Mr. Chairman, last night the political party I represent in this House was challenged by the hon. members for Waterkloof and Schweizer-Reneke as to what our attitude was to violence and as to what our attitude was to law and order. I think I can answer that best by quoting the words of my leader when he spoke in this House last Thursday night and when he said the following—

That summarizes the attitude of this party towards violence and towards law and order. [Interjections.]

Order!

Last week a valued member of the PRP, a medical doctor, a Johannesburg city councillor and a provincial councillor, Dr. Selma Browde received a letter from the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg, Mr. De Wet, as follows—

It is signed, somewhat incongruously, “Yours Sincerely”.

Upon receiving this letter, Dr. Browde immediately attempted, initially without success, to contact the magistrate concerned. The next day she wrote to the Chief Magistrate and I should like to quote one paragraph of her letter—

1. (i) if you purported to issue the letter under any statutory provision, and if so, which;
2. (ii) on whose authority or instruction you sent the letter.

I have not at any time interfered in the present unrest, nor have I the intention of doing so. In view of the obscure wording of your letter, would you please tell me what you have in mind as constituting an ‘interference’ and what it is you believe I am entitled to do as an elected public representative both of the Transvaal Provincial Council and of the Johannesburg city council.”

She goes on—

As far as I am aware, Dr. Browde has as yet not received a reply to that letter although she did receive a telephone call yesterday from Assistant Magistrate Fourie to say that the Chief Magistrate had no comment to make. I think it is not inappropriate, Sir, at the moment to say a few words about the person concerned, for the benefit of hon. members of this House and of South Africa.

Dr. Browde is a respected political figure in Johannesburg and enjoys the overwhelming support of her constituents.

Agitator!

On a point of order, Sir, is an hon. member allowed to accuse another hon. member of being an agitator?

Order! No reference was made to an hon. member. The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, her views are well-known. She is an opponent of apartheid and of this Government. Her publicly stated standpoints, properly and democratically expressed, are heavily disputed by members on the Government benches. We know that. She is an opponent of violence in any form, and on numerous occasions she has made speeches earnestly warning the Government of the possibility of unrest and violence if the grievances of urban Blacks are not taken seriously. [Interjections.] Her many warnings in fact have proved, somewhat tragically, prophetic. She has pleaded, in some instances successfully, for reforms and improvements in Soweto, electrification being an example. She has for several years taken up the unpopular task of bearing the cudgels for those who are underprivileged and impoverished and often without representation. She has been, Sir, in South Africa’s front line in building bridges of goodwill, including soothing frustrated feelings. [Interjections.] Members of the NP may not agree with me, but there is no one, even including the hon. the Minister, who can with validity criticize the value of that person’s work. Secondly—and I invite the hon. the Minister to comment on this—there is no possibility that she has done anything which remotely can be regarded as being subversive, undermining or inciting. On the contrary, her work at every level has been geared in the totally opposite direction; to relieve distress, to point out to the Government the urgent and vital need for change.

Why then was this letter sent to her at this time and in this form? The letter itself lacks the courtesy of a proper address and the titles “councillor” or MPC were not even used in the letter. Did the Chief Magistrate know to whom he was writing? There was no reference to or any indication of the authority under which he was writing, no general warning to exercise caution or to use discretion; it was merely a bold warning not to interfere.

On a point of order, Sir: We are discussing the Police Vote. Yet we have been listening for some time now to matters pertaining to a letter from the magistrate, which comes under Justice. I submit that this has nothing whatever to do with this Vote.

The hon. member was asked by other hon. members in the course of this debate to deal with this matter. He has also consulted the Chair as to whether he may discuss the matter here.

Mr. Chairman, the word “interfering” was not qualified in any way and it is vague in the extreme.

With respect, Sir, whether notice has been given or not, whether there has been consultation or not, my submission is that it is irrelevant to the Police Vote.

Order! The Chair has a discretion as to what to allow in the debate. As I have said, the Chair has been consulted in this matter and has given permission for the matter to be discussed. Moreover, the hon. member was specifically asked by other hon. members to comment on this matter. The hon. member may proceed.

We in these benches believe that this letter constitutes a severe and unwarranted invasion of Dr. Browde’s rights as a public representative, and an undemocratic interference with her ability to carry out her obligations in that capacity. What are the effects of such a letter? It inevitably becomes public property. We have already seen, in this House, the members for Brentwood and I think Schweizer-Reneke making reference to the matter. That public representative’s good name has been blackened in a most insiduous manner and at a time when feelings are running high. It seems to me to be the policy of at least some members of this House to silence, by any means possible, the most legitimate of critics.

Sir, I should like to address myself to the hon. the Minister and to say that there are no subversive or undesirable elements among PRP public representatives, nor amongst its membership. [Interjections.] We, together with Dr. Browde, are a group of South Africans who love our country and its peoples, all of them, and who see as our vital task, inter alia, the democratic role of pointing out to South Africans a better way than apartheid, a safer way than entrenched discrimination, a more compassionate way than authoritarianism. That is in the interests of all of us, and if that was her sin, Sir, then it is our sin as well, as well as the sin of hundreds of thousands of South Africans, countrymen of ours. None of us would interfere or aggravate in any way the disturbances which have occurred and neither would Dr. Browde. I do believe, to put it at the very best, that this Government has made a grave error, and I call upon the hon. the Minister to withdraw that offending letter without further ado.

Mr. Chairman, we listened to an attempt—in my submission—to discredit the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg, to intimidate him not to use his discretion to write such letters as he may deem advisable in the course of maintaining law and order. It would not be proper for me to comment on the goodness or badness of the honour of a member of the provincial council as it would go against the rules of this hon. House. However, I want to associate myself completely with the letter written by the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg. He should not be intimidated by speeches made in this House in exercising his discretion in the course of maintaining law and order.

You do not know the facts.

I saw one ray of light in yesterday’s debate and that was when the hon. member for Yeoville replied to a question which had been put by the hon. member for Stilfontein. The hon. member for Stilfontein asked him whether he entirely agreed with the speech which had been made by the hon. member for Sandton, and the hon. member responded immediately by saying: Tell me what you mean.

That is not what I said. [Interjections.]

You may keep the insinuation and your finger to yourself.

Order! The hon. member must not address other hon. members directly; he must address them through the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ask the hon. member for Yeoville to keep his finger to himself. However, the point I want to make, is that it is quite obvious that the hon. member for Yeoville did not agree with everything said by the hon. member for Sandton. I want to know with what part he does not agree. There is still time for the hon. member for Yeoville to call us during the discussion of this Vote with what parts of the speech he does not agree. The hon. member is making his speech under safe and secure circumstances from where he is sitting in his bench, instead of getting up to tell us what his attitude is. I should like to give that party another name, although it has a great many names as it is. I do not want to call it the PRP but the Pilate Party. It is a Pilate Party, for when fires are burning, which it largely helped to light, its members want to wash their hands in innocence and say: We have not done anything. They ask why the police have not fired rubber bullets instead. They are a Pilate Party pretending to have the interests of the police at heart. I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Sandton in which he said—

†I want to say to the hon. member that beauty is in the eye of the beholder—that is true—but condemnation is also in the eye of the beholder. As far as the party of the hon. member is concerned, it seems to be impossible for the police to do anything to the advantage of the maintenance of law and order in this country, in the eyes of that party.

*I should like to go further and point out what the approach of those hon. members is. I want to isolate a few facets of the speech of the hon. member, and I quote the following passage from his speech—

The hon. member said: “According to a statement made to me.” He did not say who the informer was or how reliable the informer was. He went on to say: “An officer tried to arrest a schoolboy.” He gave the impression that this was a small boy. He continued—

I should like to pause at this quotation. Can hon. members believe that the police could set out to arrest a small schoolboy and not succeed in doing so? This small boy went as far as setting fire to a policeman’s car. The hon. member then alleged with a great deal of satisfaction: “I believe the officer escaped unhurt.” Then it was no longer á schoolboy. He then went on to say—

By this time the man evidently had a house; now he was a young man. He went on to say: “He was spirited away.” This small boy was then spirited away. “And he has not been seen since.” What is the insinuation of this? Is it that the police will take somebody away and “he has not been seen since”? He then asked, “I want to know why that boy has been arrested.” Was a car not set on fire? The whole approach in this regard is simply that the police must always be represented as the “oppressors”. They must be represented as the people who oppress and I ask hon. members: What party is the ringleader in this field? It is not necessary to reply to the question; all of us know and South Africa knows who the ringleaders are who are making the task of the police exceptionally difficult. The Wits students also marched down the street and I want to suggest that Soweto is as little the concern of the Wits students as it is the concern of Dr. Selma Browde. It is not in her constituency nor is it in her municipal ward. Soweto is not her concern, nor is it in her area. It is as little the concern of the Wits students. The PRP, however, has never taken it amiss of the Wits students for having asked irresponsibly and I shall tell hon. members why. It is because most of their votes come from that area. They are protecting their votes, because those people are their voters. They are not prepared to stand up for law and order. Then they ask why the police did not go out properly to suppress these riots. Why were they not wearing protective clothing? Why did they not fire rubber bullets? So is it their attitude then if the police are wearing the proper outfit, they may be stoned? Is that their attitude? Is it their attitude that all the trouble stemmed from the police not wearing the proper outfits and being forced to shoot because of that when they were stoned? Is that the problem?

