Mr. Speaker, we have come now to the last hour of the debate on the budget, which has taken place all week. We have witnessed in the past few days in this debate an unprecedented attack by the Government members on the PRP, and in particular the representatives of this party in these benches. Just to put the record straight, I want to refer to the comments made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North regarding a report in Die Volksblad which referred to a visit and a conference in Germany. In the first instance, the report is totally inaccurate in that the hon. member for Sea Point was not even in Germany, as the report stated.

It was Japie Basson.

I understand the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was there. Secondly, Sir, the Secretary for Coloured Affairs was there and, after the hon. member for Rondebosch had made his speech at that conference, he was congratulated by the Secretary for Coloured Affairs at that time, which he would hardly have done if the hon. member had done the sort of thing this newspaper article attributed to him. So, Sir, we dismiss this report with contempt, and have written to the newspaper to that effect.

The nature of the attack by the hon. members on that side of the House has been emotional, hysterical and totally irresponsible. Sneers, innuendoes, half-truths and insinuations have characterized the tirade which has flowed from that side. [Interjections.] Now, we have to ask this question: Why have they resorted to this all-out attack at ministerial level, at Deputy Minister level, at middle bench level, and, of course, at back bench level? Why have they done this? Why have they mounted this enormous attack? I would suggest that there are four reasons.

Order! Before the hon. member continues, I want to point out to him that he may not allege that hon. members of this House have made use of half-truths. He must therefore withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, I believe there are four reasons for the attacks by hon. members opposite. The first is to obscure a most severe budget, which has already sent the cost of living soaring to new heights and has made life even more difficult for the poorest people in this country. The second is to remove the spotlight from the miserable failure of 28 years of Nationalist rule, which has left South Africa in a position of grave vulnerability. The third reason is that they have finally realized that the real opposition to their unjust, unrealistic and dangerous policy of apartheid or separate development is the PRP. In allocating most of their speeches to this party and to these benches throughout this week, they have paid us the supreme compliment. We have found a nerve and they have responded with what was intended to be an angry cry of outrage, but which came across as the desperate squeal of a party that has lost its way. [Interjections.] The fourth reason is that we must not forget that there is a by-election in Durban North. That is why we had all these hysterical outbursts. It is true that Senator Denis Worrall is on record as saying that only two alternative policies face South Africa, namely the one offered by his party, the Nationalist Party, and the other offered by the PRP. He has said this in Durban North, and of course this has found a grave echo here in this House. The only mistake that the Senator has made and continues to make is that the Nationalist Party’s policy has no viable alternative to offer South Africa at this time. Sir, if the Government members had hoped that, by this pathetic display, they would hide the failures of their own policies, they were mistaken, for the casualties, the heartaches, the anger, the growing hostility amongst the Black peoples of South Africa, bear eloquent witness to the disastrous consequences of 28 years of Nationalist rule. At this very moment in time South Africa faces a crisis. I shall come back to that, because we stand by it that we are in a time of crisis. [Interjections.] As I have said, I shall come back to that. At this very moment, when we stand in this hour of crisis, what does this Government do in the implementation of its policies? At this moment it has bulldozers knocking down the frail shanty homes of people who have nowhere else to live. That is what is happening. Secondly, what are they doing at this very moment to implement their group areas policy? Coloured people who are living in Somerset West and have lived there all their lives are now being moved, despite the protests of the White community in that area. They are being moved right at this very moment and we cannot afford such destructive methods and such wastefulness. This is the kind of attitude that this Government adopts. It is blind to the crisis which stares us in the face. Bulldozing is a characteristic of that party’s policies. That is how they solve the situation. That is how they solve the situation.

Their second area of activity is to break up communities. One of the major reasons for the housing shortage of the Coloured people in the Cape is that this Government, by design and not by accident, has destroyed a community called District Six. There is a shortage of housing; that is part of their policy. There is inequality in education; that is part of their policy. They subject the vast majority of people living in this country to the indignity and dehumanization of the pass laws. Part of their policy is race classification, part of their policy is job reservation, and the keystone of their entire labour policy is based on the iniquity of migrant labour. Right at the very heart of the Government’s policy is a determination, not merely to separate, but also to destroy, to break, to divide a Black man in half. On the one hand he is a labour unit and on the other hand he is a person with a family. The Government has separated those two. We cannot afford to do that in South Africa.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir, I have no time to answer questions now. We are trying to solve our economic development with a labour force of which the vast majority really cannot be expected to extend moral commitment to a social system which the economy serves. Fifty-nine per cent of economically active African men in the so-called White areas in 1970 were migrant workers. If you exclude the agricultural sector, that proportion goes up to 85%. As one economist has pointed out, more than half the adult males in homeland rural areas are absent from their homes for the greater part of their working life, and amongst the better educated echelons this absentee rate reaches nearly 90%. [Interjections.] This Government has no right to undermine the family unit as it is doing in South Africa, and that is one of the reasons why we are facing the kind of crisis we are at this moment. As a result of this, by its very policies, the Government has created a seedbed of unrest which is tailor-made for communist exploitation.

In reply to the hon. the Minister of the Interior, let me say that we are on record as having said that the PRP is diametrically opposed to the communist philosophy and practice. [Interjections.] Hon. members have asked the question. Let me now answer it. We believe that no party, no organization, no person guilty of subversion or seeking to overthrow constitutional government, should be allowed to operate in South Africa, but—hon. members must listen to the whole answer—we do not believe in banning individuals or groups. I understand that the hon. the Minister of the Interior and his Government are absolutely consistent in their policy. They have a policy which allows people to be restricted or banned—use whatever term you desire. However, I want to put a question to the UP, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is not here. Let me ask the members right now whether they believe in banning.

What nonsense!

“What nonsense”, says the hon. member. Well, how on earth then are you going to deal with the situation except through the courts of law? We have maintained that in order to overthrow and condemn communism … [Interjections.] The hon. member is completely irrelevant; so just keep out of this. I was talking to your front bench. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, we do not believe …

Order! May I point out that the members of the minority party have been addressed in this debate from various sides of this House regarding their policy and standpoints and that they should therefore be given the opportunity now of replying to that. I want to request the hon. member for Pine-lands, however, to moderate his language as much as possible. For the rest, I ask hon. members to give the hon. member a proper hearing. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The major point that I wish to make is that you do not have to destroy democracy in order to deal with subversion. And that is exactly what the Government’s policy announces. We have said again and again, and I repeat it now, that the PRP stands for impartial courts while the communists do not. We believe in a policy of free enterprise while the communists do not. With due respect, the hon. the Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that we represent capitalism on the one hand and then by implication suggest at the same time that we are soft on communism. Hon. members on that side of the House cannot have it both ways. They have to make up their minds. We believe in the mobility of labour; the communists do not. We believe in the liberty of the individual; the communists do not. We believe in freedom of essential association; the communists do not. We believe in the rule of law; the communists do not. We believe in parliamentary democracy; the communists do not.

May I ask you a question?

No, I am sorry. I have very little time. I know the nature of that hon. Minister’s questions and I am not prepared to answer them. We have said repeatedly that we are in an hour of crisis in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of the Interior is very concerned about the fact that we believe we are in an hour of crisis. As I listened to that hon. Minister’s own remarks, to the speeches of the hon. the Prime Minister, those of many of his colleagues and the many speakers in this debate and in other debated, I realized that we were in a situation which perhaps we have never faced before. Whether hon. members call it being at the crossroads or whether they call it a watershed, the fact is that we are in a time of extreme difficulty and of potential danger in South Africa. Anybody who pretends that this is not so, is living in a dream world. I should say that written large on the walls of all our societies—in capital letters, if hon. members would like it—is the fact that we are facing a time of crisis. A time of crisis is not only a time for handing over or a time for capitulation. Who is talking about that? [Interjections.] We do not say that. We are saying that a time of crisis, by its very definition, is a time of opportunity. Only this very morning, in today’s newspaper, we find a professor at Stellenbosch saying almost exactly the same thing, viz. “Must you disown all your academics, must you disown all your scholars? South Africa race pledge now urgent.” Why in the name of heaven is this urgent if we do not face a crisis? That is what I am getting at. He says further—

We in these benches are saying exactly the same thing. Let us look at what Prof. Moolman has to say. I am not surprised that the hon. member for Vereeniging wants to disown apartheid and I am not surprised that he is sensitive to this, because he realizes the damage this has caused. Prof. Moolman said the following after a recent visit overseas—

This is what Prof. Moolman says and by no stretch of imagination can one describe Prof. Moolman as a PRP member. He goes further—and the hon. member for Vereeniging will agree with me that the thrust of his own speech was that we were talking about separate development and not apartheid any more—to say the following—

Let us look what he says about that—

That is what Prof. Moolman says; it does not come from these benches. He says further—

Whether one calls it by any other name, the fact is that the Government’s policy has led to isolation. I was glad and grateful to hear the hon. Minister tell us yesterday, and I wish he would tell us a little bit more, of the kind of action of détente which is taking place at high governmental level in Africa. When the hon. the Minister does that, he will have the fullest support of the members sitting in the PRP benches. We say that this is absolutely right. But, Sir, we want to suggest to the hon. the Minister, quite seriously, that it is one thing to go into Africa and to talk—and we say to him “Please go on doing that so that we can break out of our isolation,” because we are part of Africa—we have been saying that for years—but we want to say also that in doing this we must not turn our backs and imagine that the great powers of the West are no longer important, because the very intervention of Russia in Africa means that the whole balance of power has been altered, and we must do everything we can, in particular with the United States of America, to keep our existing links as close as possible and to develop new links and fresh links. We must not imagine that we can now merely go through Africa. I believe that this is absolutely important. Sir, this crisis of which we are talking has been brought about by events to the north and on our borders, but it is inextricably linked with Angola, Mozambique, South West Africa and Rhodesia and it is compounded by the failure of this Government to devise a policy which will meet the aspirations and the hopes of Whites and Blacks in South Africa.

I said a moment ago, Sir, that this was a crisis of time, of opportunity, and we would urge this Government and even plead with this Government not only to speak with Africa, not only to maintain and even forge greater links with the West and with the United States in particular, but to realize that we cannot resolve this crisis on our own. This Government has within its power and within its hands, very largely, the very future and destiny of this country. It has within its power the choice of either moving towards a peaceful resolution of the problems which do face us from outside and from within or to follow a policy which will lead to dreadful confrontation, so we say to the Government: Keep working, even within the bounds of your own policy; and finally, Sir, we say: Let the Government do in South Africa what it is doing in South West Africa. Let it do in this country what it has told Rhodesia to do. Let it realize that we are in partnership, that we cannot resolve anything on our own. Let us come together round a table and work out a peaceful formula which is so desperately needed.

Mr. Speaker, it was a different member for Pinelands who spoke here this morning. The hon. member was a curate and let me say immediately that previously when he spoke here, the expression on his face always made me think that the hon. member was announcing Heaven, but when I listen to his policy now it is clear to me that this will lead directly to political perdition. The hon. member says that this budget hits the taxpayer very hard. The whole theme of the Opposition was that apartheid is too expensive. I want to tell them that if one wants to apply a policy which will lead to peaceful and harmonious race relationships in South Africa, then it is absolutely necessary for one to spend money, particularly when one knows that one’s policy is the correct policy. That is why I say that money which one spends in the implementation of the policy of South Africa, the policy of separate development, is the most productive capital investment. If that party’s policy has to be implemented, I want to say immediately that the price that we will have to pay will be impossibly expensive; the price will be South Africa itself. The hon. member has always told us in this House that he is in favour of “all the people”. He wants “all the people” together, even though this may be in mixed slums where Black and White will simply be delivered into the jaws of a pernicious process of hybridization. He wants to oppose communism, but the breeding ground of communism in a country is precisely those mixed residential areas where there is already an intermingling and interweaving of races. The policy of separate development is a sociological necessity in order to destroy the roots of communism in South Africa in a positive manner. Mr. Speaker, I want to put it very clearly to those hon. members this morning that I have actually entered this debate to reply to the challenge by the hon. member sitting here in front of me, the hon. leader of the PRP, as well as to reply to the hon. member for Maitland.

I want once again to refer to the speech of the hon. member. First of all, however, I should like to say something else in connection with him. He is a protagonist of the so-called melting-pot idea. He wants to see all people, irrespective of race or colour, thrown into one pot. Then he expects me to have faith in him! While he is burning the people, he will probably say what the baboon said when he fell into the pot of boiling soap: “Brother, you must continue to believe. You must keep cool.” [Interjections.] I cannot go along with that. That is obvious. I am participating in this debate and as someone who came to this House 33 years ago, I want to say emphatically that I am only participating to express my disapproval of and my deep disappointment at the caustic, embittered and spiteful attacks that have been made here upon the recognized and acknowledged policy of South Africa, the policy of separate development. The attacks to which I refer came chiefly from the PRP side. That is the reason why I am participating in this debate. The hon. member for Pinelands spoke about emotionalism. Mr. Speaker, just see how calm I am now when I think of how that hon. member spoke about deep emotionalism.

Mr. Speaker, you know that these attacks by those hon. members during this session have increased in strength and feeling. When I listen to the hon. member’s eloquence, to his adroitness, to his high emotionalism and his fierceness, I think involuntarily of people like Mrs. Ballinger, and even of the communist, Sam Kahn, people who were really on their toes when they received the opportunity in this House to attack the policy of South Africa, the policy of apartheid, wildly and intensely. And now, after 33 years, we still have to listen to the same sort of untrue, unfair and wrong premises in respect of the policy of separate development which, in my opinion, is the policy of South Africa. Among all the policies, what is the policy of South Africa? It is of course the policy which is accepted by the electorate of South Africa. [Interjections.] This is the only policy accepted by the electorate.

