduction in or reorganization of staff, severe bodily injury, ill-health or physical disability. It is considered necessary that there should be a measure of flexibility in this connection.

The aim of clause 11 is to amend the provisions of section 14 of the Railway and Harbour Services Act, 1960, in order to bring the conditions with respect to the provisions of the value of accumulated leave at retirement into line with those which apply in the Public Service.

†The purpose of clause 12 is to raise the maximum retiring age of pilots, navigators and flight engineer officers in the Airways department from 55 to 58 years. The request for a higher retiring age emanated from the staff and is supported by the department as it is desirable, bearing in mind the expansion of the S.A. Airways, that the services of experienced flying personnel be retained for as long as possible.

Clause 13 provides for a consequential amendment to the Railways and Harbours Service Act, 1960, arising from the change in designation of the grade of ticket examiner to that of conductor. Concerning clause 14, I wish to explain that, in terms of section 32 of the Railways and Harbours Service Act, changes approved by the Administration in conditions of employment prescribed by regulation may be brought into operation from a date specified by the Administration pending approval by the State President of the amended regulations, provided that such approval is obtained within three months from the date of notification to the staff. For administrative reasons it is not always possible to observe these conditions and it has, therefore, on occasion in the past been necessary to obtain parliamentary validation of the action taken. Hon. members may recall that, last year, during the debate on the Railways and Harbours Acts Amendment Bill, 1974, the hon. member for Durban Point in dealing with the validation clause suggested that suitable steps be taken which would render it unnecessary for the Department having to approach Parliament annually to validate certain of the actions during the year. In order to overcome the problem, it is proposed to amend the relevant section to dispense with the prescribed time factor and to provide for regulations made in terms thereof and amendments thereto, being made with retrospective effect.

I now come to clause 15. Arising from the decision to grant salaried status to the staff in the employee grades, it is necessary to amend section 1 of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Act, Act 35 of 1971, to permit, where desirable for pay purposes, of the time worked by such staff to continue to be calculated from the 16th day of a month to the 15th day of the following month, as provided for in this clause.

The amendment proposed in clause 16 allows for the utilization, for housing loans, of moneys vested in the Administration in terms of section 19 of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Act, 1971. To assist the staff to a greater extent in acquiring their own homes, it is the intention to introduce a new scheme, which will be known as the House Ownership Scheme with Pension Fund Assistance, with retrospective effect from 1 April 1975.

The purpose of clause 17 is to obtain parliamentary ratification of the amended guarantee agreement between the Administration and the Transvaal Coal Owners Association in respect of the construction of the guaranteed single line of railway between Ermelo and Broodsnyersplaas. The original agreement, which forms a schedule to the Second Railway Construction Act, Act No. 83 of 1971, was concluded at the time on the basis that the line would be constructed and equipped by a consortium of local and/or foreign contractors and would be financed with the aid of export credits and other foreign and/or internal loan facilities in accordance with certain stipulations and conditions. The tenders received from the consortiums were, however, considerably higher than the departmental estimates, and it was consequently decided not to accept the tenders but to invite tenders afresh on an amended basis whereby the scheme would be financed in the normal manner. Other amendments which were effected at the same time primarily concern the guarantee of operating losses over the line, the rail rate, export tonnages and the guarantee period. The amended Guarantee Agreement forms a schedule to the Bill.

In terms of section 1 of the Railways and Harbours Loans Act, 1973, the General Manager may, subject to ministerial approval, raise money by way of loans to finance expected expenditure in respect of capital and betterment works and enter into any agreement for this purpose. As the General Manager may not always be available at the time when an agreement is to be negotiated, it is deemed necessary that he be authorized to delegate the powers in question to such person as he may decide as and when necessary. Clause 18 provides accordingly.

Clause 19 empowers the Administration to enter into a working agreement with the Rhodesia Railways to provide for interworking over the new railway line from Rutenga to Beit Bridge. Normally agreements of this nature are entered into in terms of section 2(3) of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, but as the construction of Beit Bridge was financed from funds donated by the Alfred Beit Trustees, a special agreement was entered into in 1927 at Government level to provide, inter alia, for the maintenance of Beit Bridge and the working of the railway line traversing it. The agreement was validated by Parliament by the Railways Construction Act, 1927, and amended by the Messina-Limpopo Railway (Supplementary Agreement) Act, 1942. The purpose of this clause is to bring the new agreement into line with the normal practice but for historical reasons and as the 1927 enactment also provides for matters not related to Beit Bridge, it is not considered expedient to repeal the relevant Acts.