Do you want the policemen to be injured?

I honestly want to say … [Interjections.]

Order!

Do you want it?

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must stop making interjections.

There should be no doubt about it that this side of the House is 100% in favour of the police protecting themselves at any price. Any person who picks up a stone and throws it at the police, is, in my opinion, not throwing that stone at a policeman; he is throwing it at law and order in South Africa. That must be prevented at all costs. [Interjections.] I repeat that South Africa cannot afford arson. Arson is by no means a reaction against the policy of the NP. It is a reaction against law and order and against our economic strength, which constitutes our military strength. The policy of the PRP should certainly be one of law and order, too, and this holds good for the UP too. If it is the policy of the PRP to maintain law and order, why are they so much for the agitator and against law and order which must be maintained? Is it really their policy to maintain law and order? That is my question to them.

Mr. Chairman, during the discussion of the Police Vote there is usually a great deal of interest in this House, interest which is usually of a very divergent nature. It has been pleasant for me to have been able to sit here during the past 10 years and see the reaction when this Vote is discussed. Before going any further, I want to express my gratitude to the police for the manner in which they are acting under the present circumstances in South Africa, and also for the manner in which they have repeatedly acted in the past. The statistics of last year show that the strength of the police of South Africa and South West Africa is approximately 35 500 men and they have to maintain law and order over 26½ million people. If those 26½ million people were all law abiding citizens, the task of the police would not have been so impossible. However, we all know what type of element has been coming to the fore in this country in the past year. All of us sitting here, know what those people are doing. Because the enemies of South Africa cannot defeat the Government by legal means, they try to do so by illegal means. That is why I am expressing my gratitude and appreciation for the action taken by the police in South Africa for the protection of all of us.

Yesterday it was pleasant for me to listen with great interest to the positive attitude the Official Opposition was adopting this year. I am grateful for the fact that they are adopting this attitude. Over the past few years I have been wondering what sort of voters the Progressive Party represents in this House. I find it strange that they do not, in fact, represent their normal voters here. I say this because every time something happens, they accuse the police or the Government of inhuman behaviour. One can go far back into history, as far back as the Rivonia trial or even further; one has always heard the same story. Their criticism has become intensified since 1974, after they happened to gain a few additional members temporarily. They always sympathize with those people who are undermining South Africa and who are making our position in South Africa impossible. According to my modest observation these are the type of people which they in fact represent. If this is the case, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister: How far may members of the House of Assembly actually go? How far may they go with things of this kind under the privilege of this House? Are they not subject to any restrictions …

Order! What is the hon. member insinuating? The hon. member may not make insinuations.

The only thing I want to know, is to what extent a member of the House of Assembly may make use of his privilege outside this House. However, I shall withdraw it, Sir, if you wish. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to invoke the Act he now has at his disposal, the one which was discussed in this House for approximately 27 hours this year. He must use the Act in order to take action against those elements which are sowing unrest. It ought not to matter which person is causing the unrest. I regret having to say this, but those clergymen who walk around with a Bible under the arm but do the devil’s work behind the scenes, are one of the first groups to which the hon. the Minister must pay attention. If they do their work as clergymen, we as the Government have nothing to do with them, because we do not interfere in their sphere. If they want to govern the country, however, they must come forward and present themselves as candidates. If they are in the majority, then they may govern the country. This, in my modest opinion, is what they should so.

In South West Africa one still finds many people of this type. The hon. the Minister has already dealt with some of them, but he must turn his attention to the others who are still there. What always happens to my way of thinking is that after White elements have done their work as inciters, it is the Black man who has to suffer the consequences. This has been so over the years, and this is what we have observed. It is because of the encouragement of the Whites that the Blacks have to suffer the consequences in the end. Whatever type of person is involved here, the hon. the Minister must take action, because we must maintain the law and order. South Africa is one of the few countries in the world which still maintain law and order, and because law and order has actually become a luxury article, South Africa has become the polecat of the world. It is for this very reason that these elements are trying to do the subversive work.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give this matter his serious attention and to take relentless action against this type of element. They are trying to create chaos in this country with the assistance of influences from abroad, and the day we allow this to happen, we shall sound the death-knell not only for the Whites in this country, but also for the vast majority of the decent non-White people in South Africa. Our problem is that we do not have any other country to go to, so I ask the hon. the Minister very seriously, to take action against these people by invoking the laws he has at his disposal. If the laws are inadequate, we must make laws to combat the threat posed by those elements. These elements remind one of an old saying of the farmers, which is that if one sees a pig, one must hit him on the snout with a piece of wood, because if he is not on his way back from the garden, he is on his way to the garden. Similar action must be taken against these elements. If the laws which are at the hon. the Minister’s disposal are inadequate, he must use this Parliament to give him the necessary powers so as to enable him to take action against those elements as they change.

On behalf of the Whites in South Africa, except for the small group who do not want this to be done, and also on behalf of the vast majority of the non-Whites in this country, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and his department and the entire Police Force most sincerely for their courageous action here and in South West Africa in maintaining law and order.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to report to this House that, to the best of our knowledge, everything is reasonably quiet this morning at the various focal points of the riots. I want to express the hope that no further riots will occur in this country and express my gratitude and appreciation to the various homeland leaders who deemed it necessary to make an appeal to their people to remain calm. We appreciate this. I am thinking in particular here of Mr. Lucas Mangope, who, in an area in which serious trouble could have developed, urged his people not to bum down property which they would simply have to erect again themselves. One appreciates his standpoint and his calm view of these matters.

Next I want to express my appreciation to all the hon. members who participated in this debate for their appreciation which they conveyed to the members of the S.A. Police. I do not think there was any person who did not extend his thanks to the S.A. Police, and I accept this with appreciation on behalf of the Force. The people appreciate tremendously what the Police tried to do for South Africa. I, in my turn also wish to extend my thanks to these men, the men who for days and nights on end tried to stop the riots and had to enter the danger zones so that we could calmly discuss the matter here. It is not easy to be a policeman. When the hon. member for Mariental was speaking about the pig, I thought of the word which people always use against the police during riots. This is indeed the case. They are always trying to beat the police across the snout. They do not know where we are going, but as soon as the Police come near them, they want to strike out at them. Sir, this is the kind of language which the rioters, pipsqueaks and petty people use against the S.A. Police, and to which our policemen have already grown accustomed. Do hon. members know under what tremendous provocation these young men sometimes have to act? Earlier in the debate mention was made of children, but, Sir, the South African policemen are not men with long beards either, they are also young men of 18 and 19 years who have to stand up to the so-called “schoolchildren” who are already 22 and who are sitting in the school benches because my hon. colleague is making it possible for them to acquire an education. The S.A. Police now has to stand up against them, only to be held up as the big thugs, the big, strong people who fight against little children, while the Black rioters are in reality much bigger and older than our men are. One must realize that these young policemen were faced with tremendous provocation, and it is a credit to their discipline that they do not exceed the bounds completely when people scream at them and call them pigs, and so on, and so forth.

Sir, I want to reply to a few of the speeches that were made earlier. The first speech was that of the hon. member for Umlazi. That hon. member raised quite a number of points to which I want to reply. I am sorry that I cannot react positively to his points, but I do want to tell him, that I appreciate his sincerity in respect of the police. He speaks from experience, and I am always glad to listen to him. Therefore I shall try to give full consideration to each point which he realises and discuss it with him. He is a worthy member and also a former member of the Police. He was divisional commissioner and brigadier. In contrast, I am only an honorary lieutenant. Or am I only a sergeant? I think I myself am still only an honorary sergeant still. They have not yet promoted me, although I hoped they would consider giving me promotion after the riots! Nevertheless, as the hon. member’s junior in the Police, I have to pay heed to what he tells me. The hon. member asked me about the camouflage uniforms and wanted to know why some appeared in camouflage uniforms and others did not. He said it created the impression that the Army was also taking a hand. He is quite correct, and it is a pity that that impression was created. Let me state quite unequivocally here today that we were fortunate that we did not have to use the Army in any way during this riotous situation. Yet we are entitled, in terms of the Police Act and the Defence Force Act, to appeal to the Army to come to our assistance in times of disorder. We were fortunate that we did not find it necessary on this occasion. The camouflage uniforms to which reference was made were worn by members of the riot units. In reply to a question I said this morning that we have riot units everywhere. The riot units were called in to assist the Police. They automatically wear camouflage uniforms when they are called in to quell riots. That is why there was a medley of camouflage uniforms and ordinary police uniforms to be seen. The hon. member also told me that camouflage uniforms can be bought anywhere. I went to look at the kind of camouflage uniforms which are being offered for sale in shops. These look quite different to the camouflage uniforms which are issued to the Police but confusion might arise, as the hon. member quite correctly remarked. However, I do not know how I will be able to prohibit something of this nature. But I shall have this investigated and try to establish whether the camouflage uniforms sold by shops to members of the public can be banned.