It was not only in 1948, but also in various elections subsequently that we have come back time and again with the same policy, a policy which in spite of all the changes that it has brought about, has been approved with increased majorities time and again by the voters of South Africa. That is why we can rightly say—experience has taught us this— that this is the accepted policy of South Africa. It is therefore a pity that in this hour of need, when the hon. gentleman talks about a crisis, the Whites in this country cannot even speak with one voice, but that their voices are divided. That is certainly not right. Mr. Speaker, I shall therefore put the policy of separate development here this morning. I can of course not put the policy of that hon. member. The only way in which their policy can be put is to expose it. [Interjections.] That of course, has already been done by other hon. members. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this policy has developed since the time of Jan van Riebeeck, more than three centuries ago, a policy which arose because of the contact between the Whites and the non-Whites in this country. The hon. member for Albany said here yesterday that this policy has developed in this way because many mistakes were made in the past. There was ignorance, selfishness and shortsightedness in the past. I want to bring it home to hon. members that it was short-sightedness which made this problem so involved and— hon. members opposite must please remember this—this is a historic inheritance. Why are they so condemnatory and why are they so embittered in their attacks against the National Government which came into power in 1948? Since that time a completely new era has dawned in the sphere of race relations and race attitudes in South Africa. We are in fact trying to rectify some of the enormous mistakes of the past to some extent. However, what do we find today? We have these embittered attacks. I say again that the NP was not the creator of this policy. The hon. member knows that. We were not responsible for this problem becoming all the more involved up to the year 1948. I want to call a witness in support of this statement. I refer you to Dr. Ben Marais’ book, Colour: Unsolved Problem of the West in which the following passage appears—

I want to emphasize, therefore, that we were not the creator of this policy. The hon. gentlemen must please not be under the impression that we have made this problem so involved since 1948. I am very pleased that the hon. member agrees with me in regard to this point. I came to this House for the first time in 1943 and I was an eye-witness to the fact that the period of the war years and the few years immediately thereafter was actually the period during which this involved problem became more dangerous, more threatening and more acute.

I want to tell the UP that at that time they were at their height as far as numbers were concerned. Since Alberton, of course, they have reached their lowest ebb. However, as far as the handling of this problem is concerned, they have reached their nadir. Africa was already starting to awake with the Second World War. At the time, however, the then Government slumbered on blissfully, softly and sweetly, and in their drowsy state, to a very large extent avoided the urgent colour problem completely because of their laissez-faire policy, and I shall produce proof in this regard. It was in those times that the various churches in South Africa sent a joint deputation under the leadership of a moderator, to confer here with Genl. Smuts and also Mr. Hofmeyr in regard to the disturbing proportions which the colour problem had assumed. This discussion dealt mainly with racial intermingling and racial conflict, the crux of the involved and ticklish colour problem in South Africa. What was the reply of the spiritual father of liberalism and of that party? Mr. Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr was naturally its mouthpiece, and do you know what he said? I think I should quote it here because it is very good. He told the deputation—

I quote from Die Kerk en die Rassevraagstuk written by the Rev. Brink, page 6. I see that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is looking at me meaningfully because he knows that it was Mr. Hofmeyr himself, the crown prince of the UP in those days, who propounded the liberal policies just as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as his follower, is doing at the moment. This was the reaction of the church to the policy at that time, and what was the reaction of the non-Whites? The hon. members on the other side, and particularly also the hon. member who has just spoken, are so fond of quoting what the non-Whites have to say. Let me refresh his memory a little. In the same year, 1945—I quote from the Verbatim Reports of the Native Representative Council, 1945, page 130—one of the members of the Native Representative Council had the following to say—

That was the reaction of the Black man, and what was the reaction of the world? The hon. Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has already during this session referred to the reaction of the world at UNO when General Smuts was overseas. What was the reaction then? They went for General Smuts hammer and tongs. He came face to face with a wall of prejudice and hatred against the colour policy in South Africa. He came back to this country—and I was sitting there at the time as a young Parliamentarian—deeply disturbed and upset because of his experience at UNO in regard to the reaction to the colour policy in South Africa, and he warned us that we would experience still more difficult times. I say these things not as an accusation against the UP, but simply to show what the reaction was. What was the reaction of the White voters? I also experienced that. This was the political miracle of 1948. Yes, it was then that the UP, and in fact probably all of us, witnessed the greatest political avalanche in South Africa. For the UP it was probably a shattering, breathtaking and probably painful experience, but for Koos Potgieter it was a wonderful occurrence. Sir, I want to give the assurance that the voting public in South Africa at the time, and precisely when we tested this policy, unseated the UP mercilessly and for all time put them in the place where they have been sitting now for the past 28 years. As long as they sit there, I had no fault to find with them. However, they must just not go along with the PRP. Sir, that is the way we came into power and now, in the time still left to me, I want to reply to the question that was put challengingly to us in regard to what the policy of the National Party is. I want to link my reply to what the hon. member for Sea Point said here, namely, that the basis of our policy is not sufficiently wide to meet all the changes here in South Africa. I am very pleased that he agrees with me. I do not wish to debate things on which we agree but I want to put our policy here. I want to put it clearly once more.

Slowly now!

Must I go more slowly? If I have to go as quickly as the UP deteriorated in Alberton, then I shall have to increase my speed! Sir, the policy of separate development was formulated at that difficult stage when the UP was practising its laissez-faire policy which Mr. Hofmeyr spoke about. In those days, towards the end and also after we came into power, the UP did everything to get away from integration and we tried to get away from what they call race domination in this country. That was why we formulated our policy and we came to light with a policy document. That policy document was the bearer of a certain policy system. I want to say to the hon. member for Pinelands that this policy system of the NP takes the realities of the situation fully into account. The hon. member is so fond of talking about the realities of the South African situation. I want to tell him in what sense we take those realities into account. We attach very great value to the community structure in South Africa which consists of separate, singular and different nations. There is a recognition of a multinational and multi-racial character, of a national diversity. It is a question of birds of a feather flocking together. The NP believes …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member has asked me a question. I know it is a great privilege to be able to ask a question but it is a greater privilege to be able to listen to the fine things that I am saying. The NP adopts the view that persons, whether they are White or non-White, experience and reveal a community orientation, an inescapable affiliation to their community, group, nation and race. This is one of the important reasons why this policy of ours is the correct instrument for handling the interests of those people, irrespective of race or colour, in relation to that community orientation and affiliation. That is why leading sociologists today agree with this and say that the policy of separate development is a sociological necessity to ensure right and justice in South Africa irrespective of race and colour.

Our policy system also attaches particular value to self-preservation and the survival of the White nation, but also the survival of the non-White nations. Throughout the history of the NP we have attached great value to these things. I have already listened to the policy statements of successive Prime Ministers such as Dr. Malan, Mr. Strijdom, Dr. Verwoerd and also the present Prime Minister. In all their policy statements they attached great value to the survival of the White race, and also as a condition for the survival and the development of the non-White races who have to some extent been entrusted to our care. I want to make the following point very clear. The policy of the NP takes account of the sacred principle of self-preservation and survival. The hon. member for Pinelands was, after all, also a moderator in his church, is that not so?

Yes.

I want to quote now what another moderator had to say in regard to this question of self-preservation. I refer here to Dr. Nicol. I quote—

What does he have to say about migratory labour?

Oh, please do not try to start an argument when I am busy with my speech. The policy of separate development is a policy system which takes account of this wonderful principle, a sublime and sacred principle. That is why I think it is quite wrong that we should be attacked. I think now of what was said by Dr. Schweizer, that great doctor who devoted his entire life to the people of Africa. He said: “I am life that wants to live in the midst of life that wants to live.” That is what he said. I want now to apply those words of his to the policy of separate development, and say: “We are a nation which wants to live in the midst of other nations which also want to live.” That is why we are a party which attaches a far greater premium than others to the survival of the White race and other races as well, and I know that the UP stands very much closer to us in this respect than to other parties. In other words, we are in favour of the retention of race although we are also in favour of the diversity of race.

Their policy however leads to racial integration and assimilation and eventually to racial domination because there will be no equality. They put people on the slide of one man, one vote, and then with a Bill of Rights they build a sort of protective wall. When the evil day of violence and revolution comes, nothing of that Bill of Rights will however remain. It will be blown away by a black southeaster like little walls of paper. That is why we are in favour of a policy throughout of the retention of national apartheid while their policy is aimed at destruction. It has always been the liberalists in this country who have said that the Afrikaner was the oppressor, the destroyer and the enemy of the Black man. With their liberalist agitation they have always held themselves to be the saviours, the friends and the guardians of the Black man. However, as our policy is expanded, those people will not even have an audience to address at a later stage. That is the way we will take them to pieces.

Some hon. members say that we do not take world opinion into account. This policy of separate development does however take full account of tendencies in Africa and the world in general. I say this for the following reason. I remember that as long ago as 1959 Dr.Verwoerd made a speech in this House. Inter alia, he said the following—

People come along now and accuse us before the world. However, what does the world want? I think that the modem world demands the respecting and practising of certain principles. Right and justice must be done to all races and nations irrespective of race and colour. World opinion also wants self-preservation and self-determination in respect of nations. There must be full freedom of development—this is another important principle. There must also be fellow feeling and human dignity. There must be inter-nation equality and full stature for nations. There is also a new principle that is being emphasized and that is assistance to underdeveloped nations. If one applies these principles in one’s policy, it is obvious that race discrimination and race domination have to disappear. That is why I want to emphasize the fact that it is the system of separate development which is the answer to the challenge of change in our country. There have already been radical changes in our country but those changes have taken place within the policy system of separate development. There have been far-reaching and radical changes in the sociopolitical sphere which have had a good influence on national relationships in our country. Now, however, the hon. leader of the PRP has come along and alleged that that system is too narrow and cannot accommodate changes. The framework of our system however includes the whole basis in principle and course of our policy with all the eventual and immediate sublime objectives. All these things form the framework. That framework is so wide and free that all the necessary changes in respect of separate development can be accommodated in it. This is not at all impossible. I know there are people who say that we have to think again. Of course the NP will think again. After all, we are thinking people. We thought in 1948 while the UP were sleeping. We thought then and designed the basis in principle to take the wind out of the sails of an obnoxious world opinion and communism of the time. We put our policy correctly. Times have changed very swiftly. There have been breathtaking changes but change is the order of the day. I want to say immediately that because change is the order of the day, we have of course to put our house in order. We have an instrument for this. There is nothing wrong with it if Dr. De Klerk asks that a little work be done on the ground-plan. After all, he does not pass a condemnatory judgment of the policy of separate development. However, those hon. members do not mention this fact. We want people to be able to think because if one cannot think, one falls into a bemused state of mind, something from which those hon. members are suffering. One has to approach a matter from various quarters. We have to think searchingly as we did prior to 1948. One has to think searchingly and deeply in order to arrive at weighty decisions. However, there are dangerous signs in the air. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands asked the UP a question to which I should like to reply immediately. He wanted to know whether the UP believed in banning. In respect of the Communist Party our answer is definitely “Yes”. We certainly believe in excluding the Communist Party from the processes of democratic parliamentary politics, for a very simple reason. The Communist Party is the only political party in the world which has given open notice to the democratic world that it is out to destroy Western democracy and that it will do so, if necessary, by violence. Therefore, we believe that the Communist Party has placed itself beyond the pale. We see no reason why we should allow the Communist Party the privilege of using the machinery of democracy in order to destroy that very democracy. Therefore we are in favour of banning the Communist Party from the democratic order.

*Almost every single member on the opposite side of this House said that this was a good budget because Alberton had said it was. The debate in Alberton, however, had very little to do with the Budget. The election issue there centred mainly around two questions. The one was whether we should have become involved in the war in Angola, and the other was whether we should not go to the military assistance of Rhodesia. I do not at present wish to discuss the circumstances in which each of the three parties found itself in respect of these two questions. The result was undoubtedly a strong victory for the NP, and it is no secret that the UP came out of it without any advantage. Consequently no one finds it strange that hon. members opposite are deriving all the pleasure from it that they possibly can.

But the accusation which we are levelling at that side of the House is that they are constantly advancing the argument—we have just heard it again from the hon. member for Brits—that because the majority of the White voters support them at the polls it proves that their political policy is a fit and proper policy for South Africa. But that argument is completely untenable. The political history of the world is strewn with examples of voters who brought their countries to a disastrous fall because the majority of them slavishly tagged along behind a fatal policy. For years Italy had a fanatical confidence in Mussolini and his Fascism, until they strung him up in public with his head upside down. Caetano, as a disciple of Salazar and his Unionism, united the people of Portugal enthusiastically behind his Government for years until the fatality of his policy forced Portugal to its knees, and Caetano was lucky to escape from the scene with his life. The case of Hitler is so well known that I need hardly refer to it. There was a time when 95% of 18 million people voted for him and his National Socialism …

Do you realize what you are saying?

… until he plunged his country into sackcloth and ashes and it became the task of leaders, such as Adenauer, who had remained behind in the opposition, to pick up that part of Germany that remained out of its misery. An enthusiastic majority at the polls has never been proof that winner’s policy was correct. [Interjections.] This applies in our country far more than in any other. The reason for this being more true for this country than for any other country, is that the parliamentary electorate of South Africa comprises barely 60% of the adult population of the country. I do not want to deny that the majority of the White voters will continue without a break to vote for the policy of political baasskap and apartheid …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether his standpoint would have been the same if the UP had won the by-election in Alberton?

Alberton was a by-election, and I am now referring to the majority which the Government has. It is an overwhelming majority—after all, the hon. members are sitting here in this House.

Do you not believe in voting at all?

Of course I believe in voting, but I am making the point that although a majority at the polls does prove that the voters are on your side it does not necessarily prove that your policy is correct. That is the point. [Interjections.] I admit that in constituencies such as Alberton the majority of the White voters will still continue to vote for and tag along behind apartheid and political baasskap. However, this does not detract from the greater fact that in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of people in South Africa, apartheid is a fatal policy which is going to bring our country to a fall if a speedy end is not put to it. The protection and the preservation of the White man is not inherent in it, as the hon. member for Brits intimated, but it is the greatest danger to the future of the Whites. That is why we oppose it. In any event it remains irrefutably true that whatever electoral system we have in South Africa, no policy of any political party in our country will succeed in the long run if it does not receive the support and the co-operation of the majority of the people of South Africa.

South Africa has great natural riches, and consequently it has been possible for the country to remain materially prosperous even under the worse restrictions of apartheid. Our problem has never been one of prosperity; our country is too rich for that. Prosperity has never been a problem particularly as far as the top layer of the population is concerned. It is peace and security that we are lacking. [Interjections.] If we cannot ensure peace and security for everyone in this country, nothing will remain of our prosperity either. Under this Government this country has become a threatened country, and despite the majorities which hon. members on that side have built up at the polls, majorities which they have so much to say about, we have never before in the history of this country since 1910 been in such an insecure position and so seriously threatened as we are today [Interjections.] These are bare facts.