Sir, the Bill which has just been explained by the hon. the Minister is interesting in the sense that it is not monotonous, because it deals with a great variety of matters. It deals with the question of expropriation, with the question of compensation for animals which might be killed or injured, with staff matters and with the question of foreign loans; even with international arrangements between Rhodesia and the Railways as well, and a new agreement between the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association and the Railways—matters therefore of a diverse nature. I should just like to comment on a few of these matters.

The first one is the question of expropriation. The hon. the Minister said that although there is a Select Committee that is investigating the question of expropriation, he is nevertheless satisfied that the provisions of this Bill are not in conflict with the work of the committee. Under the circumstances he apparently thought fit to continue with the Bill. Actually, Sir, there is only one new principle which is being introduced here and that is, as the hon. the Minister said, that expropriation may take place after a pipeline has been constructed. In view of the technical problems with which the department is faced, this side of the House has no problem as far as that matter is concerned, and therefore we support that principle.

Sir, then there is the question of compensation for animals, I was glad to hear that the S.A. Agricultural Union have approved the compensation which will be paid, because it is of course impossible for me as a consumer to judge whether the values which are stipulated here are too high or too low. The prices which I pay are considerably higher. But I want to refer to another point which to me seems strange. We often speak of differentiation and discrimination in this House. Here I find gross discrimination against that animal species which is called the pig. The values of all the animals are being increased, except for those of pigs, which are being decreased. I do not know what the hon. the Minister has against pigs, but it is strange to me that pigs should be discriminated against. I think the hon. the Minister should reconsider the matter. In my opinion, not even Noah would have agreed with this. The pig is also an animal, and from what I know of meat prices, one pays considerably more for pork today. If hon. members who are in the agricultural industry would perhaps like to comment on this, they may do so in the Committee Stage. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we are satisfied that in this connection the Bill is acceptable as it stands at the moment.

The other point which I want to raise deals with the question of housing. I think it is a very good idea that pensions fund moneys may now be used for investment in housing for the staff. Normally one has to wait for one’s pension moneys until one retires. Now we have the very sound situation, in my humble opinion, that one can derive benefit from the funds which are established for pensions while one is still living. However, a new point is being introduced here. For the first time I notice that there might be losses on the investments which are made by the fund and that the fund will bear the losses. That is something new to me, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could just explain to us whether this particular principle or idea has been introduced with a view to the investment which will now be made in housing.

Then lastly, Sir, various amendments are being affected as far as the staff are concerned. Perhaps some of them are onerous, but throughout they are generally to the advantage of the officials. If there is a clause which will have an onerous effect on the personnel, then I would be glad if the hon. the Minister will give this House the assurance that that particular clause has been introduced with the approval and co-operation of the various staff associations. I am especially worried about the raising of the retiring age of certain people who are connected with the Airways and of whom the highest degree of competence is required to be able to do that work. Since the retiring age has now been increased from 55 to 58 years, I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether that has also been done with the approval of the staff associations. I am aware that the provision that one may retire at 50 years of age still remains, but I should like to have the assurance that this amendment has been made with the approval of the staff associations.

Sir, those are the only remarks I want to make about the Bill. For the rest this side of the House supports the Bill.

Let me just say a few words about the discrimination against the pig. The discrimination is not there just because a pig is a pig; this has been done in co-operation with the responsible bodies, inter alia, the SA. Agricultural Union. These prices on which we decided are the prevailing prices as recommended by the S.A. Agricultural Union in 1973.

But they have changed considerably since then.

I should like to read to you what the Agricultural Union wrote (translation)—

There were subsequent negotiations with the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing as well and that department recommended prices in respect of pigs were even a little lower. The recommendation of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing in respect of pigs was R24,27. It was felt that the prices as recommended by the Agricultural Union, which were actually a little higher in respect of pigs, viz. R26, were more realistic and therefore we accepted them that way. I just want to say that in respect of all these provisions in this legislation which affect officials, the officials were properly consulted. It is obvious that this new Home Ownership Scheme for which we are going to use pension funds, is generally welcomed by the staff and that the staff was consulted in all these various negotiations. The hon. member also referred to the increased age of the pilots. There too I can just say that we would obviously not effect such an amendment if negotiations had not taken place with the officials concerned, and this had not met with their approval. Therefore, I can give the hon. member the assurance that the negotiations were properly conducted, as they affected those aspects of the legislation which affect the personnel.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 49—

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to tell the hon. the Minister that I am satisfied as far as the price for pigs is concerned. [Interjections.]

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.