The hon. member for Umlazi and the hon. member for Sandton wanted to know why the Police do not have face guards and water cannon at their disposal. In fact, it was not suggested anywhere that members of the Police Force were injured on a large scale. Therefore, to have our policemen running around like knights of the Middle Ages, heavily armoured with coats-of-mail and visors, and goodness knows what else—policemen in such garb pursuing fleet-footed little Bantu all over the veld—is something I can hardly imagine. Not only would it be ridiculous, it is also completely unnecessary. In any case, a police officer will hardly be able to handle his rifle if he is also wearing a heavy flak jacket and a face guard. That is why it has been found that equipment of that nature would be totally impractical under our South African conditions. In America, England and in other densely built-up areas the police are forced to wear such accoutrements, because they have to move into crowds of people to disperse them. In South Africa this is not necessary. We have quite a lot of room in which to move. In Soweto, for example, there is quite a lot of room in which to move. In fact, there are wide open spaces adjoining the area.

The hon. member also asked whether it was not possible to separate the S.A. Police from the Public Service Commission. Other hon. members addressed similar requests. This is of course a popular request at the moment. It is very simple for an hon. member of the Opposition to argue that the department should be separated from the Public Service Commission and that the staff of that department should consequently receive a considerably higher salary. I want to emphasize that I do not think there is an hon. member in this House who has a greater appreciation of the Police Force than I do. I know what they are doing and I know what a difficult task they have to perform. Personally I should like members of the Police Force to receive far higher salaries than is the case at present. However, to maintain blindly that the Police Force should be separated from the Public Service Commission is an entirely different matter. I am not the Minister of the Interior.

If I were to argue that the Police Force should be separated from the Public Service Commission, the Department of Justice could also quite justifiably come forward with a similar request. The Secretary for Justice would be able to submit that there are hundreds of advocates in his department who should really be better paid; who should, for example, receive a salary comparable to the income of an advocate in private practice. Similarly, the Department of Education would be able to argue that teachers are highly educated people who even have masters’ and doctors’ degrees, and who are therefore justifiably entitled to a far higher salary. This could therefore serve as motivation for the education departments to want to separate themselves from the Public Service Commission.

In this way, too, the Department of Health would justifiably be able to submit that the hospitals under its control employ large numbers of well qualified doctors, that the doctors in the employ of the department do not earn salaries which are comparable with those of doctors in private practices, and that consequently it is also necessary for the Department of Health to be separated from the Public Service Commission. The same applies to nurses, of whom many are at present graduates. I could continue in this way. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services could argue along similar lines. That department has highly qualified staff members; many of them with doctor’s degrees. Then there is the Department of Water Affairs, with its large numbers of highly skilled engineers; people who nevertheless fall under the Public Service Commission. In that way virtually every Government department could justifiably argue that it no longer wants to fall under the authority of the Public Service Commission. I want to say at once that this cannot be done. There has to be some body or other which correlates the salaries in the Public Service.

You are not so naïve, Jimmy.

Despite the body’s name, there must nevertheless be a form of control in respect of Public Service salaries.

The one works regular hours while the other is in danger all the time.

Even within the Public Service Commission we ought to be able to revise the salaries of our police. I am in full agreement with that. I do not think there is a single member of this House who can accuse us of not having constantly tried to improve the position of the police, and of still trying to do so. However, we cannot simply withdraw the police from the Public Service and pay them more money. We live on the money we receive in tax; we do not make money like the Post Office, a railway or something of that nature. We have to use the taxpayers’ money for our salaries; so we cannot pay whatever salaries we like. But we would very much like to improve the position of the police, and I can assure the hon. members that the Commissioner of Police and I are constantly planning better benefits and conditions for our Police Force. Our policemen realize this too. But in spite of the fact that the salaries are not very high, the Police Force offers an exceptionally good career. In contrast with other directions, the Police Force offers a very good career. We have a 100% housing scheme, of which 43% has already been completed. The Force offers many benefits, but I do not want to mention them here because I want even more.

The hon. member for Middelland made an important contribution and said that the public should contribute more to counteracting riots and terrorism. This is something which should be brought very thoroughly to the attention of our people. Today the people are too inclined to ask: Where are the South African Police? If the police are not there, they look for them, but when the police are there, they want to know what the policeman is doing there. A policeman simply cannot win. What can the public do in this regard? The public can do a great deal, in the first place by not employing persons unlawfully. The public is committing a great sin by not following the normal channels when they need a servant. They regard it as bureaucratic red tape. They take a person at random from the streets and employ that person to work in the kitchen, or wherever it may be, and the next thing one hears is that a murder has been committed. There is no control over this kind of person; no one knows who he or she is. Recently we had the case on the Witwatersrand where 300 Rhodesians were unlawfully employed in homes.

Such persons usually work harder than others because they are afraid of being discovered. Employers are in this way doing South Africa an injustice. They must not do this under any circumstances; it is one of the major sins our people commit. It creates many problems for us, for one never knows whether it might not be a terrorist or a murderer who is working in one’s home. One does not know either whether such a person is not perhaps completely unscreened or uncontrolled. It is therefore very important that an employer should ascertain from the correct department whether such a person is entitled to be in his employ, whether he is competent or whether he has served any sentences. I am sorry to have to say this, but the time has arrived when we will have to prosecute more employers who commit these unlawful actions and not only the employee. The public can also be of assistance by not allowing people without identification to sleep on their premises. Many people have no idea at all who and what are sleeping on their premises. If one makes inquiries they usually do not know what is going on there. I think it is the duty of each one of us, particularly in these days, to ensure that we know about every person on our premises and to ensure that everyone sleeping there is entitled to be there and to sleep there. If we do not do this, we may experience difficulties in this regard, and then the police are called in again for assistance. The police cannot always deal with everything. Another way in which the public can be of assistance is to report everything which sounds and appears to be suspicious. Many people do not want to take the trouble. Many people have already told me that they do not want to go to court. However, it is not the duty of these people to go to court. This is a public service which is being rendered. If the one is afraid to go to court, and the next as well, we are never going to bring the criminal to justice. Many people walk past while a crime is being committed, and look the other way. The police then have to spend hours looking for persons who witnessed the crime. The public can help by being willing to help the police to fight crime.

The hon. member for Sandton referred to the arrest of a person at Naledi. The hon. member wanted to know why the policeman arrested the young person in question at school. Where else should he have arrested him? Where else could he have arrested him? What better place than the school was there to arrest that person? Is the hon. member aware of the fact that this young man is a member and an organiser of the BPC? Was he told that? After all, the hon. member was up there. The hon. member went ferreting around there to see what he could find against the South African Police. That is the reason why he went there. The hon. member for Sandton went there for no other purpose but to find something which he could use in this House against the South African Police. That is why he went up.

That is an unmitigated lie.

Why else did the hon. member go there?

Order! The hon. member for Sandton must withdraw the word “lie”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “lie”. The hon. the Minister told an untruth. It is not true.

Can the hon. member tell me for what other reason he went there? Why did he carry out an inspection there? Against whom did he do so? Against the BPC man, or against the police? The hon. member tried to ferret out something against the policeman and not against the BPC member, for the hon. member did not even know that this young man was a member of the BPC. The hon. member does not know it even now. I am now informing the hon. member that that is why the arrest took place. We were finding out what went on in those schools. Hon. members come along afterwards and criticize the fact that a person was arrested at a specific place and not elsewhere. Can the hon. member tell me where the police should have arrested him?

Make your speech.

The hon. member can say: “Make your speech” if he likes. But I want to tell the hon. member …

You have your opportunity to answer. You make your speech now.

Order!

Consider the insinuation which the hon. member made in this House against the policeman: “His home was visited and he was never seen again”. That is what the hon. member wanted to come and discuss in this House. He wanted to come and tell us that that man had disappeared. Of course the man disappeared; he is in goal. Where else would he be? Should we parade him in public every day? We are questioning the man. We are breaking the organization wide open. We are finding out what happened. And if the hon. member would give us a chance, and not be a constant millstone around our neck in this matter, then we could have broken up the entire organization and arrested more people. Hon. members ought to know that South Africa is going through very dangerous times, and that we need these laws.

I have said this on a previous occasion in this House. We need these laws to break up organizations of this kind. It is not easy to do so, because these people operate in two-man cells. That is why we have to question this young man, even if we question him for six months on end. I want to tell that hon. member that we cannot allow South Africa to go up in flames without breaking up this organization. And now the hon. member says: “In fact, people see the Force as a symbol of oppression”. Why does the hon. member say that? Does the hon. member not know that there are thousands of people in South Africa who see the S.A. Police for what it is, the friend of the public?

He said that, too.

Yes, he said that, too, but he also said other things. [Interjections.] The trouble is that the PRP gleefully helps to foster this kind of idea, that the police are the enemies of the people. They foster it gleefully. It is a fact. Just look at their questions. Look at the question the hon. member asked only this morning. The object is to find out whether a policeman had not perhaps beaten that man to death or shot him, or what transpired. They are always finding out what is happening solely on behalf of the non-Whites, only for those people, only for people of that kind. It is always aimed at the Police. And then they come here and utter this one sentence: “We have appreciation for the S.A. Police”. But they are not bluffing us. The hon. member for Houghton once came here with 17 names with the object of discovering the actions of the Security Police. She presented 17 names here, one of whom we knew nothing whatsoever about. When I asked her where she got this name from, she mumbled. Look at the Hansard report. It says “Inaudible”. She did not want to say out loud who had asked her. Sir, let me tell her that it is a certain organization which asked her and she lent herself to that. I am not saying that she was aware of it, but she lends herself to asking questions here so that they may know how to organize.