What is more: That threat has been growing since the day this Government came into power. The threat has been growing around two issues. Firstly, it has been growing around the policy of apartheid and the humiliations implicit in it for the non-Whites, and in the second place, around the question of South West Africa. For a long time the threat was primarily one of long-distance hostility. It was primarily a political threat. We have been attacked in and excluded from the council chambers of the world in general, and in those of Africa in particular. Arms and other boycotts have been instituted against us by some countries. However, what was for a long time primarily a political threat has now turned into a physical and military threat which has advanced right up to our northern borders and has already spilled over the border of South West Africa in the form of a terrorist war. Eighteen months ago there were welcome stirrings in Government circles. These gave many people hope and had a dramatic effect within and outside South Africa. In the Security Council in New York the Government solemnly announced that colour discrimination in South Africa would be done away with. It was pledged that the Government would do “everything in its power” to put an end to colour discrimination in the country. In the eyes of everyone this meant one thing only, i.e. an end to the politics of baasskap and apartheid, which are synonymous with colour discrimination. The declaration in the Security Council coincided with the assurance that the Government would waste no time in leading South West Africa to freedom and self-determination.

As a result of these promises, which were made 18 months ago, doors were suddenly opened to the hon. the Prime Minister. Various African leaders were prepared to give him a hearing and to accept his bona fides. To South Africans of all parties this was a relief. In New York the leading States of the West were so impressed at the time that they were even prepared to exercise a veto in the Security Council in favour of South Africa on the question of South West Africa. They were prepared to give the Government a chance. But in the meantime 18 months have gone by. This is already the second session of Parliament since the Government made its declaration of intent before the Security Council, but not a word has so far come from the mouth of the hon. the Prime Minister to indicate that he has a programme for the repeal of apartheid laws in this House.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he thinks it is fair to make an attack on the hon. the Prime Minister while he is not here, but in Israel?

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the politics of the country. The hon. the Prime Minister is leader of his party and he is in charge of the politics. I am not dealing with him in his personal capacity. I am not interested in a man as person, but in his politics and his policy. This is the second session after that pledge, but not a word has come from him yet to indicate that there is a programme for the repeal of apartheid laws. In fact, the propaganda which the Government Party disseminated in Alberton, in the name of the hon. member for Alberton what is more, was miles removed from the Government’s declaration before the Security Council in October 1974. The propaganda was reactionary; it was racist, and bore the stamp of the entire negative spirit of apartheid.

Give examples.

The literature is there for everyone to read. The direction was completely different to that taken by the editor of Die Transvaler. Not a single word was said to the voters to prepare them for essential changes.

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

Sir, unfortunately my time is very limited. I am always very willing to reply to questions, but my time is almost up now. The problem we are experiencing with the Government party is that in spite of the overwhelming majority which it has in this House, it is never able to look beyond its party and perceive the urgent needs of South Africa. True patriotism does not lie in partyism; it lies in a person putting the interests of South Africa first. What hon. members on that side apparently refuse to realize is that the entire credibility of the Government is at stake, at home as well as abroad.

As a result of the Government’s lack of meaningful action in fulfilling its promise to the Security Council, a reaction has now set in. During the past six months a new climate has been building up against us. We saw it in Angola. When the Government still thought it had a friend, it stood alone. The consequences of this are far-reaching for us. The Cubans are now the people who are regarded as heroes in the Black world. In the Security Council we have just been labelled aggressors. Not a single Western power—neither England nor France nor America—that was prepared last year to exercise a veto in favour of South Africa saw its way clear to opposing this. Our relations with America are at an alarmingly low ebb. How the Government can allow one and the same person to be our ambassador to the USA as well as our ambassador to the UNO under such circumstances I cannot understand. The ambassador in Washington is the person who has to forge friendly relations with America, while the ambassador to the UNO is the person who now has to attack America. This is the kind of diplomacy we have to deal with today. We may be dissatisfied with what happened in the Security Council, we may deplore it—and we have reason to do so—but for the strategy of the OAU, of the Russians and of the Cubans, it was a diplomatic victory. For us it opens up the danger that we may in future be designated as a threat to peace in Africa. This, in turn, may lead to direct intervention by the Security Council. It is clear that our enemies wish to cut us off from the West, and the West from us. At such a time we are saddled with a Government which allows itself to be outmanoeuvred even by a country like Cuba.

That is a scandalous statement.

The proof is there in the political and diplomatic spheres, in the sphere of international politics, we have a Government which moves from one debacle to another. The Government has succeeded in getting the East as well as the West opposed to us. What has become of the much vaunted détente with the Black countries of Africa? Eighteen months ago a tremendous opportunity opened up for South Africa, if this Government had only wanted to avail itself of the opportunity. Last week President Kaunda said: “Détente is dead” and launched a bitter attack on South Africa.

Are you pleased about it?

No, I want to state the facts to demonstrate what we get from that side of the House. The Government does not avail itself of the opportunities which arise. President Tolbert of Liberia said the same thing. President Leopold Senghor, Sir Seretse Khama, President Nyerere of Tanzania, President Machel of Mozambique, are all speaking along the same lines. The position is completely different to what it was eighteen months ago. All the signs are there that a major conspiracy is taking shape in Black Africa, the object of which is an onslaught, step by step, on Rhodesia, South West Africa and on us.

I have already indicated how the Government is falling hopelessly to recruit allies for us and, through allies, to ensure our security. Where would Israel have been today if it had not had at least one powerful ally to support it? It would have been wiped off the map. Not only is the Government failing to ensure that we have allies abroad, but through its attachment to its negative policy of apartheid, it is also failing to win allies for the threatened Whites within South Africa. Hon. members on the opposite side are very fond of referring to other people who are causing polarization between Whites and non-Whites. Apartheid —or whatever one would like to call it—is nothing but a policy of extreme polarization between White and Black. Polarization is the offspring of the Government party. That is why the Government finds itself in a situation of frightening confrontation with the Coloured community today. The Government is doing nothing far-reaching to overcome this. About a month ago I attended a discussion at which important Black and Coloured leaders were present. There was also a prominent member of the National Party present. When a Black leader was asked what his attitude on Angola was, he replied: “We are jubilant at the victory of the MPLA. ” “Jubilant” is the word he used. The Coloured leader put a counter-question. He said: “Ek is lief vir Suid-Afrika, maar as jy my vra of ek vir Suid-Afrika sal veg, vra ek jou ‘Watter Suid-Afrika bedoel jy nou? Bedoel jy die Suid-Afrika van aparte vaderlande? Bedoel jy die Wit Suid-Afrika waarvan ek nie ’n lid is nie en waarin ek nie regte van burgerskap het nie?’ ” He went on to say: “Vir so ’n Suid-Afrika sal ek nie veg nie, maar wel vir ’n gesamentlike Suid-Afrika. ’ ’

A report appeared in Rapport on a survey which was made to establish whether our Black people would stand by the Whites in times of danger. The caption to the report was a banner headline, that the Black people “’n oorverdowende nee sê”. The Government never learns any lessons. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has gone to Israel and I hope he will learn there the lesson of how a diversity of people and nations are each able to preserve their own identity in the same country without a single race or colour apartheid law. Preservation of identity does not require legislation. Throughout the world people are preserving their own identity. It is the easiest thing in the world to do if one wants to do it and one does not require apartheid laws in order to do so. It is not a question of doing away with diversity, for there will always be diversity in South Africa, no matter what system we have here. But what will have to be abolished is forced separation on the grounds of colour, which forms the basis of apartheid. In other words, the golden calf of forced and official colour apartheid will have to be abolished. In the words of Dr. Anton Rupert we shall have to accept the principle of inter-dependence in South Africa. If the Government does not want to do this and it believes that partition, the dividing up of South Africa, territorial separation at least between White and Black, is a practical policy, then I ask why it does not do so now. Then, with the emergency with which South Africa is faced, it should make the sacrifices now, and summon the leaders of the various groups to a convention and divide up the country politically in a fair manner and in a manner agreed upon. Why does it not do so? If that is what is being contemplated, let us get done with it; let us resolve the issues. I have no objection if such a policy is acceptable to all the people of South Africa. Then it is good. Those who remain in the Republic …

Do you agree with the PRP that there should be a national convention?

The Government plays no part in their convention. I am referring to a convention such as the one in Windhoek in which the Government should play a part and the initiative for which should proceed from the Government. Sit down with the Black leaders. Tell them you want to divide up the country, that you are pursuing a policy of a partition. Then demarcate the boundaries, and get done with it, so that we can become settled in South Africa. Those who remain in the Republic, could then be jointly accommodated. But as the Government is carrying on now, we are heading for disaster. The same applies to the Government’s policy in South West Africa. It is not furnishing any guidance. It is standing on the sidelines and washing its hands of the whole affair. On Monday and Tuesday the editor of the German-language newspaper in Windhoek, the Allgemeine Zeitung, that has for years supported the National Party, made a bitter attack on the Government. Its editor is Mr. Kurt Dahlmann, who at the time of the South West Africa case gave evidence for the Government in The Hague. The newspaper described the South West African policy of the Government as lame and purposeless, and demanded that a timetable for independence, which should be no later than 1978, be laid down. It requested the Government to take the initiative immediately and abandon its “silent tactics” if there is to be any hope of being able to overcome the extraneous pressure and dangers. Until now the German population has been the most loyal ally of the National Party in South West Africa, and once they rise in rebellion and speak of a “lame and purposeless” Government, hon. members must know how late in the day it is.

Never before has a motion of no confidence in the Government been more justified than the one contained in the amendment submitted to this House by the hon. member for Constantia.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the Opposition parties need not be concerned. I do not intend replying to the debate today. [Interjections.] However, I want to say that I find it very difficult to refrain from participating in the debate when listening to someone like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I should like to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, which he should consider. Does he share the surprising point of view which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout revealed here today on democracy in South Africa? Does he agree that when a large majority of the electorate in South Africa express their opinion on a matter, it is an incorrect opinion?

Of course it could be incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, I move— That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the seven amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 31, in line 25, to omit “R4 000” and to substitute “R5 000”;
2. (2) on page 31, in line 41, to omit “R4 000” and to substitute “R5 000”;
3. (3) on page 39, in line 48, after “administrator” to insert:

1. (4) on page 51, in line 52, after “shall” to insert:

1. (5) on page 51, in line 53, after “rules” to insert “, within 10 days”;
2. (6) on page 55, in line 22, after “order” to insert:

1. (7) on page 55, in line 37, after “forthwith” to insert “and in writing”

I propose to address you on (1), (2) and (6) and one of my colleagues will address you on the remainder. The first and second amendments deal specifically with the amounts which are referred to in the proposed new subsection 74(1)(b), and mean if accepted, that the section would only be applicable if the total amount of all his debts due does not exceed R5 000. During the debate on an earlier clause it was suggested that R4 000 was adequate. In the light of existing inflationary circumstances, bearing in mind the fact that the amount of R2 000 had been fixed in 1954, and bearing in mind that the commission had reported in paragraph 162 that the value of R2 000 at the time when the commission’s report was signed was said to be R3 715. The figure of R3 715 is the figure as at the end of 1973. The report was signed on 8 April 1974 and the figure based on the CPI as at the end of that year would reduce the result of R3 715. What the hon. members who criticized this and what the hon. the Minister who rejected, fail to take into account of, is that if you take the amount of R3 715 and you apply the inflation rate which has existed since the end of 1973 and the beginning of 1974, when this figure was fixed, and you apply the inflation rate, i.e. the increase of the CPI since then, the truth is that R2 000 in 1964 is today equivalent, in purchasing power, to R4 500. The result is that the amount of R4 000 has already been exceeded. If we are going to have the same standard applying, which is what the commission recommended, then we are in fact stipulating a wrong figure by stipulating R4 000 at the moment.

The second criticism is the fact that it was said that this related solely to household debts. This of course is utterly incorrect, because there is not a single word in the whole of the legislation that this only applies to household debts. It applies to all debts, to debts of any kind. The significant fact which cannot be allowed to go uncommended upon is that it is clear that, bearing in mind what has happened to the value of money since 1954, one needs R4 500 today to buy the same commodities for which you would have only needed R2 000 in 1954. The second point I want to make is in connection with the sixth amendment which reads as follows—

1. (6) on page 55, in line 22, after “order” to insert:

The reason why we move this amendment is because we belive that the giving of credit to those who cannot afford credit is as reprehensible as in the case of people who are not able to pay their debts, if not more so. We believe that one cannot have a situation where excessive credit is extended to people of whom it is known that they cannot afford to pay, people who are already in financial difficulties and who, for the sake of wanting to do more business, are forced into more trouble and further difficulties by the fact that credit is made attractive to them. A man who gives credit to a person whose estate is already under an administration order, who earns less than R250 a month, who incurs further credit in large amounts and who has extended that credit, a man who gives that credit knowing of the circumstances, is a person who is acting anti-socially, who is getting people into bigger trouble. We believe that the giving of indiscriminate credit is one of the economic problems South Africa faces and we have to do something about it. For that reason we believe that this should, in these circumstances, be made an offence.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with the third amendment which appears in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville on the Order Paper. It relates to the proposed new section 74E, in terms of which an administrator is appointed. The position under this particular provision is that any person can be appointed as an administrator. It is at present usual that the person who is appointed to be an administrator, is a practitioner of the court. Normally, the applications for an administration order are made by practitioners, but this is certainly not a hard and fast rule. I believe it is preferable in dealing with matters of this nature where debts are being collected and distributed, that a practitioner, a person who is bound by the rules of his law society in relation to trust accounts, should in fact be in control of these funds. I see from subsection (3) of proposed section that people who are not practitioners have to obtain security so that they can guarantee the proper handling of the funds which go through their accounts. However, I feel that even with this security provided which would incidentally only add to the costs of administration, the task of being an administrator is in fact the task of a professional person trained in law. The words which are proposed to be inserted are the following—

By inserting these words it does bind the court to appoint a person who is a practitioner where a practitioner is not to be found in that particular area. It provides only that the first choice, where possible, shall be a practitioner or an officer of the court. Therefore, I support that particular amendment.

The other amendments I should like to speak to are the fourth and fifth amendments which appear on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville. These relate to the proposed section 74M which deals with the furnishing by the administrator of information concerning his administration to creditors and other interested people. Those of us who are practitioners all know of the delays that occur in trying to obtain information from administrators relating to debtors’ affairs and to payments. The suggestions which we have put to the hon. the Minister we feel will ensure that information will be provided regularly and promptly.

The seventh amendment relates to the proposed section 74T. We ask that the words “and in writing” be inserted. It would then read as follows—

One of the main banes of the lives of attorneys, creditors and people dealing with administration orders and the collection of debts, is the question of the debtor who moves far more often than he pays his accounts. We feel that in order to obviate difficulties and in order to make the matter certain a person who is placed under an administration order shall be obliged to notify his change of address in writing. We feel that this will save a lot of costs, because a tremendous amount of money is spent, which the debtor eventually pays himself, in trying to trace, locate and keep track of people who are subject to administration orders. I think therefore that the insertion of these words will create a little more certainty and assist in the administration and the collection of the debts concerned. I think this will at least go some of the way towards saving on the escalating costs of the collecting of debts and therefore I support these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the amendment moved and motivated by the hon. members for Yeoville and Sandton. As far as the first and second amendments motivated by the hon. member for Yeoville are concerned, I just want to say that I do not agree with the hon. member in connection with the suggestion that the amending Bill contains no reference to household debts. I agree that the words “household debts” do not appear in the amending Bill. Basically, these are household debts which are affected by an administration order. If we consider the provisions of the proposed section 74C, we shall see which things, inter alia, are excluded by the administration order. For instance, there are mortgages, hire purchases, and so on. R4 000 is already a considerable debt for an individual to incur. The amount has been scientifically determined and I think that the manner in which the hon. member has argued it here, where he says that the amount should be R5 000, is very arbitrary. For those reasons and because of the arguments raised under clause 2 when the consequential amendment was argued by the hon. members for Brakpan and Umhlatuzana, inter alia, I cannot agree that the jurisdiction should be further increased. Indeed I am of the opinion that if the jurisdiction goes too far people may be encouraged to incur debts.

As far as the third amendment, as motivated here by the hon. member for Sandton is concerned, I am of the opinion that this amendment may cause uncertainty. The position was previously as set out by the hon. member for Sandton. An investigation was made and the legal practitioners do not want the particular amendment, as they move it now, because it will only create the problem that the court will often have to find an administrator. How is the court going to determine who wants to accept the position and who does not? It could also have the result that a debtor would not necessarily be able to have an administrator of his choice, while the position is that he can actually choose an administrator for himself. For this reason I think that amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville will introduce some uncertainty into the position.

In my opinion, the fourth amendment places an unnecessary burden upon the administrator. As a matter of fact, I do not think that the fourth amendment, as it stands here, makes any sense. If we look at the position it is obvious that, according to the clause, the administrator provides certain information at the request of a creditor or anybody asking for it. The hon. member proposes that the words “at intervals of not less than one calendar month”, be inserted after “shall”, but the information is asked for in any event and it does not necessarily follow that information will be asked for by creditors during every calendar month. The position is quite clear if we take into consideration the duties which are assigned to an administrator. In terms of the provisions of clause 74J(8) the administrator is compelled to inform creditors forthwith when the debtor is in arrears. In terms of clause 74J(9) the creditors would then instruct the administrator as to what he should do. In terms of the provisions of clause 74J( 10) the administrator could apply to the court for the rescission of the administration order and, furthermore, the administrator has to divide the funds between the creditors every three months. After all, this is a way of reporting creditors and interested parties are therefore kept informed in a proper manner. I think that it will only place an unnecessary burden upon the administrator should the amendment be accepted.

As far as amendment (5) is concerned, I say that it would be an unnecessary and inconvenient limitation. Due to technicalities, such a limitation can only lead to applications being made against the administrator on grounds of alleged neglect of duty. As it is, severe obligations are now being placed upon administrators, and the proposed amendment will only make it difficult to find people who will be prepared to serve as administrators. As the article reads at present, it eliminates unnecessary correspondence and awkward inquiries and attendances.

As far as amendment No. 6 is concerned, as motivated by the hon. member for Yeoville, I want to say with due respect that I believe that an amendment of this nature is out of place in this legislation. This has already been referred to during the Second Reading debate. The aspect raised in this respect by the hon. member is actually a matter for the Department of Trade, and I do not believe that they will be happy about a provision of this kind. Indeed, the figures the hon. member mentioned here, i.e. R250 and R100, have not been motivated by him. I think that this can only lead to unnecessary disputes and confusion if the amendment is accepted. Certain circumstances may arise where such a person may indeed have to incur such debt, and if this amendment is accepted, a creditor would be guilty of an offence if he allows a person to incur debts. Sir, the clause deals with a person who is under administration and who incurs debts, and now the hon. member wants to penalize the creditors as well. The clause specifically deals with the position of a person under administration, and the hon. member’s amendment now wants to introduce a provision against the creditors.

As far as the last amendment, No. 7, is concerned, I believe that it is absolutely unnecessary that such a burden and onus, as is suggested here, be placed upon a debtor. I think it is far too technical, and can only lead to discord between the debtor and the administrator. Here it is in the interests of the debtor always to inform the administrator of a change of address. In any event one will not be able to pin down an irresponsible debtor with this particular amendment. For this reason I can, unfortunately, not agree with this amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, the official Opposition also opposes the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville. With regard to amendments (1) and (2), I would remind the Committee that this matter was debated when a similar amendment was moved to clause 2 of the Bill. We made our position very clear then. I will concede that it is possible that since the commission sat there has been a further depreciation in the value of the rand; in fact I do not think there is very much doubt about it but, as the previous speaker has said, the figure suggested is in a sense an arbitrary figure. I think the objective of the figure, which stood for many years at R2 000, which is now to be increased to R4 000, was really to limit it to encompass normal household and personal debts. If the debt goes beyond that and encompasses business debts, then obviously the Insolvency Act is there to deal with the matter. On those grounds, Sir, we will not support amendments (1) and (2).

With regard to amendment No. (3), the hon. member for Yeoville must be aware that in 1962 the Act was actually amended to enable a person other than an officer of the court or a practitioner to be appointed as administrator. I think it is wellknown—and the commission also makes this point—that officers of the court are far too busy and occupied to deal with matters of this nature. Practitioners have found it irksome, time-consuming and unrewarding to undertake the administration of these estates and although there is a covering provision that a person other than an officer of the court may be appointed as administrator, it is nevertheless a burden for the court to seek a practitioner who is prepared to act as administrator.

It is not always a practitioner who presents the case for the debtor to the court for an administration order. In terms of the Act the debtor has the right to come to court himself, and debtors very often do come to court themselves to present their case with the assistance of the clerk of the court, and the court then has to make provision for the appointment of an administrator. The suggestion that the value of a practitioner lies in the fact that the public is protected by the fidelity fund is, of course, fully met by the Bill which makes provision not only for security but even goes further and provides for persons appointed as administrators to provide an overall form of security which will cover their appointment in all cases, thus avoiding the cumbersome necessity of providing security on each occasion when they are appointed as administrator. For that reason, Sir, we see no reason at all to change the existing provisions as enacted in 1962, when it was considered, in the light of past experience, that it was necessary to increase the classes of persons who could be appointed as administrator. I think adequate provision is made in the Act to cover the whole situation and I do not think that the amendment is of any value at all.

With regard to amendment No. (4) I think the acceptance of this amendment will only entail additional expense. There is provision that any creditor who wants information from the administrator can get it immediately. There is no difficulty at all. The Act fully provides for the provision of any information that is sought. To oblige an administrator to give an account every calendar month would only make his work more difficult and obviously more expensive, and I see no necessity for this amendment at all. With regard to amendment No. (5), we have no objection to it. It is a question of the period of time. This is quite an acceptable practice and we have no objection to this amendment at all. With regard to amendment No. (6), I am reminded of what the hon. the Minister said in dealing with some other aspect of this Bill. He said that the purpose of this Bill was not to deal with all the evils brought about by debt and that he was in fact considering the question of appointing a committee of inquiry to go into this whole question which is assuming serious proportions.

According to a recent statistical report the figures have now reached something in the vicinity of R80 million per year. That is the amount of debt incurred by people who are unable to meet their liabilities. The report states that during the period 1973 to 1975 the number of judgments rose by 8%, to reach the number of 272 986. The overall amount involved increased by a staggering 43%, to set a new record of almost R80 million. Obviously, these are people who have to be cured, but I do not know whether they will be cured through legislation. Therefore we are not prepared to support this particular amendment which deals with figures which are arbitrary and of no consequence.

We also do not support amendment (7). We have given our reasons previously. We believe that it is an encumbrance on a debtor to have to give information in writing, and we do not support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to accept a single one of these amendments. The arguments against them were very well stated by the hon. member for Klerksdorp and by the hon. member for Jeppe. I concede to the hon. member for Yeoville that his argument in connection with the money is correct, but I nevertheless want to bring it to his attention that one actually wants to limit this kind of procedure to cases of small debt. I believe that he will agree with me that we do not want to involve large amounts of debt in this. The reason for this is that the debt concerned must be redeemed by means of small amounts. This will become absolutely impossible when it comes to amounts of R6 000 and R7 000. Such amounts cannot be paid off at R10 per month. However, we leave the matter at that for the time being. Should it subsequently appear necessary for the amount to be increased we could do so by means of an amendment. Therefore I do not want to accept the hon. member’s amendment now.

As far as the third amendment is concerned, it means, in my opinion, that every magistrate would have to approach all lawyers beforehand in order to determine whether they are available to act as administrators. He will most probably have to certify that no one wants to accept the position before he appoints someone else—someone who is not a lawyer. In a place such as Johannesburg this could involve an enormous amount of work. Therefore it is impractical. With reference to the fourth amendment I want to say that the creditor pays for the service. I therefore cannot see why he should not be able to receive the money at shorter intervals. If the money is required at shorter intervals and the debtor is prepared to pay it over shorter periods, it should not involve too much extra work. Therefore I am not prepared to accept that amendment either.

In his fifth amendment the hon. member for Yeoville suggests that the phrase “within ten days” be inserted. However, this does not contain any sanction to take steps. Failure by an administrator to furnish information which is requested is indeed an offence, but in any event there is no sanction to take steps should the “within ten days” be ignored. For this reason the proposed amendment is meaningless. With respect to the sixth amendment, I concede that a great deal of small debt is incurred. As it is worded here, the amendment in itself is a good one. However, the hon. member will appreciate that the practical implementation of this amendment would mean that every dealer would actually have to initiate a full inquiry into the creditworthiness of every aspirant client. The risk is therefore a matter for the dealer. He is the one who commits an offence if he transacts business which is contrary to the provisions of this argument, should it be included in the legislation. Sir, I think we are really going to place a very great burden upon trade by doing this, and I do not think it is practical at this stage. I have indicated that we shall consider this again, or refer the matter to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs, for his consideration, but I do not think it belongs in this Act. I have already dealt with the question of written notification. The most important argument is that many of these small debtors are persons who cannot even write and I think it actually places a burden upon them which we would not like to place upon them, and as a result of this I cannot accept any of the amendments.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (2) dropped.

Amendments (3), (4) and (5) negatived.

Amendment (6) negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (7) negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

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

I very briefly wish to motivate this amendment. The new section 106B creates an offence, if an employer who is requested to furnish a written statement fails to do so. The question of whether or not the request has been made will then be a credibility issue as between the employee and the employer. In order to remove that issue of credibility, which may not be capable of being ascertained, I have therefore suggested that the request should be in writing.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, the legislation which has now passed through the Committee Stage does, I think, without doubt improve the situation of debt collecting, and as far as that goes we in these benches welcome the legislation. However, there are two points that we regard as significant, and I have to mention them. In the first instance this legislation does, in a form which is unacceptable to us, introduce the concept of civil imprisonment with far greater ramifications than ever before. Our objection is that the non-payment of a debt entitles the judgment creditor, without a financial inquiry, to issue a document in terms of which the debtor is called upon to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt. In our view, to extend the ambit of civil imprisonment without a prior inquiry is something which is unacceptable. We believe that civil imprisonment as such is foreign to our principles and that we should not go back to the 17th and 18th centuries in Great Britain. We are living in a far more enlightened age, and I believe that our prisons should be kept for far more important things than the matters referred to in this legislation. We object to the concept of civil imprisonment being extended.

The second point I want to make is that we believe that the giving of credit can be as wrong as the taking of credit. We have tried to move amendments in order to ensure that credit cannot be extended irresponsibly. We believe it is anti-social to extend credit to people who cannot afford to pay, and we believe that steps have to be taken to remove this anti-social phenomenon from our life and times. Since the amendments to this piece of legislation have not been accepted, one can only hope that there will be legislation introduced to root out this evil in our economy. Unfortunately, very often this is not merely an issue between a debtor and a creditor. Often these issues have social consequences for the community, and therefore we believe that urgent action is required to restrain the indiscriminate granting of credit to people who cannot afford to pay. Despite these two objections I have raised, we do believe that the Bill effects certain improvements that are necessary to the Magistrates’ Courts Act, and therefore we shall not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that in accordance with the attitude adopted in the Second Reading we support the Third Reading of the Bill. We are all aware of the fact that civil imprisonment has not been a comfortable social experience. Even in Great Britain, however, where there have been some very disturbing indications of what civil imprisonment means, legislators have unfortunately not been able to root it out of their system yet. Contempt of court, it would seem, still remains a vital element in this issue. There must be some form of regulation of society so that people do not take advantage of others. In the social and economic system we have developed, people who incur liabilities and who enjoy the fruits of extended credit have to meet their obligations in some way or another. Unfortunately the make-up of some people in our society is such that they often do not meet their obligations. The only remedy—and this applies in all commercial law—is recourse to the courts. If a person, against whom judgment is given, does not comply with the judgment of the court he is obviously guilty of contempt of court, and there must consequently be some form of penalty. It is an unfortunate state of affairs and we hope that with other forms of social advancement we may be able to reduce this to the absolute minimum. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister himself is very concerned about the rapid escalation of civil judgments and the soaring increase in unpaid debt, but as he has rightly stated earlier, trade practice, which will now become an important feature of our commercial law, will have to play its part. Possibly in the normal course of social development other forms of inquiry will enable us to limit this evil to the absolute minimum as far as possible. We cannot, however, see any reason for not supporting the Third Reading because we feel that the amendments made will be an important contribution towards improving the unpleasant aspects of civil imprisonment to which I have already referred during my Second Reading address. We believe this will contribute towards reducing the negative aspects to a minimum, thus at least preserving to some extent the dignity, not only of the debtor but also of society in general.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the first point touched upon by the hon. member for Yeoville, we have already thrashed out the matter very thoroughly during the Second Reading debate. However, I still want to point out that apprehension does not take place without that investigation. The process is being reversed slightly, but apprehension does not take place without a proper investigation in fact having taken place. The hon. member would do well to refer to the position in the Bill again, because he will find that this is the actual state of affairs. As far as the second point is concerned, I readily concede that his argument is well-founded. It is a great evil that so much minor credit should be granted to people. However, my standpoint is and has been’that this is not something which can be rectified by means of this Bill. In fact, I want to go as far as to say that I am not convinced that this falls under my department administratively. I am of the opinion that this should most probably fall under the Department of Commerce. I undertook to refer it to them, and therefore, I shall bring it to their attention.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my gratitude and appreciation to all the hon. members of the House for their contributions. The discussion of this Bill was to my mind an example of Parliament at its best, because everyone contributed positively to facilitate placing the best on the Statute Book. Even the series of amendments which I did not accept, at least stimulated our thoughts and brought possibilities to light to which very serious consideration were given. As the Bill in its present form will, to my mind, limit the legal costs. It will restrict both the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor, and this is what we had in mind with the Bill. I want to convey my sincere thanks to all hon. members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure is being introduced with a view to the granting of independence to the Transkei. The opportunity is being created, at the request of the Transkei Government, for appeals from the Transkei Supreme Court to be heard by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, until such time as the Transkei is able to establish its own court of appeal. For the present, the Transkei will be saved a great deal of expense, while no additional work will accrue to the Appellate Division of the Republic. An existing service will merely be continued.

Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the commencement of the legislation on a future date, that is to say, whenever it may become necessary after the Transkei has gained its independence. From the nature of the case, no obligation is being imposed on the Transkei to make use of the service. Our Appellate Division is merely being given a power which the Transkei will be able to make use of when it has become independent, if it so desires.

Mr. Speaker, we supoport this measure. This is nothing new in so far as our Appellate Division is concerned because it has already dealt with appeals from other countries, inter alia from the protectorates and also from Rhodesia. At that time, of course, we formed part of the Commonwealth under a common sovereign head—the king or the queen. However, when that connection ceased, those countries changed their laws on appeals and thereafter no longer made use of our Appellate Division. In this case we shall have foreign independent State making use of our Appellate Division and I do not know whether there is any precedent for such a procedure in other countries. However, if the Transkei wants it that way, we certainly shall be pleased to let them have it that way. Since they will lack experience in this type of thing for some years to come, it is only right that we should give them this facility if they require it. We therefore support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the occasion to debate the merits or demerits of independence for the Transkei and I certainly do not propose to do so. If the Bill provides what the hon. the Minister has said it does, namely for appeals from the Transkei Supreme Court to our Appellate Division, then quite obviously we shall not oppose it. It is clear that the Transkei itself will have to decide whether or not this facility should be used. As the hon. member for Griqualand East has pointed out, this is not unique in so far as South Africa is concerned. South Africa’s Appellate Division acted as a court of appeal for Rhodesia and it also acted as a court of appeal for the then High Commissioner Territories. South Africa itself had such a facility at one stage in that at one stage there were appeals from our courts to the Privy Council in Great Britain. Even on the assumption that the Transkei does become independent—which appears to be a certainty at the moment—we welcome the links which would be maintained thereafter because in so far as we are concerned, we believe and hope that there will eventually be a link between South Africa and an independent Transkei. Many of us believe that this may well take the form of a federation and many of us believe that our own Appellate Division may well in the future become the federal appeal court of a federation of southern Africa. In that spirit we welcome the fact that our Appellate Division—a court which is held in great esteem not only in South Africa, but also in many parts of the world—will have this further status added to it. Therefore we support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their support of the Bill. I want to point out that the Transkei was governed by our legislation for many years. Our courts were responsible for the administration of justice in that territory. I make bold to say that the nature of Roman Dutch enables it to be adapted to any circumstances which may arise in southern Africa. Consequently I want to express the hope that when the Transkei becomes independent, they will very seriously consider retaining links with South Africa as far as substantive law itself as well as the courts are concerned. By means of our Appellate Division we may be able, for a many years to come, to render a special service to them which they may feel they need. Under those circumstances I want to express the hope that the Transkei will very seriously consider retaining the link with South Africa as far as its administration of justice is concerned.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, during the past few days I have had an opportunity of studying the speech the hon. the Minister made in introducing the Second Reading of the Medical University of Southern Africa Bill. To me this speech is one of the most serious indictments of the Government’s ineptitude, its neglect and its failure to plan, not only for the future, but even for the present. The figures quoted by the hon. the Minister reveal a state of affairs in relation to the number of Black medical practitioners and the absence of Black dentists and veterinarians which makes very sad reading. The present position is a blot on the Government’s performance in the past 28 years. For the past 18 years I and other people in this hon. House have asked the Government to do something to alleviate the obvious shortages in medical personnel that we have been experiencing in the Republic. Very little, if anything, was done. Our pleas fell on deaf ears. Indeed, some of our universities, which are supposed to enjoy autonomy, were even prevented from enrolling Black students in their medical faculties. We objected to this and again our objections were overruled. Wits University and Cape Town University were allowed, only on sufferance, only on a permit system, to have Black students in their medical schools. This hon. Minister has a great deal of courage to admit that there is only one Black doctor for every 45 000 Bantu. This knowledge is overseas as well. While I defended this country when these figures were thrown at me overseas, here in this House I want to condemn the Government for not doing anything about it. I wonder what would have been happening to the medical services of this country, both to the Black and the White population, if it were not for the efforts of our White doctors who served in the past and still serve all sections of our population. These doctors have put our Republic in the forefront of medicine in the world. They have given a performance that is second to none. The failure of the Government to provide sufficient doctors of colour, however, is most depressing. The serious shortages of Black medical personnel cannot be allowed to pass without condemning those who are responsible, i.e. the Government.

Now, at this late hour, when things are really going against us, the hon. the Minister becomes activated and suggests in this Bill that a new institution be established in the vicinity of Ga-Rankuwa, with teaching facilities for the training of medical and dental practitioners and also veterinarians. We on this side of the House have no objection whatsoever against new universities being brought into being in our country. We have got no objection whatsoever against this university to come into being, and if this was being done for the sole purpose of increasing the numbers of Black doctors in our country, I would be very very pleased indeed. At least we could then say that the numbers of Black doctors are going to increase from year to year. But what in reality is happening? The Cabinet of ours, while opening the doors for a new university, closes the doors of an existing establishment. What has the Cabinet agreed to do? They have given notice to the Natal University to phase out its intake of Black students. What worse action could the Government take at a time when it seeks to increase the numbers of Black practitioners in our country? And what is more, this notice was given to the Natal University without prior consultation with that university. It was done without the knowledge of the people who are running the university, in particular those people who have an interest in and are running the medical school. I think that this is a shocking action on the part of the Government. And this action of the Government is being aggravated by not having the hospital at Ga-Rankuwa established as a teaching hospital as yet. It is going to take a minimum of seven years from the start of that hospital to produce the first doctor plus another year for his internship. Before that period has expired we cannot expect one single doctor to come from Ga-Rankuwa.

Therefore the medical school of the University of Natal must be allowed to continue its work. This is a most valuable medical institution. It has a dedicated staff. Valuable research work has been done and is still being done at that university while the graduates and the teachers have made a most significant contribution to the health of this country. It has also done its fair share in providing paramedical services and its fair share in seeing that nurses have been properly trained. Now this living being is going to be broken down. Why? Why must the hon. the Minister close this medical school even though he is opening another one? The writing on the wall is quite clear. He has already given notice that there will soon be a medical school for Indians and a medical school for Coloureds. Who then is going to go to the medical school that is established in Natal? What is the reason for closing this school? The only reason that I can think of that this Minister can give is that he does not want an institution for Blacks to be in a White area, and if I am right in saying that, then I condemn him for his action. This Government is obsessed with the idea of moving institutions for people of colour out of White areas, particularly in the case of this particular hospital which, situated where it is, serves the homeland area with the biggest population.

It has served them for years.

This hospital has turned out 556 doctors, if the Minister’s figures are correct. Does he anticipate that in the first 10 or 12 years the new hospital at Ga-Rankuwa is going to be able to turn out so many doctors? I challenge him to tell me what his intake and final figures will be after 10 years, bearing in mind that during the whole of that period nothing will be happening to increase the numbers going to Natal. Sir, I do not know what the outside world is going to think when they hear of this sort of “happening” in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Cabinet decision. The time is not too late to reverse the decision, and I ask the Minister to go back to the Cabinet and to say to the Cabinet, “Let us keep this hospital viable; let us continue to take in Blacks, if they wish to go there; let us continue to take in Coloureds, if they wish to go there, and let us continue to take in Indians, if they wish to go there”, and I say to you, Sir, that if White people want to go there, they should be allowed to do so as well. That should be our attitude. Let us leave the choice to the individual and to the autonomy of the university. They are the people who should decide. I want to appeal to the Minister and to the Cabinet to allow those universities that wish to admit Black students who want to study medicine or dentistry, to do so. Let us do away with this permit system. In this day and age it should not be necessary for the Minister even to think along those lines. These universities have been willing in the past to admit Black students; they have been doing so in the past but now they are no longer allowed to do so.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on these benches and I have no objection at all to the establishment of a new university, but what I do not like is the way in which this is being done. This institution is going to be established in the vicinity of Ga-Rankuwa. It is going to serve Blacks in a particular area of Trust land, but it will cater for Blacks of other ethnic groups. Well and good. Can the Minister tell me with which ethnic groups he has consulted in this regard and with what result? I would like to know who decided to establish a medical school, a dental school and a veterinary school at Ga-Rankuwa. I would like to know if the other ethnic groups agreed to the erection of this school at that particular spot. The Minister did not mention a word about consultation in his Second Reading speech.

I want to go further. Did the Minister discuss the naming of the university with the head of any other university in the Republic, especially the heads of the Witwatersrand and Pretoria Universities, which will have an interest in this university; if so, did they agree to this name? Sir, I think that this name is a total misnomer. Firstly, one does not have a medical university; one has a university with a medical faculty.

You do everywhere else in the world.

One has a university with a dental faculty in it; one has a university with a veterinary science faculty in it, and I have no objection to that. Secondly, the Bill and the Minister speak about “the Medical University of Southern Africa”. Why not “South Africa”? What is wrong with “South Africa”? Has this Government got jurisdiction over southern Africa? We have jurisdiction over South Africa and we legislate for South Africa. The fact that we may be taking in students from other countries does not mean that we have to use the term “Southern Africa” when we describe this university.

You are just being facetious.

I am not being facetious. I am very serious about this. This hospital is going to be built with South African money. It will have South Africans on its staff and South Africans will look after it except, of course, when they are interfered with by the Minister, but I will come back to that later. I suggest, therefore, that this hospital be called “Ga-Rankuwa University”, if necessary—not “Medical University”—a university with a medical faculty, a dental faculty and a veterinary science faculty. I take it that this university is going to issue degrees and that the standards required for these degrees will be evaluated by the South African Medical and Dental Council. I wonder, Sir, whether this body has been consulted in these matters, or whether it is the intention of the Minister to consult with the Medical Council. The Medical Council is not mentioned at all in the Bill.

They are going to grant their own degrees, whatever they may be worth.

There is, of course, a clause that says that the Senate shall determine what degrees shall be accepted for teaching purposes and so on, but the Medical Council is left right out of this. I wonder how my colleagues on the other side feel about this. Are they satisfied? Are they quite sure that the standards required will be the same as for all other universities? There is going to be a veterinary science faculty in this university and I take it or I hope that the students will have access to Onderstepoort. What is the feeling of this Minister in regard to the admission of Black students to Onderstepoort?

He must allow it.

Is he going to allow this to happen? As far as I know, Onderstepoort has catered in the past for White students only. Is the Minister now going to open the doors of Onderstepoort to Black students, or is it the intention that this university that is going to arise at Ga-Rankuwa will have its own Onderstepoort? I wonder what Pretoria University said about this. Did the Minister have consultations with Pretoria University in this regard? Because if he is going to allow Black students to go to Onderstepoort, then he cannot refuse to allow White students to go to any other university.

On the council, which is going to be established at this university, we find that there are going to be representatives sitting on this council from the University of Witwatersrand and from the University of Pretoria. I want to ask the hon. the Minister again how the authorities at Wits and at Pretona feel about it. How did they feel about sending representatives to this council? Will the hon. the Minister tell us how they felt about it and whether they were willing to do so. It is quite a simple question. The same question, of course, applies to Fort Hare, the University of Zululand and the University of the North. What are the feelings of those people about being represented on the council?

The hon. the Minister spoke at length and he never once referred to any consultation with any other body or with any other council or with any other university. Not once, throughout his speech. I feel that it was most essential for the Natal University to be consulted in regard to the establishment of this new university, because their future fate depends on the establishment of this new university. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister took the trouble to discuss these matters with the University of Natal. Or were they treated in the same way in which they were treated when they were ordered to phase out? I wonder. He closes down, as I said, a university close to the largest ethnic group, the Zulus. He neglects to tell us that he considers converting the largest hospital in Africa for Blacks into a teaching hospital for dentists and doctors. Even though the Baragwanath Hospital is situated on the very periphery of the largest and the most densely populated Black township in South Africa …

What about Wits?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member mentioned that, because we on this Side of the House have been asking for Baragwanath Hospital to be used by Wits University for the training of White and Black students. How pleased I am that the hon. member is going to think as we do. [Interjections.] He must tell this House that he supports us. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member can come and sit with us. He can be with us when we vote on this matter. [Interjections.]