Yes. Dalling did the same thing.

Order!

The hon. member for Stilfontein referred to the kgotla system. Now, I know that the S.A. Police is not very fond of this system, but there I differ with them and I agree with the hon. member for Stilfontein. I think the kgotla system is a good system, provided they do not go to extremes with the penalties, and I wonder whether the time has not arrived for us to ask these people to deal with their own people and to give them certain statutory rights. I think the kgotla system is something which my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration, could consider to see whether we cannot give it a certain measure of statutory authority.

The hon. member for Pretoria West asked me whether assaults on the police should not constitute a more serious crime, more serious than it is today. I want to agree with him wholeheartedly. I think the time for that has arrived. It is a very good proposal that we should make an assault on a policeman, and knocking off his cap, a very serious crime. The policeman is the symbol of authority. I therefore think we should consider coupling this crime with a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine, for if we do not have more respect for the S.A. Police, I can tell you right now that South Africa is lost, for they are our first line of defence. I think it is a very good proposal, and I am going to give attention to it.

The hon. member for Albany asked for more police on the eastern border, particularly at Peddie. I have already replied to him, but I am going to consider this again and see whether we cannot do anything to help him in that regard. The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to members who buy themselves out of the Police Force. I am sorry that there are so many policemen who buy themselves out, but one must not forget that these are still young men. They graduate from the Police College, well disciplined, neatly groomed. They start work at a station, and immediately they are grabbed by the private sector. They are still too young to realize that the police career is better than the temporary advantage of a double salary. But they give in and buy themselves out. That is why we have hundreds of cases of people who want to return to the S.A. Police after the private sector is done with them. But the private sector likes a policeman because he is so disciplined and willing, and very fit. Therefore they buy them out. Many buy themselves out because they are transferred. This constitutes one of the greatest difficulties we have in the S.A. Police, but it is something we have to learn to live with. It is part of the conditions of service that one may be transferred. One has to be transferred if one wants promotion. One has to be transferred if one is given another post. If one has received a promotion in rank, one must inevitably be transferred to the place where that promotion is available.

Sometimes, if one has done something wrong, one must also be transferred. It frequently happens, and it is not the fault of the police or anyone else for that matter, that a person cannot adapt himself to the community. Often it is a young man who grew up in the city and who cannot adapt himself to a country area, or it is a country boy who cannot adapt very successfully to the urban community. It is very essential that there should be a sound relationship between the community and the police. When we find that there is friction between people and the policeman, we prefer to transfer the policeman. But our policemen understand why they are transferred. It is not being done because there is anything wrong; often it is as a result of promotion and frequently it is because he is required at a specific place. Eventually one comes to know the personalities of one’s officers; one comes to know the needs of the community and one realizes that the officer who is serving in an English-speaking community should preferably be working in an Afrikaans-speaking community, or that the one who is here, should rather be there. That is why one transfers him and in that way tries to bring out the best of his talents. Therefore this inevitably brings about transfers.

In a very good speech the hon. member for Eshowe pointed out that 43% of the Force already have subsidized housing. We are pleased that this is the case. We should like to raise this 43% to over 50%, for we are on our way to 100%. The Cabinet has decided in principle on 100% housing for the S.A. Police.

The hon. member for Windhoek made a very fine speech on a complicated matter in regard to the medical fund, to which I shall give attention. The hon. member’s speech was exceptionally good.

The hon. member for Mooi River asked why police reservists cannot be armed. That is a very good question. He says that members of the commandos are armed. However the members of the commandos are under a fixed discipline. They meet regularly and fall, as it were, under the Army. They have to attend drills at specified times, and rifles are issued to them. These they have to keep clean and learn how to work with them. The police reservist service, however, is completely voluntary, i.e. one simply hopes that the reservist will be there that evening. But if he has work to do he simply says that he cannot come. Hon. members themselves can understand that when one is working with people on such a casual basis, one can hardly thrust a rifle into their hands when the Force itself does not even have its own rifles, but has to obtain them from the Defence Force and from other places. We have our supply, but we do not manufacture rifles. Therefore we cannot issue all our rifles to reservists. We do not know whether the reservists are going to report for duty, and we do not know whether we might not perhaps need the rifle. However, when the reservist reports for duty, he is issued with a rifle. However, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Underberg reservists, for they are a fine team of reservists for whom we have the greatest appreciation. I should very much like to make an exception in their case, but if I were to make an exception in the case of Underberg, hon. members themselves will understand that reservists in any other town or city would say to us: Underberg are issued with rifles, why cannot we be issued with rifles, too? Quite probably other reservists will not come to work so regularly and in such a full complement. We would be in trouble if we issued everyone with rifles and the people did not come to work. That is the problem. But I shall look into this once again. I do not think that I can solve the problem, and I am furnishing the hon. member with my reasons for saying this. In the meantime I want to express my greatest appreciation to the Underberg reservists for the work they are doing and I want to give them the assurance that it is not because I do not want to give them rifles that they are not being issued with rifles, but because of the reasons I have set out.

The hon. member for Springs asked me why reservists of the 18-year-old age group are not being used. The 18-year-olds are called up to the Army to do their military service, and we are not inclined to interfere with 18-year-olds who have not yet completed their military service; we wait until a person has completed that phase of his life. After that they may join the police reservists.

I think that I have now replied to the questions raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Overvaal made a very good speech. He did not ask anything of me, yet I want to tell him that I think it was an exceptionally good speech. I should like to come to the hon. members for Pinelands and Sea Point. However, I had a private conversation with the hon. member for Sea Point and shall therefore not reply to him. The hon. member for Pinelands told me: “The reason why the police are not liked is that they have to implement a policy which is abhorrent”. The hon. members of the PRP are trying to make the poor social conditions of Black and Brown people the means for causing the separate development programme of the National Party Government to miscarry. The hon. members of that party are trying to identify the poor social conditions with the Afrikaner and the National Party Government. That is what those hon. members are trying to do. They always refer to poor social conditions and then blame the South African Police for their actions there, or they blame the National Party Government, and in that way the Afrikaner in general. They have already taken this so far that the image of the Afrikaner among the Black and Brown people is being identified with everything which is poor. The hon. members are always doing this, and I can give a few examples. The hon. member for Rondebosch visits the Coloured area and with great lamentation he tells people that there are a 1 000 or 2 000 squatters and that it is the Government’s fault. One would swear this Government has 10 000 houses available so that the squatters streaming in from the rural areas can simply walk into a house. However, if such a person should find accommodation in a shanty, two bodies are blamed for that: The Government and the South African Police, who have to drive them out of it. However, the hon. members will never tell these people that they should remain in the rural areas until work opportunities are available for them or until housing is available for them. The hon. members of that party will never tell them that. They immediately blame the Government for the poor social conditions and always try to identify the Government with those conditions.

What are the two reasons for the conditions, and what is really happening in South Africa? I should like to tell the members of the PRP, in all friendliness, that in the eyes of right-minded people they are being identified with the Black Power struggle. The ordinary Black person, the majority of our Black people, are grateful for what this Government is doing for them. Many of them know that we are uplifting them, and that we are improving their standards of living. They know this. But that small group, the malcontents, seize upon the stories which are being spread by the PRP about so-called poor social conditions. It is usually the tsotsi element, that does not want to work in any case, that crawl into those shanties. A man who does his work in a decent way and eventually gets a house, does not go around spreading those stories. I now want to tell the PRP that their difficulty is that they are, in the eyes of right-minded people, being identified with this struggle. One need only consider the questions which are being asked in Parliament. They are always concerned only with detentions and what the Government has not yet done for the Black people. One would swear that they do not represent any constituencies. One never hears a word on behalf of their voters. I wonder whether the voters ever call them to account. The hon. member for Sea Point referred in a debate here to a “redistribution of wealth”. However, he did not say how we should “redistribute” that “wealth”. He did not tell us whether he wanted to deprive some people of their property and give it to the Black people.

I did tell you.

How are you going to have a redistribution of wealth? Is the hon. member not aware that those stories, viz. “the redistribution of wealth”, occur in two places? They occur in the socialist and in the communist programmes. That is where they speak of “a redistribution of wealth”. Now that party is identifying with them.

If Afrikaans had been the grievance that caused these riots we could have eliminated it a long time ago. But that is not the grievance. The fact of the matter is that the ANC, the BPC, Saso and these people are still engaged in bringing about polarization. They are still inciting people. The PRP always speaks to those people who pursue sentiments of this kind. And they always come up for them.

That is completely untrue.

The PRP is always sympathetic towards them when they speak of “change”. They say “change is important and it must be done now. Time is running out”. I see the hon. member opposite is nodding his head. I want to ask that hon. member: What time is running out? If the hon. member had wanted to make a good speech today, he would have risen to his feet and have said that as long as the S.A. Police are there “time will not be able to run out”. However, he did not do that. He simply told us that “time is running out” and that we have to prepare ourselves for the confrontation. Now we have the confrontation. The hon. member says they are not being identified with this kind of thing. Here in my hand I have a banned publication, Nkululelo, which is published by the S.A. Communist Party. Here they say the following—

The PRP must be careful. If those people should ever succeed—in South Africa they will not succeed, I can assure hon. members of that—those hon. members would be among the first that they would tackle because they have a white skin and because those people are Black people. That is how matters stand. Just listen to what these people say.

They speak the same language as Boraine.

Order!

The PRP talks of “change South Africa”, but those people talk of “changing the world”.

Do you not believe that change is necessary at all?

I believe that change is necessary. I am coming to that; just stick around. Let us see what these people have to say. I quote—

That explains it!

Those hon. members help to do that. Just listen to this one—

Then they go on to say—

They also say the following—

One wonders who the others are. That hon. member must not jump to his feet now and say that I am smearing advocates. This comes from their official publication, and I do not know why those names were mentioned. It is they who call these people “comrades”, not I. It is not I who am saying this. The warning to the PRP, however, lies therein that they should not allow themselves to be identified with this Black Power movement. It is the most dangerous movement in South Africa, not only for the Black people but also for the White people—for the Black people because they will allow themselves to be misled. However, the White people will not allow it, because we are not expendable. We are going to remain here. We are prepared, in common with our Black citizens, to build up South Africa. Like the hon. member I fully concede that many changes will take place. As the standard of living of these people rises, many changes will come about, but it is my solemn conviction that this Government has nothing to be ashamed of. This Government has done its best to uplift people, to conduct dialogue with people, to discuss their problems with them and to spend money to rectify matters in South Africa. For those hon. members to hit out at separate development as they are doing is to place their own heads in a noose, for the policy of their party is going to lead to a Black majority Government, as surely as they are sitting there. They have no choice. They cannot avert it. Only this Government can bring about a just dispensation so that the White man and the Black man can find one another. There are increasing numbers of responsible Black people who realize that the Prog talk is simply aimed at winning a few votes in the English-speaking constituencies. If I were an English-speaking person who had to vote for the United Party or for the Progressive Reform Party, I would rather vote for the UP than for the PRP.

Yes, that is logical.

I am saying this very candidly now. I have just indicated why. It is because they are identifying themselves with forces which will demolish South Africa. That is the reason. They will only succeed in having themselves identified with those people. The time has now arrived to say this, and the time has also arrived for those people to reflect. The time has now arrived for all of us to take one another by the hand and march forward to freedom and prosperity for Black, White and Brown, on a basis of respect for one another’s nationalities and aspirations. Let us rather help one another than try to break one another down. That is the trouble.

Like the Broederbond in Newcastle.

There that chicken is making peeping noises in his coop again. He referred to the Broederbond, something he knows nothing about.

What about the Broederbond take-over in Newcastle?

Sir, the hon. member does not know what the entire political debate is all about. He must first return to the pulpit for a few years so that he can realize what is happening. Sir, I want to appeal to all of us to stand together, and say to these people who were involved in these riots that what they did was wrong. Let us not simply try to find out what the S.A. Police did there; let us say to the people there that they acted incorrectly, and that they should refrain from such actions. Let us restore calm among the people there, so that we can build up our country again, so that we can achieve success, and so that we can show the world that in South Africa there is room for all of us.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 34.—“Indian Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, we now move from the Police Vote, in which we have discussed a period of violence, of great disturbance and of revolutionary potential in our country, to the discussion of the political future of a group of people who are vital to the continued control and development of the civilized system which we have established in South Africa.

*Of course, Sir, this discussion concerns federation, and one of the three things we find a pleasure in this debate, is the fact that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is a person who, when he was on this side of this House, fostered, promoted and assisted to develop the whole idea of federation to the position it occupies in the system of this party today. There is no need for us to go into the question of federation in any depth now.

Agreed!

However, we know that the hon. the Minister understands us when we merely mention that word. He can appreciate standpoint from which we approach the matter, and how we feel about this matter.

†In this session of Parliament we have had an event which, in the opinion of this party, has closed the old book of the history of South Africa. I refer to the passing of the Bill to give independence to the Transkei. That Bill now gives a totally new look to the politics of South Africa. The hon. the Minister, as we know him, is a philosopher in politics, and I want to pose this question to him: In this new South Africa, what is the future which is being offered by the party which now forms the Government, to the Indian people? Let us discuss the Indian community in the light of what has happened now in South Africa, in the light of the new situation we are facing. The Government has brought the various homeland groups to the stage where they are to become independent. Once this has been achieved, the Government can fairly claim that they will pass out of our political knowledge, and that they will no longer constitute a political problem which we will have to solve. Let us now look at the Indian community against that background. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we stand before a new page of our history. Those of us in this Parliament are going to write on a new page of history, and there is one word which is written at the head of that page. That word is “communism”. And this Government, with the power that it has in South Africa today, must meet the challenge of communism. Communism is an idea; it is a thing in the minds of men. Everything the Government has done up to now, everything the Nationalist Party has done, has been related to the fact that there are Black people in South Africa, that there are Coloured people and Indian people, people of different colour whom it is necessary to separate. In fact, one can say that the whole existence of the Nationalist Party has been based on one thing and that is separation—separation of the English and the Afrikaner, separation of Black and White.

That is not so.

It is a plain statement of fact. The foundation of the Nationalist Party was separation between English and Afrikaner and this progressed to the separation of Black and White.

Nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, this is a debate and the hon. members are invited to take part. Let us discuss the situation. Let them tell us where I erred in the statement that I have made.

Where we are now dealing with a new situation, a situation in which an appeal should go out to the minds of men, where does this hon. Minister and the Nationalist Party stand in relation to the Indian community who will play a vital part in the maintenance of what we regard as the Western system of civilization which we have here in South Africa? Unless we find an idea which we can set against the idea of communism, we are not going to succeed. The problem that we face is not the arms of communism, it is not the guns of communism, it is not the masses of communist troops on our border. This is not our problem at this stage. Our problem is the thought in the minds of men that communism is a liberatory force. That is our problem. What idea do we, this Parliament, present to this group of people with whom we are dealing, what idea which will supply the answer that there is something better, that there is something richer, that there is something infinitely more promising for them than the idea of communism which has been accepted among many peoples of the world as the one thing that will liberate them from oppression of whatever kind? This is an ideological battle to which this Government to my mind does not have an answer. I say categorically that, as far as I am concerned, the Nationalist Party has run its race, has made its dash, has sung its song in South Africa and now faces a totally new situation. The hon. the Minister, trained as he was in the United Party’s ideas of a federation …

I did the training.

As the hon. the Minister himself says, he did the training. That is quite correct. Therefore it is not necessary for us to tell him now what it entails. All we really ask him is to do the training on that side of the House. It should be quite easy for him, having trained us and brought us to this high pitch of efficiency and this sense of duty. Why does he not do the same for that side of the House as well? The point I wish to make is that in such a federation one would bring together population groups which are self-consciously distinct. In their own minds they know they are distinct. It is not necessary to establish that they are distinct. They know it. The Indian community knows that culturally and in every way they are a separate group. They have their own way of thinking which is distinct from that of the White man, the Coloured man, and the Black man. Our problem is to bind the groups together on the basis of security and their identity, to enable them to participate in the leadership which will determine whether our system of Western civilization will continue in this country or not. The first thing, namely security from communism, will be achieved by achievement, viz. by what we do, by how fast we grow, by what we provide, by the satisfaction that we give to each person as an individual within the Indian community, our own community or whatever community. We must enable each person to live out his life to his own satisfaction, to see what he can do for himself and for his family and to see what contribution he can make. That, Sir, is security. If one achieves enough, if the cake one makes is big enough so that the slice everybody gets, is sufficient, then one has security; security for this group and for every other group. The identity of every group in this country can be entrenched, and the hon. the Minister knows that. It is the proposal of this side of the House to entrench it by means of the Legislative Assembly which we have proposed. The identity of every group should be entrenched so that it cannot be affected by any other group. Nobody should have the right to demonate because in that legislative assembly every group will be sovereign; every group will be supreme. The problem that we have, is to give from this Parliament, which today has sovereignty, sovereignty to each of those groups; sovereignty which will protect their identity, and secondly, to draw into a central organization the power which will enable a federal Government to run without giving that organization the power to dominate the sovereign legislative assembly. The point I want to make to the hon. the Minister—and he understands it as well as I do; in fact he said earlier on that he taught me—is that it will boil down to a sharing of derived power. The power is not a sovereign power; one is sharing derived power in that federal assembly.

My time is up. I wish I could have carried this further with the hon. the Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt, at this stage, the very interesting discussion initiated by the hon. member. However, I wish to discuss a matter which I have very much at heart. I should like hon. members who are interested in Indian Affairs and in the administration of the country to know under what circumstances we are conducting this debate.

I am referring to the fact that the Secretary for Indian Affairs, Mr. H. A. Prinsloo, will assume office as a member of the Public Service Commission with effect from 1 August this year. I therefore want to avail myself of this opportunity of paying tribute to him on behalf of myself, my predecessor and of all the other people who have been associated with Mr. Prinsloo through the years. Mr. Prinsloo joined the Public Service in 1934 as a young man of 20 years. As a member of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs he obtained the B.Com degree through part-time study. Subsequently he was employed in the Department of Labour—where he served as secretary to Mr. Ben Schoeman for three years—in the Department of Public Works, and later in the Public Service Commission where he was promoted to Senior Public Service Inspector. They probably want him back now because they have come to know him there.