He can come and count our votes. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this hon. Minister has neglected to tell this House of any consultations that he might have had. I am not satisfied that the hon. the Minister has gone about the establishment of this university in the right way. I do not like the control that this hon. Minister intends to take over the workings of this university. Throughout the Bill his control comes through loud and clear. As I have said, I do not like the manner in which he has done it. I do not believe it is correct, or else he has been keeping us in ignorance as to what he has been doing in the past. Before we on this side of the House pass the Second Reading of this Bill, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Rosettenville with considerable surprise. He maintained that the ratio of Black physicians to possible patients—the ratio is 1:45 000—was a blot on the name of South Africa. According to him the reason for this is insufficient planning by the Nationalist Government. I was truly very surprised to hear these words from the mouth of the hon. member for Rosettenville. Arising from all the reproaches which he heaps up on this Government, I want to ask him how many Black people matriculated in 1948, after many years of UP rule. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I should like to know how many Black people sat for their matriculation examination at the end of the United Party rule. The backlog which arose concerning Bantu education and provision of suitable matriculants was a product of the rule of the UP. [Interjections.] In 1958 there were 157 Black people who obtained matriculation exemption. This was just after we had taken over from the UP.

Even fewer members of the United Party matriculated at that time.

In 1960 there were 182, in 1965, 827, in 1970, 1 856 and in 1975, 3 520. These are the latest available figures, as against just over 100 during the rule of the UP.

Mr. Speaker, I shall tell you why there is a shortage of Black physicians. There are two reasons for this. In the first instance the UP failed to plan ahead during its years in power. They failed to produce a sufficient number of suitable matriculants for medical training and they failed to create training facilities for Black medical students in South Africa. [Interjections.] The contribution made by Bantu education to the provision of a sufficient number of suitable matriculants under National rule is absolutely phenomenal. [Interjections.] The allegation has been made that we have too small a number of Black physicians.

The hon. member for Rosettenville thanked the White physicians and the physicians of other colours for what they are doing for the Black people in this country concerning medical services. I want to subscribe to this. I also want to avail myself of the opportunity today to express my sincere thanks to the White physicians for the good service which they are rendering to the Black people in South Africa. I want to thank the Indian and the Coloured physicians, too, for the services which they render to the Black people of South Africa. Now I want to take the hon. member up on this point of the lack of planning, which is alleged to be the reason why there is a shortage of Black physicians in South Africa. Sir, when the University of the Witwatersrand could admit medical students freely to that faculty, how many were there then? [Interjections.] No, you must answer me. You accused us of a lack of planning and in fact you accused us of discrimination, but when these universities of Cape Town and the Witwatersrand were open, how many Black people then qualified there? How many were enrolled?

There were not enough matriculants.

Sir, I want to convey my special thanks to the hon. member for Durban Point for what he has just said. I now want to call him as a witness, and a good witness, because he is the chief spokesman on education in that party. I want to tell him I agree with him wholeheartedly that there were no matriculants, because the United Party was in power at that time. I really want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Durban Central. I regard him as a very good witness. I also accept what that hon. member said, because he certainly is much better informed on the United Party’s policy and their problems, being a member of the United Party himself. From the nature of the case he must know more about them. For that reason I want to thank the hon. member very sincerely for the admission that there were no matriculants because they did not make provision for training matriculants at the time. [Interjections.] However that may be, I want to advise the hon. member to talk to the hon. member for Rosettenville about this, and to convey the accusation to him.

The hon. member for Rosettenville raised a hue and cry here about the name of the university and he objected strenuously to the concept of “Southern Africa”. But the hon. member knows, after all, that we also want to accommodate the Black people of South West Africa at this university, and South West Africa is not South Africa; it is part of southern Africa. What is more, Sir, the possibility is not excluded that we may admit students from other Black African States to this university as well. Is the expression “Southern Africa” not a fine one? To me it embodies the idea of an invitation to Africa. The invitation is that we shall help them if we have the necessary facilities, etc., available to us. Sir, to my mind a very serious thing was said here today. I now want to ask the hon. member for Rosettenville: If it were true that there are not sufficient Black people who qualify for medical training, would the hon. member want the standards for admission to this training to be lowered? Sir, this is a very serious question which I am putting to the hon. member for Rosettenville and I do not expect the hon. member to reply to give a full reply to it immediately. But he may simply say “Yes” or “No”. Does he want the standards for admission to this medical training to be lowered? Sir, I think the hon. member should rather go and study my Hansard in his own time and then he can give me an answer. [Interjections.] Furthermore, the hon. member for Rosettenville made a fuss here about the standards which would be maintained at that university and about the consultations which should take place with the S.A. Medical Council and with the other universities concerned. I got the impression more and more, as the hon. member proceeded with his speech, that although the hon. member had been physically present here when the hon. the Minister made his Second Reading speech, his thoughts had actually been outside this House. The hon. member seems to have heard what the Minister said, but he did not understand it. I now want to refer the hon. member to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister. I do not want to be sharp in my comments concerning the hon. member, because he is no longer a young man and I respect older people. However, I want to point out to the hon. member that to my mind he said a serious thing in regard to these matters. I want to quote what the hon. the Minister said, as follows—

The reference here is to this new university—

And further—

He is not even listening.

Sir, the hon. member is not listening to me. He made accusations here. Now I want to quote further from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech—

Then the hon. member should listen to what the Minister says. After all, the hon. member said that there had been no consultation and that the Minister had ignored them. The hon. member asked what consultation there had been and whether the Minister had done this in secret. Now the Minister has a special word of thanks to the controlling bodies of the two universities, the vice principals and five deans of the two universities, and he says—

Sir, what more the Minister should have done I do not know. Only the hon. member for Rosettenville will know. But he definitely was not serious in making that allegation of his, because Prof. Snyman is also the chairman of the Medical Council, is he not?

Do you now want to tell me Professor Snyman is two people; the one being Professor Snyman who is head of the medical faculty, and the other being the same Professor Snyman who is chairman of the Medical Council, and that the one Snyman does not know what the other Snyman is doing? For the information of the hon. member I just want to say that these two are the same Snyman; there is only one Snyman. When he advises the Minister, he will have the interests of the Medical Council as well as those of the existing universities at heart. I want to say to the hon. member that I honestly think he owes the hon. the Minister an apology for having alleged that the hon. the Minister did not consult the institutions concerned.

The Medical University of Southern Africa Bill is of historical importance to us in this country. It is historical in the sense that a medical school exclusively for Black people is now for the first time being established in our country. This is the first and the only institution in South Africa which makes provision only for Black people. What is more: Apart from the training of physicians,provision is also being made here for the first time for Black people only to be trained as veterinary surgeons and dentists. The medical university will also be the first medical university which is situated in a Bantu territory.

Where in the Bill do you read that the medical, school will be for Black people only?

As already indicated by the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech, a great need undoubtedly exists for the training of more Black physicians in South Africa. As I said a short while ago, the ratio between doctor and possible patients is one to 45 000, while the ideal ratio is in the order of one to 1 000. Here are two important aspects. The first is that if one considers the increase in the numbers of the Black people, an increase of approximately 400 000 a year, it goes without saying that there is not only a tremendous backlog, but a greater backlog is building up. This means that only to be able to keep pace with the population increase, 400 Black doctors are needed annually, but at the moment the existing medical school at Wentworth produces only 15 Bantu doctors a year on an average. Therefore, the factual situation is that the number of Bantu doctors being produced at present is completely insufficient for the existing need, let alone future needs. A very important point in this respect—the hon. member for Rosettenville would do well to listen to this—is that several of the Bantu Governments have already addressed representations to the Government for the provision of medical universities and medical training of their own. In addition, several homeland Governments have lodged quite a number of complaints against the existing medical school, but I do not want to go into that now. Therefore, it can rightly be said that the new medical university is being established, inter alia, in order to comply with direct requests from the homeland Governments.

With requests from all the homeland Governments?

Just as in the case of physicians, a great need exists for dentists as well. As far as we know, as the hon. the Minister has already indicated, there is only one Bantu dentist in South Africa. If we accept the ratio of one dentist for 5 000 possible patients as being adequate to meet the need, a shortage of 3 000 Black dentists exist in South Africa at present. There are no qualified Bantu veterinary surgeons in South Africa at the moment, while the homelands already need at least 22 Government veterinary surgeons. In the case of dentists and veterinary surgeons as well, therefore, a great need exists.

Another argument which may be advanced is that the expenditure of R30 million on a new medical university is a waste of Government funds seeing that facilities already exist at Wentworth. For the new medical university, an intake of 200 medical students a year is being planned, as well as an eventual intake of 50 veterinary and 50 dentistry students. This means a total intake of 300 students a year. The total cost of the planned university will, as I have already said, amount to R30 million. In order to expand the existing training facilities at Wentworth to such an extent that an intake of 200 Black students a year would be possible, an additional capital investment of R23 million would be needed. The amount of R23 million does not include the expenditure which will be required for the establishment of training facilities for veterinary surgeons and dentists. If one looks at this picture carefully, one realizes that by spending an additional R7 million at Ga-Rankuwa, we would be able to train, over and above 200 medical students, 50 dentistry and 50 veterinary students a year. This is indeed a relatively low capital investment per student. Therefore it goes without saying that it would be more economical to create the new university instead of enlarging the existing facilities at Wentworth. The expansion of the facilities at Wentworth would require a capital investment of R115 000 per student, but the establishment of the new university at Ga-Rankuwa will require a capital investment of only R100 000 per student. Therefore, there will be a capital saving of R15 000 per student if we establish the new university instead of enlarging the existing facilities.

That is an underestimation.

The hon. member for Durban Central always opens his mouth at the wrong time and shortly I shall lead him into a trap again.

One should also keep in mind that if one were to spend an additional R7 million by establishing the new Ga-Rankuwa University instead of expanding Wentworth, one would be able to train 50 dentists and 50 veterinary surgeons. This means that by spending an additional R7 million, 100 more students may be trained every year. Therefore, the training of the additional 100 students would be made possible by a capital expenditure of R70 000 per student, a very low capital expenditure. This is a very important point which should always be kept in mind.

The amounts which I have just mentioned appear even more favourable when one considers the advantages which result from the fact that Onderstepoort is not far from Ga-Rankuwa, while there is no veterinary research institute in the vicinity of Wentworth. The latter fact makes the training of veterinary surgeons in the vicinity of Wentworth a practical impossibility, due to the capital expenditure which it would require to create such a research institute in that vicinity as well. This argument tips the scale even further in favour of the establishment of the new university.

The proposed university should also be regarded as a training-ground for the establishment of further medical faculties for Black people. For that reason, post-graduate studies will also be emphasized at Medunsa, as the university will be called, because we should like specialists to be trained there who might later be used as staff for new institutions which will be created in future. The existing facilities at Wentworth have rendered no service to the Black people in this respect. No Black specialist has yet been produced by Wentworth. The state of affairs on 27 March 1975 was that Wentworth had only produced 12 Indian specialists and two Coloured specialists, but no Black specialists. In this respect I do not think it is unreasonable to say that the existing institution at Wentworth has failed. Another important aspect to mind is that the staff at Wentworth are not yet representative of the ethnic groups they serve. There is not a single Black professor at Wentworth, for example, and one may rightly ask why this is so. Indians have in fact been appointed as clinical assistants at Wentworth, but no Blacks. Might it not be a question of discrimination here? I am just asking. Another important aspect and adavantage of the new university is that supporting studies will be offered in three directions. This has the great advantage that when study in any of the three main directions is for some reason abandoned, the training which has already been undergone may be better utilized should the student switch over to a related supporting direction of study. The fact is that there is a considerable loss of students during this training period at Wentworth and I want to supply a few statistics in support of the statement I have made. If we look at new admissions to the medical school during the past six years, we find that approximately 35 students were enrolled annually during the past five years, while the average number of graduates during that period was only 15. This means that there is a loss of 20 students per year, in other words, 57% of the students originally admitted. One can draw many conclusions from that, but I think it would be a fair and reasonable conclusion that a large number of these students who dropped out along the way would have been able to succeed in a supporting direction of study, as will in fact be offered at Ga-Rankuwa, and I think the future will prove the validity of this statement.

The idea of such a university was not conceived overnight, but was a Cabinet decision which was taken as long ago as 1966. A thorough investigation was conducted into the matter and the hon. the Minister even went overseas to investigate matters there. The Secretary of Bantu Education was also involved and conducted a very thorough investigation into the creation of a medical university of this kind. It is interesting to see what the opinion concerning such a university is overseas. I mention the following overseas universities which were visited: The Ludwig-Maximilians Universität in Munich, Germany, the Justus-Liebig-Universität in Giessen, West Germany, the Rijksuniversiteit at Ghent in Belgium and the Universität Zurich in Switzerland. These universities were asked, amongst other things, whether disadvantages would be attached to a university institution offering only medicine, dentistry and veterinary science in one or more faculties. I think this is to a certain extent the answer to the statement which the hon. member for Rosettenville made. These four universities—at Munich, Giessen, Ghent and Zurich—said that there would be no disadvantages involved. They were also asked what advantages could be derived from having medicine, dentistry and veterinary science together with other faculties at a university. To this they replied very positively. In Munich they said that it was actually advantageous for general studies and that deans of these faculties made positive contributions to the management of the university. At Giessen it was said that the groups lent status and made a contribution to bodies such as the Senate. The Rijksuniversiteit in Ghent said that it could be autonomous, but that it was also a good thing for the faculty to function along with the others. Zurich said it could be autonomous and after pre-clinical training each group could go its own way. In this way various questions concerning the university of Medunsa were all answered very positively. They were also asked whether students who did not pass their courses could follow a similar or less demanding course. The comment was that something of this kind would be commendable. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a few points raised by the hon. member for Lydenburg. It surprises me that we still hear reproaches at this stage about what happened in this country 30 years ago under the Government of that time. One would have thought that 30 years would be enough for the waters to wash away that bridge and that comparisons of that nature would serve no purpose any longer. I do want to point out to the hon. member for Lydenburg that for many years his Government was the one which pegged down expenditure on Bantu education, over and above the portion obtained from general Bantu taxes, at R13 million a year.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to which political party he belonged 30 years ago?