In 1961 when the Department of Indian Affairs was established, Mr. Prinsloo joined the new department as deputy secretary. In 1970 Mr. Prinsloo was appointed Secretary of the department. From the little experience I have of the department, I can say with conviction that many monuments have been erected for Mr. Prinsloo on the road of our relations policy with regard to the Indian community. Many of the major developments which are being undertaken in the interests of the Indian community, much of what has been achieved in the Department of Indian Affairs with regard to the development of sound relations between the Indian community and the other population groups in South Africa, is due to the tactfulness and the firm behaviour as well as the profound humanity and the respect for the aspirations of others; characteristics which have throughout been characteristic of the man H. A. Prinsloo. We shall miss him a great deal in the Department of Indian Affairs. However, I am glad that he will be able to devote his remarkable gifts to the Public Service Commission in the interests of the Public Service as a whole. On one thing all of us agree in this House, and this I know. That is that South Africa is particularly fortunate to have men of the calibre of those serving in the administration of the country and in the Public Service. The State is highly appreciative of this fact. It is with appreciation that we take cognizance of what these people are doing. It is gratifying to know that a person such as Mr. Prinsloo in the Public Service Commission will be able to help to maintain that standard and to see to it that justice is done to every one serving the country through the Public Service.

Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the NP’s study group on Indian Affairs, I want to associate myself with the hon. the Minister’s congratulations to Mr. H. A. Prinsloo, our present Secretary, who is going to leave us shortly for a higher position in our Public Service structure. I came to know Mr. Prinsloo very well during the past few years and since genealogy is my hobby, I am grateful that there is a little Prinsloo blood among my ancestors, because Mr. Prinsloo proved to us that he is an excellent civil servant. He is not only an official, but a person who has really devoted his services to the particular departments in which he has served, as well as to the particular community of which he was the public service chief. I want to thank him for his services and at the same time congratulate him on his new appointment. I pray that he will be able to devote his particular gifts for many years to the service of the Public Service generally. We wish him well.

I now want to return to the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member for Mooi River does not really upset me when he makes a speech. As a matter of fact—this will probably be a surprise to him—I always regard his contributions in Parliament as being responsible. Apparently he is a person with a profound knowledge of the history of various world communities. He has a particular piety and love of the Western civilization and of that which had been achieved by the Western civilization. As always, I have listened very attentively to the hon. member and I shall deal with a few aspects raised by him today in the course of my speech.

When we discuss the relations situation in southern Africa in Parliament, it becomes increasingly evident that although we, as different political parties, discuss a particular community in this Parliament, the NP, as the governing party, is increasingly consulting other population groups outside. We on this side of the House welcome this, because this is part of the development of our policy that we should discuss matters with the various population groups to an increasing extent in future. The NP has also established machinery to be able to do this according to our pattern. For that reason I have recently looked up—as I have also done earlier during my studies of the Indian community—publications which were written by P. S. Joshi a very long time ago. This includes publications such as Struggle for Equality and The Tyranny of Colour. Subsequently publications such as The South African Indian Question by Prof. Bridglal Pachai were published. Particularly under the policy of the NP an appreciation developed between the NP on the one hand and the Indian community on the other. I am fully convinced that, in my own opinion and also according to the scientific sources at my disposal, this appreciation has brought about an improvement in the relations between these two groups. A grandson of Mr. Gandhi, Rajmohan Gandhi, wrote, inter alia, the following in an ariticle in the Bombay Weekly of 3 January 1975 under the heading “Curse or blessing”—

It may be that certain things have happened since which caused people, also this particular author, to change their minds. However, as far as I am concerned a more favourable climate for improved relations is manifesting itself in South Africa.

What is important, is that there is one important point I wish to emphasize on the part of my people and on the part of my party. That is the attitude in the hearts of the supporters and of the leaders of the National Party. There is a conviction among us, a real, honest conviction, to create peace in South Africa and to find solutions for the problems confronting South Africa. When saying this, I do not boast by pretending that we are blameless, that we have never made any mistakes or that we shall never make mistakes. I do not want to say either that we shall never encounter any obstacles on the road on which we are moving in the light at our disposal. However, I want to state one thing categorically; The conviction in our heart is a responsible and sound conviction. In saying this, I should very much like to quote the hon. the Prime Minister. When opening the Indian Council a year or so ago, he had, inter alia, the following to say with reference to the chairman who spoke before him—

I want to associate myself with this quotation from the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister by saying that what the world in general needs today, we in South Africa, as a smaller group, need as well, i.e. responsible leaders, leaders who will take cognizance of two cardinal facts, also in South Africa, of which they should be thoroughly aware. The first fact is that there is diversity in South Africa—in contrast with quotations contained in the foreword to Joshi’s publication which was written 20 or 30 years ago. The other fact is that every one of these groups, despite its diversity, feels that there are certain things to which it has a legal claim. These are the two things that should reconcile responsible leaders in South Africa and for which a solution has to be sought. These two facts or realities demand the greatest responsibility from all the leaders in South Africa. This is my plea today. In addition, I want to say that we find the greatest responsibility in the NP and particularly in its leader in the inspiration that emanates downwards from him. The leader of the biggest political party among the Whites in South Africa wants to consider, with the greatest responsibility, the problems of South Africa, of Africa and of the rest of the world. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must say that the hon. member for Rissik has made a very interesting contribution to the debate this morning. I do not agree with everything he has had to say, but I do however agree with his remarks to the effect that the hon. member for Mooi River always makes a responsible contribution. We agree wholeheartedly with that, and I would like to say that we feel that the hon. member for Mooi River very eloquently and successfully put the United Party’s point of view here this morning particularly in respect of how our federal plan can work in regard to the Indian community.

Sir, I wish to congratulate and welcome Mr. H. A. Prinsloo to his post as Secretary for Indian Affairs. [Interjections.] No, he is retiring, I am sorry. My apologies, Sir, I should wear my glasses, then I would be able to study my notes and say what I am supposed to say. We wish Mr. Prinsloo every success in the new post he is taking up and we assure him that he will continue to enjoy the co-operation that he has always had from the United Party in whatever post he may take up in the Government service—that is, when it is, naturally, in the interest of things we believe in.

I now wish to deal with a few problems affecting the Indian population which need to be brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister and of the House. Unfortunately for both the Indian people of South Africa and the department which is responsible for their well-being, we have had a succession of Ministers in charge of this important portfolio. Since 1972 we have had four Ministers in just as many years. In 1972 it was Minister Frank Warning, in 1973 Minister Owen Horwood, 1974 was the year of Minister Chris Heunis, and in 1975 the present incumbent took over the portfolio and he is still there. His appointment was a popular one and two years is a good record. It is my sincere wish that this portfolio should now be given a rest when it comes to Cabinet reshuffles. I think it is fair to say that the present incumbent, namely Minister Marais Steyn, is settling down to his task extremely well, and discussions I have had with many prominent members of the Indian community have borne out the fact that he is starting to enjoy—and I say starting, because two years is just the settling-in period—their confidence and their support. In this I am not at all surprised, because, after all, one has only to look at the hon. the Minister’s background and the high standard of training he enjoyed on the United Party benches to see why.

I should like to raise the subject of a rehabilitation centre for the Indians. This has been raised on previous occasions by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Berea, and I should like to examine the track record and the situation since 1973. In may 1973—and I quote from Hansard, col. 8032 of 30 May—the then Minister, the hon. Senator Horwood, said—

Then in August 1974, in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Berea, the present Minister’s predecessor, Minister Heunis, said—

During October of the same year this Vote was debated and the hon. member for Berea again took up the cudgels and made this observation, which is to be found in Hansard, col. 6133, of 23 October 1974—

The hon. the Minister, still at that stage Minister Heunis, said in reply—and again I quote from Hansard, cols. 6171 and 6172 of 23 October—

What has happened since then? For one thing, we have another Minister and long may he reign. For another, we have no reference whatsoever to a rehabilitation centre in the latest report. I say the latest report but as hon. members well know, this report is for the period 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1975, but be that as it may. It is even more disturbing to note that the estimates before us reflect the allocation of the paltry sum of R1 050 under Vote 37, the vote of the hon. the Minister for Public Works. We find this amount under item M as being the total amount voted for—and I quote from the estimates—“Industrial schools, special schools, places of safety, rehabilitation centres and old age homes or settlements for Indians.” A total amount of R1 050 was voted for these purposes and in the previous year there was the normal statutory R50 which was indicated as being the opening of the door. I believe that the hon. the Minister must explain this sorry state of affairs. I suggest that he must be seen to act more firmly and with determination towards the achievement of a highly desirable goal, viz. a much needed and long overdue rehabilitation centre. I would suggest that he would do well to set a target date for the completion of this project and that he should tell this House of his plans. These plans should be concrete and there should be nothing “airy-fairy” about them. Positive plans for the future are needed and he should share his thinking with this House and with the Indian community in this connection.