I shall not allow myself to be diverted by such nonsensical questions. I want to make it quite clear in regard to the hon. member’s second point as well, where he objected to the statement of the hon. member for Rosettenville, that one can indeed speak of a lack of proper planning for the training of Bantu medical practitioners. I want to quote from the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister, in which he said of the total number of people accepted as students at Durban Wentworth—

Whose fault is it that there are not enough facilities? I was pleasantly surprised to learn from the hon. member for Lydenburg that all the homeland governments had been consulted. The hon. member for Rosettenville asked questions in this connection, and one could have assumed that the hon. the Minister would have given us those particulars in his Second Reading speech. The hon. member for Lydenburg admitted that there was a shortage of no fewer than 3 000 Black dentists at the moment. Once again one would ask who was to blame for this kind of situation. The hon. member for Lydenburg devoted a large part of his speech to the costs entailed by the expansion of the facilities at Durban Wentworth, further to what the hon. the Minister said in this connection. I have no intention of questioning the particulars furnished by the hon. the Minister, but I do want to tell him that the information we have is of a completely different nature. The effect of this information is that if the facilities at the medical school of the University of Natal were to be expanded over a period of three years to increase the intake capacity from 100 to 160, this would require an amount of R800 000, not including the accommodation for students. However, if the accommodation for students were to be included, and if a high-rise building were to be erected to provide for this need, it would cost an additional R5 million. I have the problem, therefore, that the figures available to us differ completely from the figure of R23 million referred to by the hon. member for Lydenburg and by the hon. the Minister as well.

The hon. member for Lydenburg raised another point. He asked why no Black members of staff had yet been appointed at Durban Wentworth. I should like to ask the hon. member for Lydenburg whether he could give us an assurance that if the University of Natal should want to appoint a Black member of staff, that appointment would be agreed to. I would be glad if the hon. member could tell me whether our other universities would really be allowed to appoint Black members of staff.

Well said!

Since there is no reply forthcoming, I shall leave the hon. member for Lydenburg at that. My approach to this matter differs completely from the one adopted by that hon. member. I should like to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosettenville and to express the hope that the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet will comply with the request of the hon. member that this matter be referred to a Select Committee. One has to distinguish here between the creation of sufficient facilities for the training of doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons and the particulars concerning where and in what way those facilities are to be created. There cannot be any doubt in anyone’s mind as to the necessity for provision to be made—and the hon. member for Lydenberg conceded this—for the training of a much larger number of doctors and dentists to provide in the needs of a growing White and non-White population.

In fact, the hon. the Minister referred in his speech to the fact that there is approximately one doctor for every 2 000 persons in South Africa at the moment. He also put the ideal ratio at one doctor for every 1 000 persons. If we accept that ratio, the total number of doctors in South Africa is only half of what it should be today. In other words, we have a shortage of approximately 6 000 trained doctors at this stage. Naturally, great efforts will be required to wipe out this backlog. However, the problem becomes more critical if we bear in mind the expected population growth—to which the hon. member for Lydenburg referred. It is estimated that the total South African population will increase by approximately 12 million in the 15 years between 1975 and 1990. On a basis of one doctor for each 1 000 persons, this means that we shall have to train approximately 12 600 doctors in the course of the next 15 years. In the five-year period from 1975 to 1980 we shall have to train approximately 3 600, i.e. more than 700 a year. In the five-year period from 1980 to 1985, approximately 4 200 doctors will have to be trained, i.e. more than 800 a year. Over the period from 1985 to 1990, the number will be approximately 4 800, i.e. more than 950 a year.

Does that include White and non-White?

This is the total increase of the population, i.e. Whites and non-Whites. In terms of this ratio, therefore, an average number of more than 800 doctors a year will have to be produced over the fifteen-year period just to keep pace with the population growth. If we also want to wipe out the present backlog in the course of the next 15 years, we shall have to produce an additional 400 doctors a year. Consequently, we shall have to train and make available an average number of 1 200 doctors a year over the next 15 years. How almost unattainable this ideal is appears from the fact that at the beginning of 1975, only 4 665 students were enrolled for all the courses at the medical faculties of all our universities.

The hon. member for Lydenburg was quite right when he said that a large percentage of students never finish their studies. On this basis, the number of trained doctors we produce every year is considerably smaller than 1 000. In fact, the hon. the Minister of National Education said last year, in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Berea, that an estimated number of only 587 White doctors would qualify in 1980. In 1985, the number would be 685, and in 1990, the total would be only 783. As I have indicated, we shall have to produce an average number of 1 200 doctors a year over that period. Over the same three periods, an estimated number of 19, 21 and 24 Coloured persons and 54, 63 and 73 Indians, respectively, will qualify as medical practitioners. In other words, according to this projection, a total of 660 Whites, Coloured persons and Indians will qualify as doctors in 1980. In 1985 the total will be 769, while the figure for 1990 will be only 880. It has not been possible to make any projection in respect or the Bantu. Unless there is a drastic improvement, therefore, i.e. unless training facilities are improved drastically, it will be difficult to maintain even the present unfavourable ratio.

The Bantu population is expected to increase by approximately 10 million over the next 15 years. If it is the intention—and I want to make it quite clear that I reject this approach—that the Bantu population in South Africa should be served primarily or exclusively by Bantu doctors, then, in terms of the ideal ratio of one doctor for every 1 000 persons, approximately 10 000 doctors will have to be trained over the 15-year period, i.e. more than 650 doctors a year. I find it a pity that the hon. the Minister mentioned the ratio of one to 45 000, for when we have been accused in the past of having trained only one Black doctor for approximately 45 000 people, we have said in this House that that ratio was false. We said it was false because those needs were provided for to a large extent by other doctors. It is a figure which has no meaning at all.

Statistics are treacherous.

That is correct. I have mentioned that approximately 650 Bantu medical practitioners will have to be trained every year to provide in the needs of the Bantu. However, a mere 16 obtained the degree of M.B. Ch.B. at the end of 1974. In addition, I want to say that South Africa has a special responsibility towards other parts of Southern Africa as well. It is clear that we are faced with a crisis situation and that far-reaching steps will have to be taken on a basis of proper strategic planning. For that reason, steps aimed at expanding the training facilities for doctors, regardless of race or colour, are welcomed in principle by this side of the House. The inevitable conclusion is, furthermore, that it is completely absurd to curtail or to abolish existing facilities for the training of medical practitioners and especially of Bantu doctors. Consequently we on this side of the House are absolutely opposed to the closing of the medical school of the University of Natal to the training of Bantu. Indeed, we do not only ask for that school to be retained, but for it to be expanded to take in the maximum number of students, considering the population concentration in Natal and in the eastern part of our country in general. A medical school in Natal, in that part of the country, seems to us to be an obvious necessity.

The hon. the Minister indicated in his speech that the existing intake capacity of the medical school of the University of Natal was such that it was not even able to accept all the students who applied. As I have already indicated, the hon. the Minister said that 688 students had been admitted during the past 25 years, but that this number constituted only one-third of the number of candidates who applied. In other words, there is a real need for the expansion of the facilities at the medical school. The hon. the Minister added that there was undoubtedly sufficient student material to justify expanded training facilities. I agree with that wholeheartedly. As he also indicated, there is an encouraging increase in the number of Bantu matriculants with matriculation exemption.

For the information of the hon. member for Lydenburg, who made a great fuss here about the shortages that existed, I want to point out that in 1957, there were only 850 matriculants, and that by the year 1962, this number had increased to only 878. Well, those times are past, and it would serve no purpose to elaborate on them. The hon. the Minister indicated that there was an encouraging increase in the number of matriculants with matriculation exemption. The number has increased from 182 in 1960 to 3 520 in 1970. On the basis of extrapolated figures, we may expect the number of Bantu matriculants to increase to approximately 57 000 by 1980, to approximately 62 000 by 1985 and to approximately 110 000 by 1990. Obviously, not all these students will qualify for admission to a university or a medical faculty. But from this point of view, too, it is clear that the creation of additional facilities has become an urgent necessity.

It is also a well-known fact—and in part, this is my reply to the hon. member for Lydenburg—that at each of the existing university institutions that provide medical schools—i.e. Cape Town, Stellenbosch, Bloemfontein, Wits, Pretoria, etc.—a large number of students are turned down every year because the intake capacity of those institutions is not big enough. What do these facts prove to us? Firstly, that even if we were to accept this Bill and to establish a new medical school for the Bantu, no matter where, this would not nearly be sufficient to meet the needs. Secondly, that it would be completely illogical and irresponsible to close the medical school of the University of Natal to the training of Bantu doctors. In this connection I want to express our thanks and appreciation to the University of Natal, as did the hon. member, for the service they have rendered up to now. Thirdly, that it is equally illogical and irresponsible to prohibit the other White universities from accepting non-Whites as students in their medical schools if they wish to do so; and fourthly, that the training of Bantu as doctors must be seen as part of a comprehensive programme for the training of medical practitioners. For all these reasons it is essential, as an initial step, for this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee for investigation and consideration. The problem simply cannot be dealt with in isolation. Surely this is quite clear. Because this matter is so important, it is essential that attempts be made to obtain the largest possible measure of consensus in this House concerning the most effective steps that can be taken. In other words, this is not a matter which should be approached primarily from a party-political or a political-ideological point of view.

It is quite clear, as the hon. member for Rosettenville further indicated, that that expansion must take place in consultation with the people who are very closely affected by it—i.e. not only the Government, but also the South African Medical and Dental Council, the universities of South Africa, those that offer medical training as well as the others and White as well as non-White universities, the various homeland governments, the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the Indian Council. As I have said, the hon. the Minister said nothing to indicate that these bodies had been consulted. For this reason as well it seems essential to me that this matter be referred to a Select Committee.

In this connection, as the hon. member for Rosettenville indicated, the sitting of the new institution is important. It is important that it will be erected on Bantu trust land in the vicinity of Ga-Rankuwa. The hon. the Minister did not make it clear whether that university would fall within Bophuthatswana and would therefore be subject to the Government of Bophuthatswana. We have no objection to Bophuthatswana’s obtaining its own academic institutions if there is a need for this and if it is practicable. However, if it is to be an institution, and the only one of its kind at that, which is to serve all the Bantu population groups, it seems obvious to me that the other homeland leaders and governments must be consulted in this regard. The Government of Bophuthatswana has already indicated that it will probably request constitutional independence. If the proposed institution will in fact be situated within Bophuthatswana …

But you know that is not so.

I pointed out that the hon. the Minister had indicated that it would be erected on Bantu trust land outside Ga-Rankuwa.

At this stage, yes.

That is correct. However, the hon. the Minister gave no indication of whether it would fall inside or outside Bophuthatswana. Surely that is quite clear. [Interjections.] All I want to say is that it would be strange to have Bantu Trust land which falls outside a homeland.

It is not impossible.

Let me say further that it is obvious that major problems may arise if that institution which is to provide for all Bantu population groups were to be situated inside one particular homeland, especially if that homeland were eventually to achieve independence.

My time has almost expired. I just want to say that it seems essential to me that if a medical school is in fact to be established in the Transvaal—it would appear to me that it is—consideration should also be given, as the hon. member for Rosettenville indicated, to the question of whether that unspecified placed near Ga-Rankuwa is the right place for that institution to be established. The question was asked here by the hon. member for Rosettenville whether Soweto, for example, with its large concentration of people, would not be a better place, using Baragwanath as a training hospital. The hon. member for Rosettenville also explained our objections to the concept of a separate independent so-called medical university which is able to confer its own degrees. The hon. member for Lydenburg may say that overseas universities made all kinds of positive comments, but we know that as far as the South African set-up is concerned, that kind of thing is a completely foreign phenomenon. The only kind of medical training we know is in the form of faculties attached to existing universities. The question that this Select Committee should consider, therefore, is whether there is not an existing university institution which could be linked to such an institution for degree purposes at least.

I need not say that the training of doctors in South Africa has a special tradition, a tradition of high standards, of academic integrity and of service to the community as a whole, and it would be tragic if we were to establish an institution which might violate that tradition.

Of course, there are major ideological difference between the Government and the Opposition in regard to our universities. This is a fact. We have frequently emphasized, as has just been done here again by the hon. member for Rosettenville, that we are opposed in principle to the racial exclusiveness on which the Government bases its university policy. We have contended that all universities in South Africa should be free to decide who they want to admit as students. Similarly, we on this side of the House have rejected the principle of ethnic exclusiveness, as applied in the Bantu universities. In this regard, the Snyman report fully supported our view that it has been and is an undesirable principle. We find it illuminating that the institution which is being provided for in this Bill will be organized on a multi-ethnic or multi-national basis. And this applies to the composition of the council as well as to the student community. I just want to say thank heavens we have moved away at last from the idea of an exclusive council and from the ill-conceived practice of an advisory council to which this Government clung for so many years.

I should be neglecting my duty if I failed to express serious misgivings about the fact that we still think, in the times in which we live, or the creation of institutions, specifically academic institutions, on a purely racial basis. In theory—I emphasize, in theory—one might still be able to justify the establishment of a university for the Zulu, for example, or for the Xhosa, because it might be said—we have often heard this said by the hon. members opposite—that such an institution could play an important part in the development of a particular nation because it could promote national pride, and so forth. In any case, these theoretical considerations are not applicable to the proposed institution. The institution as envisaged in this Bill is one which is based purely on the principle of racial separation and racial exclusiveness, and in that sense it is unacceptable to us. It can only serve to do further harm to our international reputation, especially because we are concerned here with something which is of a non-political nature, i.e. the training of doctors and dentists. It is completely incomprehensible that as far as sport, hotels, and so many other fields are concerned, we should have realized that we cannot continue with the principle of racial differentiation and racial exclusiveness, but that we should produce a new academic institution here in which we want to apply that principle once again. One has the impression that the Government believes that friction can be eliminated by keeping people apart as far as possible. In my opinion, that approach is completely untrue and incorrect. That old-fashioned concept, that we can prevent friction by keeping people apart, has proved to be untrue. I should like to argue that matter further, but time does not allow me to do so.

Where is your proof?