Secondly, I wish to deal with a matter that the hon. the Minister may reply to wearing either of his two hats. He can choose between the one he wears for Indian Affairs or the one he dons as Minister of Community Development. I refer to the ever prevalent problem of Indian housing. The report makes no bones about this problem whatsoever. The report makes bold to say that the shortage of housing remains the biggest single problem facing the Indian community. I believe sincerely that the Minister must give his urgent attention to the reconsideration of his attitude towards site and service schemes. The Indians both want and need them. Those of the leaders to whom I have spoken, favour these schemes and they have indicated their support for them. It must be agreed that the way of life of the Indians makes them a community that is prepared to accept responsibility for the proper development of living areas that are established on a site and service basis. I cannot accept the argument that all site and service schemes automatically become slums and I will not accept that our Indian community will not be prepared to meet the challenge of proving their ability to make a success of such a scheme were they given the opportunity to do so.

Thirdly, I wish to refer to page 27 of the annual report where we find mention made of the fact that few recreation resorts exist for the Indian community in Natal. This is certainly true, but I wish to point out that the situation would be far worse were it not for the co-operation and efforts of the various provincial authorities and other bodies who are deeply concerned about the need for facilities for Indians. I refer, in particular, to bodies such as the Natal Parks Board who are obviously conscious of the need and have established outstanding facilities such as Orient Park and at Lake Midmar. I would urge the hon. the Minister to continue to work towards the establishment of more and better recreational facilities, not only in Natal, but in all other areas where we have Indian people living with little or no recreational facilities at all. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga referred to a few problems in connection with the Indian community in South Africa. He also referred to certain shortcomings in connection with rehabilitation centres and other facilities. I believe the hon. the Minister will reply to it fully.

The hon. member for Mooi River referred to certain aspects of the constitutional development of the Indians and he tried again to sell the federal policy of the UP. I want to use this as a departing point today to prove that the Indians in South Africa have to an increasing extent accepted the policy of the NP. In this connection I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Rissik where he said that recently we did not have discussions about the Indians but rather with the Indians. We are often accused in this connection by the UP and other Opposition groups. When considering the past eight to ten years and particularly the past year since this department was taken over by the present Minister of Indian Affairs, we find that we have every right to say that they have been consulted as never before. The result is that a better understanding exists between the State and the Indian community at present than ever before. We have excellent co-operation in virtually every sphere and the Indian community feels to an increasing extent that its particular problems are receiving special attention under the present dispensation. This is in contrast with any other system, because as a minority group they will, from the nature of the case, be dwarfed by the broad national interests.

However, it would be a grave mistake if the Indian community or their leaders should be passive in the development of their political role in South Africa. The time has come for the leaders of the Indian community to have to play a more active role in the development of their national awareness in terms of the policy of separate development which, as I have already said, they accept to an increasing extent. We should like to see them adopt clearer standpoints, particularly in view of their established awareness of identity as is reflected by the fact that virtually no interbreeding has taken place during their presence of more than 100 years in South Africa. As a result of the viewpoint and the policy of the Government, the Indians in South Africa, in contrast with the Indians in the rest of Africa, should have no fear that their right of existence will be threatened. If the Indian leaders are really convinced that they see a future in terms of our policy of separate development, they must say so with greater clarity now and support the policy more actively. We must know where the Indian community stands in these times of unrest. Let us also, for example, have contributions from Indian academics. The excellent publication Fiat Lux published by the Department of Information contains contributions which testify to their willingness to preserve their identity, just as we want to preserve our own identity.

As a result of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Socio-economic Aspects of the Coloured Population, the so-called Theron Commission, the question arises as to whether a similar investigation should not be conducted into the Indian population. However, I want to point out that a continuous study of the Indian population has been carried out since 1969 by the Institute for Sociological, Demographical and Criminological Research of the Human Sciences Research Council. This research was really a continuation of the work done by the Sociological Research Division of the National Bureau for Education and Social Research, which was replaced by the Human Sciences Research Council in 1969. Further publications in this connection appeared on a variety of subjects, and I should just like to mention a few. A thorough study has been made of the socio-economic position of the Indians, as well as the labour pattern, the extent of unemployment, the level of education, housing aspects, the socio-economic position of Indian aged and also specific aspects of the socio-economic position of the Indian blind. There was also a report on the incidence of alcoholism, and so on.

Virtually all the aspects dealt with in the Theron report have already been covered in these studies. Furthermore, very interesting research has been carried out in connection with fertility among Indians as well as family planning patterns. There are also comparative studies of the fertility pattern of Indians in India, as against that of Indians in South Africa. It is also clear from this report that the birth-rate in South Africa is considerably lower than it is in India, despite the fact that the death rate among Indian children in South Africa is far lower than it is among Indians in India. The average Indian woman in South Africa is far more aware of family planning, and the Indian woman with an educational level of above Std. 8 has, for example, very smaller families. This goes to prove again that the answer to the problem of population explosion lies in socio-economic upliftment. Such a vast amount of research has already been carried out that further research at this stage would be superfluous. The position of the Indian in South Africa is of course less difficult than it is in India itself, because of the fact that approximately 87% of the Indians in South Africa have already become urbanized as against only 20% in India, and on account of the fact that the problem of family planning is prevalent particularly among the rural population. Unlike ten years ago, unemployment and poverty among the Indians have been reduced considerably. Serious housing problems still exist, but I think a great deal of attention is being given to Indian housing at this stage. These facts bear out the fact that the Government, the Department of Indian Affairs and the Indian community, act in a purposeful way and are achieving success with their upliftment work in respect of the Indian population in South Africa.

We should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the progress they have made in this short space of time while he was the Minister of Indian Affairs.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Rissik and Newcastle touched on the constitutional proposals of parallel development for the Indian people. They told us how optimistic they were about this particular policy. I should like to bring to the attention of the Committee the very grave concern which we on these benches have about the implementation of the Government’s policy of parallel development for the Indian community. I think we all know that during the last year, since this Committee last met to discuss this Vote, there have been very dramatic events both inside South Africa and on our borders, which have had far-reaching implications for all of us in South Africa. It is a fact that inter alia these events have had the effect not only of escalating the political expectations of South Africans who do not fall within the White group, but also of giving credibility to those Black, Brown and Indian leaders who advocate policies of non-co-operation with the Government amongst their people. The result of this has been to crystallize the polarization of political thinking among Black, Brown and Indian South Africans into two main streams. On the one hand there are those who advocate co-operation with the Government by using the platforms created by the Government for this purpose, and on the other hand there are those who view these platforms as symbols of their inferior status and therefore advocate boycotting these platforms. Put in other words, the one stream is in favour of reluctant but pragmatic co-operation, while the other stream is in favour of a policy of political confrontation and of no cooperation except on equal terms.

It is against this background that the Indian community enter a vital phase in their constitutional development in terms of the policy of parallel development, and that is the formation of political parties which will nominate candidates for election to the Indian Representative Council. I think it would be naïve for us to believe that the policies of these parties will not also centre around this key issue in Black politics. In other words, we must accept that the main question that will be put to the Indian electorate will be the following: “Is the Indian community prepared to be pragmatic and co-operate with the Government through the medium of the institutions provided by the Government for this purpose, or will the Indian community reject co-operation on the grounds that concessions are no substitute for rights, that the institutions are ineffectual, and more important, that they stand as monuments to the inequality of the Indian in relation to the White, and that as such they should be rejected by the Indian electorate?” Sir, the implications that this polarization has for the Government’s Indian policy are, to my mind, clear.

In this climate of polarization the relevance of the Indian Representative Council itself, and indeed that of the Cabinet Council, is not whether or not they are effective institutions for forwarding the interests of the Indian community. This actually has become irrelevant. The relevance of these institutions is in what they represent, i.e. symbols of second class citizenship to be either pragmatically accepted or rejected totally by the majority of the Indian electorate. This, Sir, means that these institutions can no longer be seen as machinery serving a useful function in promoting good race relations between Indians and Whites, but that they must be seen as the very divisive issue on which Indian politics will divide—with the effect of polarizing many Indians into a position of political confrontation with the Government.

As such we in these benches consider that the Government’s policy of parallel development has not only already failed, but that the further implementation of this policy, under present circumstances, is not conducive to the future peace and prosperity of all South Africans.

Sir, we in these benches never believed that the policy of parallel development could ever be reconciled with the principle of separate development as articulated by many leading Government spokesmen. And to refresh the memory of hon. members as to what that principle is, I would like to quote the hon. the Prime Minister himself, when, I think at the time of the 1974 general election, he said—

Sir, the reason why this principle could not be reconciled with parallel development is that a prerequisite of sovereignty is territory—and there is no question of giving the Indian community sovereignty over any territory.

The alternative was, therefore, representation in this Parliament, or representation in an inferior body to this Parliament. The Government obviously rejected Indian representation in this Parliament and opted for the creation of an inferior body to represent the Indian community—and it is for this reason that their policy has failed.

Sir, I think that the similarity between the fate of the Government’s policy of parallel development for the Coloured people and their policy for the Indian people is just too obvious for us to ignore. As the Government’s policy for the Coloured people has estranged the majority of Coloureds from the Government, so the Government’s Indian policy will estrange a large proportion of the Indian community from the Government. The extent of that estrangement is still to be seen.

That is wishful thinking.

In these times, Sir, the question that we have to ask ourselves is if we can afford this estrangement. Can we afford this isolation of the White group? Can we afford the emotionalism that this will bring about on both sides of the colour line? We believe that this should be avoided at all costs.