These standpoints which I have stated do indeed testify to major ideological differences between us on this side of the House and hon. members on the other side, but I believe that the training of doctors is so important to our total population that in view of the responsibility which rests on the Government, more even than on us, we should make every attempt to put that matter first and to achieve the largest possible measure of concensus. Therefore I want to repeat my appeal that a Select Committee is the obvious body for ironing out these problems and for attempting to achieve that concensus.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall come back to the hon. member for Edenvale, but I just want to start by saying that the hon. member does not like one to call back the past. He took it amiss of the hon. member who spoke just before him that he went back 30 years into the past. I think the hon. member for Edenvale is ashamed of his past. In life, if one tries to run away from oneself, from one’s people, from standpoints one has adopted in the past, one will never find peace of mind in one’s own soul. One will always be running away. I think that the hon. member will never be effectual in this House either, because in debate he will always have to be refuting things of which he was once convinced. Especially once one is older, this detracts a great deal from one’s credibility and makes one very ineffectual. But I shall come back to a few things which the hon. member for Edenvale said.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this Bill which, in terms of clause 2, establishes a university called the Medical University of Southern Africa. If memory serves me, the hon. the Minister has now served for a little over ten years as Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. This has been a decade during which the hon. the Minister has carried the full responsibility for Bantu education. However, this university which is to be established will not only be a milestone which the hon. the Minister may look back on with pride, but testimony, too, to the purposeful growth and development of the multinational policy of the National Party. However, the establishment of this university will also be of inestimable significance as regards service to all the peoples of Southern Africa. Man and beast will profit from the activities of this university. It is ironical that so many negative things have been said and written about the coming and the presence of Europeans in Africa and that nothing whatever is said about the introduction to Africa of so many of the best cultural elements of the European—this is suppressed completely. This statement is far more true of South Africa, not only as far as the Whites are concerned but particularly as far as the National Party is concerned, too. The past quarter century, or a little more than a quarter of a century, has been characterized to such an extent by a massive propaganda onslaught against the National Party, that the real and positive progress made in regard to the establishment of generally-accepted elements of civilization has been minimized to a very great extent. At the time of the victory of the National Party in 1948, it was openly proclaimed that everything in South Africa would come to a standstill and that everything would be destroyed. The policy statements of our leaders were not accepted. I want to quote an excerpt from a speech made by Dr. Malan in 1948 (Hansard, Vol. 64, col. 219)—

Now comes the important part—

In other words, in 1948, notwithstanding all the prophecies of doom, the Prime Minister was at that time able to state categorically that we were not opposed to tertiary education for the non-Whites, but were prepared to provide it, on our own conditions and in accordance with our own view, and it is on that basis that people should judge us today, not according to the principle—because we differ on that—but according to what we have achieved in practice with the means at our disposal. This university to be established is not an isolated educational institution unconnected with the South African community. Superficial and wilful critics of the National Party, such as the hon. member for Edenvale, are quick to make out that we want to put forward this university as a piece of propaganda with which we want to appease the world, or that domestically we want to put it forward as a toy with which we want to console the Bantu people. The effect of criticism of this kind is no longer valid today, and I want to tell the hon. member for Edenvale that it is no longer effective, either. However, this university is one of the products of the education policy of the National Party, a policy—and we have never been ashamed of this—based on the multinational character of the population of this country. History furnishes the most conclusive proof that from the start the National Party has supported the principle of education, sound education, for all the peoples. Sir, I want to quote here what the late Dr. Verwoerd, as Minister of Native Affairs, said with regard to Bantu education policy. In a speech in the Other Place on 7 June 1954, Dr. Verwoerd said the following (Senate Hansard, Vol. 2, col. 2618.)—

Sir, criticism of the National Party has been directed mainly at its approach to university training. This is the case again this afternoon with the hon. member for Edenvale. He did not attack the Bantu education policy of the National Party as such, but he did attack the point of view and the approach of the National Party university policy in South Africa. Although we cannot discuss it this afternoon, I want to refer the hon. member to the report of the Van Wyk De Vries Commission, which points out very clearly the difference between our view as regards universities, which is based on service to the individual within his own national community and the classic approach of the UP, that a university should serve a general world, free of national links and to a large extent free from the ideals of the group it has to serve. Sir, the hon. member does now apologize for his conception of a university and I do not apologize for our conception of a university. That is where the difference between us as regards principle lies, namely in our view with regard to universities, and this is something which one can debate. But the fact that the NP has carried out its policy in a way that has been true to its principles and promises, and is still doing so.

Mr. Speaker, this university does not represent the end of the development in this sphere, but is only a precursor of further development. Criticism of this Bill cannot really be directed at the aim of the Bill itself. In my opinion it can only be directed at the fact that Bantu Students will no longer enrol at the medical school of the University of Natal. The fact that hon. members of the Opposition want a commission of inquiry means that they want a commission of inquiry into universities in South Africa. That is all this will amount to and that is why I cannot agree with their amendment.

The criticism levelled at this university by that side of the House is, firstly, to the effect that two medical schools—the UP has not yet said this, but it may be said—are better than one. Accordingly, they can say that the establishment of this university will involve too much financial expenditure, something we cannot afford economically, and thirdly, that the establishment of this university will harm us in the eyes of the world. Furthermore, the UP can also say that it will disturb Black/White relations in South Africa. Sir, I want to dwell for a moment on the problems I have mentioned here. As far as the first point is concerned—viz. that two medical schools will be better than one—I want to say that it appears that the hon. members of the Opposition are against this specific university in principle, too. They say that more universities can be established, but not of this specific kind. Sir, I must agree at once that two universities are better than one, on condition that both of those universities must comply with the requirements we set a university, because this university is not the end of the medical training we envisage for the non-Whites in South Africa. As long ago as 25 years ago we said that in the course of time, as financial and other circumstances permitted, we would not be able to escape our responsibilities. Just as Dr. Malan and Dr. Verwoerd put it 25 years ago, we, too, are today still saying that this university does not represent the end of medical training of the non-Whites in South Africa. Secondly, Sir, there is the economic aspect. Hon. members elaborated on this too, and said that our cost figures with regard to the present medical school were incorrect. Seen superficially, it could be said that one could extend an existing university by providing more facilities, using less money than one would spend on a entirely new institution. Sir, what I find so strange is that it is specifically that side of the House which is always accusing the National Party of not wanting to spend money on the Bantu. In the light of their so-called approach with regard to the Bantu, the UP ought really to applaud this. They ought to be very pleased that we are prepared to spend this money in the midst of difficult financial and economic circumstances. That is why I cannot see how there can be criticism from those people who supposedly understand nothing about the NP. The fact that we want to spend money on education ought to satisfy everyone in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it is also said that in the eyes of world opinion, we are not doing the right thing here. But the concept of a world opinion is a very vague one. In any event we shall never be able to satisfy the communists and their fellow-travellers. However, I am convinced in my own mind that when we confront the world with this matter and state the fact that we are establishing a university of their own for the non-Whites in South Africa, for the training of medical practitioners, dentists and veterinarians, no intelligent person will have any complaint about that.

Furthermore, it can also be said—and is in fact said—that we will be disturbing relations between White and non-White in South Africa. We differ on that standpoint as well. The NP believes that when people develop within their specific national context and when, too, provision is made for their requirements in all spheres within that same national context, relations need not necessarily be disturbed. In fact, the opposite is true. When people are intentionally brought together, relations between population groups can be disturbed.

As regards the admission of Bantu students to this university, we can only take cognizance of what has been said by Bantu themselves in connection with the requirements for admission. A former Minister of Health of the Ciskei, Mr. Japhta, expressed himself as follows on this point—

The disturbing of relationships which could occur in this case did not come from the NP. In my opinion the responsibility must be laid at the door of the people who determine the requirements for admission, the people who selected the students for the university in question. In a debate Mr. Mnandsa said, inter alia, the following—

He goes on to quote Prof. Adams. He said—

Then the hon. professor goes on to say the following—

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the problems which has occurred, viz. that the responsible people at those universities have in my opinion discriminated against Bantu students. They have discriminated in the sense that they have not admitted as many Bantu students as they could have. When this was pointed out to them by Black people, they placed the responsibility for this on the NP. To maintain that in its education policy for the Bantu the NP has failed to set high requirements, is untrue. I am of the opinion that the reason fewer Bantu students are trained at the University of Natal is the failure of the responsible people at that university to consult the Bantu properly in this matter. This is one cardinal reason.

However, what was the standpoint of the NP with regard to the medical school of the University of Natal? In 1948—because in previous years they had been concerned with the development there—Mr. Jan Hofmeyr asked what the standpoint of the NP would be with regard to the medical school there. The then Minister of Education, Dr. A. J. Stals, expressly stated that the NP Government intended to continue with the development of that university. In that respect this Government did in fact keep its word, and did so in such a way that in an article written in 1966 Prof. Brooks could say the following in regard to this institution—

Mr. Speaker, when someone like Prof. Brooks makes such a statement, it is proof that the NP has to the best of its ability seen to it that that medical school did not come to nothing— because the NP took upon itself the responsibility for this.

Mr. Speaker, the total number of Bantu matricultants has continued to increase in recent years. In 1971 there were 1 326 Bantu pupils in matric. In 1975 the number increased to 3 520. In 1971 the number of matriculants taking mathematics was 392, whereas in 1975 it was 1 224. In 1971, 303 Bantu pupils took physical science and chemistry as a matriculation subject as against 963 in 1975, whereas 1 116 matric pupils in Bantu schools took biology as a subject in 1971, a total which grew to 2 952 in 1975. This proves that the NP has established a sound foundation for Bantu education, one on the basis of which fruitful development can now take place.

The hon. member for Rosettenville maintains that we should not move this university because the majority of its students are from Natal. However, I want to tell the hon. member that according to statistics only 12% of the students are from Natal whereas 47% are from the Transvaal. The argument advanced by the hon. member for Rosettenville therefore holds no water.

Another very important matter I want to mention with regard to the universities in question is the following. I want to refer to clause 10(d) in which the following is stated—

This relates to the composition of the council of the university—

1. (e) one person from each of the faculties of medicine and dentistry of the University of the Witwatersrand appointed by the council of the University of the Witwatersrand.

The hon. member for Rosettenville stated that we had not consulted the various universities in South Africa. The hon. member for Edenvale elaborated on more or less the same idea. I can now tell hon. members that I do not think they read the Second Reading speech by the hon. the Minister, because here is the proof that we not only consulted those people but that we are in fact going to appoint those people to the council of the university. As a person with very close links with the University of Pretoria I want to say that I am grateful that my own alma mater is going to serve on the council in this way and that we at the University of Pretoria can put our years of experience at its disposal, and not only with regard to the doctors, either. When he tried to persuade us to accept his amendment, the hon. member for Edenvale said nothing about the training of dentists or the training of veterinarians. But here we are in fact causing the University of Pretoria with all its knowledge and its insight, to be involved in this new university which is to be established. We go even further. We do not only take a university which to a large extent shares our view with regard to universities; we also make use of the University of the Witwatersrand which has a totally different point of view with regard to universities. To us, however, the point of view of a university is not the issue—it is the real scientific contributions which those two universities can make. I do not think the hon. member for Edenvale can insinuate in any way that as far as this university is concerned we are not going to provide the finest academic facilities for the Bantu, because here we are involving two universities which, in the light of their own history and their own knowledge and experience, can make a contribution to the benefit of these people.

There is another provision I want to mention and that is the clause relating to discipline. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that personally I am very grateful that there is a clause, clause 21, which states specifically that a student at the university is subject to the disciplinary provisions laid down by the council by way of statutes or regulations. I am very grateful that this specific provision exists because, specifically in the light of the point of view relating to universities held by the hon. member for Edenvale no university can really be a university if it lacks the power to enforce discipline. I want to appeal to the council and the senate of the university, together with its staff, to maintain there from the outset the kind of discipline which will really make a contribution to this particular university.

I now come to more or less the end of my speech. Throughout his speech the hon. member for Edenvale did nothing but try to place this university in an unfavourable light in the eyes, not only of the Whites of South Africa, but also of the Bantu, of the non-Whites of South Africa, and he did so by using one term. To be specific, he referred to this university as the so-called medical university. It amazes me that the hon. member for Edenvale, who was himself attached to a university for many years and who ought to know better than any person in this House what the leftist elements in South Africa have said about Bantu universities in South Africa, can adopt such an attitude. I want to ask him to indicate at a later stage, under the vote of the hon. the Minister, in what respect the qualifications and the standards of the Bantu universities are so poor and why, since he and I want to advance the cause of the training of medical practitioners, he should today want to place this university in a poor light right from the outset. The hon. member is shaking his head, but I hold it against the UP that its two speakers have by no means made out a case for our accepting their amendment. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I am getting a chance to speak in a reasonably tranquil atmosphere this afternoon. To begin with I should like to express a few general ideas. In the first place I want to express my appreciation towards the members of the Opposition—especially the first speaker, the hon. member for Rosettenville—for not having spoken of this project in a derogatory manner in their discussion of this matter. I really do appreciate it. I recall the year 1959-’60 when we dealt here with the extension of University Education Act in terms of which we established the Bantu universities. At that time we heard many derogatory things in this Chamber. I am not laying this at anybody’s door, but I just want to say that I am glad that a similar spirit did not prevail here today. There was a hint of this, and the hon. member for Rissik referred to it, from the hon. member for Edenvale, but I shall forgive him for that. After all, he sins so much in politics that I can forgive him that small sin. He is so often confronted with his other political sins—and I think I am still going to do the same in this very debate—that I shall not hold this small one against him. I must say, however, that the hon. member for Rosettenville surprised me somewhat. In my time I have often listened to him in this Chamber and he has always been someone who can state his case forcefully. But today he was very unconvincing. I think that the hon. member, as a doctor of standing, did not really have such serious misgivings about the Bill as he wanted to suggest. He asked quite a few questions about the institution as such, questions to which I shall come back in due course.

I want to thank hon. members on my side and on the opposite side for their contributions, and when I say “on the opposite side” I mean only half of the opposite side, because up to now we have in fact had participation in this debate from the side of the Official Opposition only. They at least did their duty by taking up a standpoint, I do not know whether this means that the PRP is supporting us fully this time as far as this Bill is concerned. We shall still have to see.

Where is the PRP?

An amendment has been moved and I think I owe it to this House to give an indication at the first opportunity of our feelings on this side of the House about this amendment. I do not want to leave any doubt, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Rissik too, that the amendment is not acceptable at all. In fact, I think that the amendment is quite unnecessary because the matters raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville and also by the hon. member for Edenvale, matters which they apparently want to have investigated by a Select Committee, are matters which fall outside the scope of this Bill, completely outside the scope of this Bill. With all due respect to everybody who participated in this debate, I must point out that the facilities at Wentworth are completely outside the scope of this Bill. Consequently I do not know how a Select Committee to be appointed on this Bill, will be able to go into the Wentworth matter.

I know that on this happy day preceding our Easter recess, there is an agreement that we adjourn a little earlier. Sir, I think it is clear to you that I am suffering from an early winter cold and because of that I take pleasure in moving, if it pleases you—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.