Perhaps I am being optimistic, Sir, but I detect in the Government’s interim White Paper on the Theron Commission a suggestion that the Government has accepted that this policy of parallel development has failed and needs a rethink. The White Paper, I think, accepts the idea—and I quote from paragraph 7—

I also accept that it does say elsewhere in the White Paper (paragraph 5)—

I believe—I hope I am right—that the Government is hedging its position by talking of the “existing” parliamentary, provincial and local institutions.

The problem, Sir, is one of time. We do not have time, in my opinion, to wait for, say, three years for the Government to appoint yet another commission to re-think this whole issue again, because by that time the polarization will have taken place and much damage to race relations in South Africa will already have been done.

I think the hon. the Minister owes it to the House to take us into his confidence, and to explain how he intends to avoid the unwelcome implications that the Government policy of parallel development has for race relations in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the very thing I expected has happened in this debate. Even these days—as it was once again quite evident today from the speech by the hon. member for Randburg—a great fuss is made about the policy of the Government and it is alleged that the policy of separate development has not succeeded. A great deal is still going to be be said and written in the days that lie ahead, especially with reference to the report of the Erica Theron Commission. Many politicians, many authors, philosophers and academics will argue about it. Armchair politicians will try to find instant solutions. Similarly everyone will participate in a debate in an attempt to provide South Africa, all of a sudden, with a solution to its colour problem.

However, I want to state the policy of the NP Government very clearly here once again. As the hon. member correctly remarked, it was, is and will continue to be the case that neither the Indian nor the Coloured will get direct representation in this Parliament. Because they will not get representation here, we shall have to think of other directions in which we can let them evolve towards full political maturity. There is talk of “meaningful political rights”. What does this mean? Does “meaningful political rights” mean that if, for argument’s sake, an Indian should be elected to this House, he would thereby be getting “meaningful political rights” in his own right? In my opinion this is definitely not the case. Just like me, an Indian will also have to take his place in the back benches. I am a backbencher; he will have to come and sit behind me. Where is he going to sit? [Interjections.] Such Indian will merely be the representative of a small minority group in this House. He will not therefore be able to prescribe legislation or policy. He will only be able to criticize. When a Vote is being discussed such an Indian will only be able to express criticism of things such as money which is being voted, or make a appeal in regard to matters concerning him and his community.

That is why we must have a federation of communities.

That is his right, but … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, that hon. Point for Durban North knows just as well as I that he … [Interjections.]

The Point for Durban North?

I beg your pardon, I mean the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that, even if an Indian made appeals until he was white in the face, it would make no difference to any matter or to any vote.

But a federation of communities will …

The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak later. The NP Government has further extended the political powers and political rights of the Indians. The hon. the Prime Minister has granted them the right to sit in a Cabinet Council. I consider that Cabinet Council to be the highest political council which the Indian and the Coloured can ask for. Even I as an ordinary member of Parliament do not have the right or the power to sit in a similar council and air my opinions about matters there. In my opinion that Cabinet Council is the starting point of everything meant by “meaningful political rights”. It is the starting point. The end point, too, namely the various councils upon which the Indians and Coloureds have representation and where they can air their criticism, are already in existence.

I should also like to quote here what the hon. the Prime Minister said last year in this House in this regard. I quote (Hansard, Vol. 55, col. 395)—

After all, this is really “meaningful political rights”, when a step like this is taken. However, the Government is not letting this suffice. The Government is giving the Coloureds and Indians still more political powers and rights. These are being granted to them on other levels where they are of value to them, such as for instance on the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Board, which is definitely one of the highest ranking boards in this country. Furthermore, they have the right of representation on the Wage Board, the Apprenticeship Board and the Unemployment Insurance Board. These are meaningful rights, meaningful political rights, which are being given to people.

I want to go further and say that on occasion we in South Africa have made use of Indians to represent South Africa abroad in the political sphere. If one sends someone abroad to represent one’s country in the political sphere, what the devil does this mean but that that person has a background of ‘ ‘meaningful political rights”? While I am discussing this matter, I should like to read hon. members a report which appeared recently in Die Burger. It was entitled “Opskudding in Indiërraad”. A certain Mr. Caffee said during the debate on the proposed joint cabinet council that he was opposed to majority rule and to the principle of “one man, one vote”. Not one of the White political parties in South Africa stands for an unqualified majority government in terms of the principle of “one man, one vote”. There is a political party over there and there is the chairman of a commission which was appointed to investigate this issue, but they are the people who are asking for a solution to the Indian’s problem to be able to have representation in this House. He goes on to say—

Another Transvaal member, Mr. Joe Currin, said—

The discussion was terminated and a proposal that the Indian Council first obtain a mandate from the Indian people on the issue of whether the Indian Council should accept the joint Cabinet Council or not, was considered. The question which will arise if these Indian politicians and leaders go to their electorate, is what policy they are going to put to their people? Will they ask the people to accept the joint Cabinet Council in order to acquire a further say in the political development of the Indian, or will they ask the people to boycott it? The answer to this is very simple, either they accept it or we reach a deadlock. This is where we will end up, just as we ended up with certain other Coloured political leaders in South Africa.

If the Whites and Indians in South Africa recognize one another’s interdependence and if the one accepts that it needs the other just as much as the other needs it, then we can extend our hands to one another and say that, since we are so dependent upon one another, we in this country must co-operate in order to ensure peaceful co-existence. Only when we accept our interdependence will we be able to guarantee our peaceful and permanent coexistence in South Africa. I could continue in this vein and quote examples. I could quote from Hansard in order to indicate what various great speakers have said in this House. But when all is said and done, the basis for co-operation and the basis for the continued existence of the Whites, the Indians and all the other race groups in South Africa is simply the recognition of each other’s interdependence. I want to let that suffice.

The hon. member for Randburg referred to the Government’s interim report on the Theron Commission, and unfortunately he interpreted it incorrectly. It is not an acknowledgment that the Government’s policy is not succeeding, but merely an acknowledgment that there is further development of this Government’s policy. This joint Cabinet Committee is not the be-all and the end-all, and nobody has ever claimed that it is. Even the hon. the Prime Minister says that it is not the whole story. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, a number of the speakers in the debate so far have talked about the ultimate solution for the Indian community in the political scene and I do not intend debating this further other than to say that there is no doubt that there are going to be great differences of opinion between the integrationist policy of the PRP and the separate development policy of the NP. However, we on this side of the House believe that we do have a possible solution in the form of our federal concept and I am quite sure that as the political involvement takes place in South Africa, both the Indian community and the Coloured community are going to find themselves much closer to the policy we on this side of the House propound.

I should rather, during the short time available to me, talk about the progress which is being made. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that I sincerely hope that in the years to come he is going to put all his weight behind even further development than that which has taken place during recent years as reported in the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs. I refer particularly to the local government that was given about 12 months ago to Umzinto North, which is in my constituency. I was very pleased to see this happen. This is the third local community which has been given this authority and I am pleased to say that it is the second in my constituency, the other being Isipingo which now has borough status. I believe this progress is essential for the Indian community so that they may have the opportunity and the responsibility to involve themselves in their local affairs and in the local problems of their community. This, again, I want to remind hon. members, is in line with the UP’s policy of a federal concept.

The things I should like to talk about particularly in connection with my constituency of Amanzimtoti are these of housing. I have a large Indian community in my constituency. There is the borough of Isipingo, the small village of Umkomaas and Naidooville, and also Umzinto North, to which I have already referred. There are also other communities at Illovo and Renishaw where there are large populations of Indians who are in fact living on land zoned for White occupation. These Indians, I may say, are now accepting more and more responsible jobs in the industries in the area and therefore, I believe, need greater opportunities to acquire their own homes rather than live in the homes provided by their employers. The problem here is the availability of land for such people. It is regrettable to me, in some respects, to find that a lot of the land in the area in my constituency which has been zoned in terms of the Group Areas Act as Indian land, has been acquired by very few people. While I have no objection to people owning large blocks of land, I do feel that, because there is such a shortage of land for the Indian population for private ownership, I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider doing more to see to it that the land which is available is subdivided into small areas so that a greater number of people can acquire this land.

I want to refer particularly to the Isipingo borough. I was pleased to see in the report that the Isipingo council has been granted permission to expropriate 161 ha of land on lot 1028 for the sum R1,8 million and that next year, 1977, the development of a township will start where there will be approximately 2 000 housing units. There is also another lot in that area which is owned privately and which is also to be developed, and that is Lot 1029, but unfortunately because of Railway servitudes and because of the flood plains of the Umbogintwini River there are only going to be some 600 units built on this 100 ha of land. The Minister has, I am sure, received a memorandum from the borough of Isipingo in this connection, where it is shown that the only land available within the boundaries of the borough are these two lots to which I have referred, on which only some 2 600 housing units can be developed. There is a third lot, an area called Malagazi which is at present owned by Indians but which, I believe, in 1974 was zoned or proclaimed as a released area for eventual Bantu occupation. This particular area can provide some 2 496 housing units, which means that if this area is included, the total available land for housing would provide just over 5 000 housing units. If this area of Malagazi is not deproclaimed as a released area, it will mean that only some 2 600 housing units will be available in the whole of the Isipingo borough. In the memorandum sent to the hon. the Minister, he will see that the present demand is of the order of 9 804 housing units. If one makes an allowance for the development of Prospection, it is estimated that a further 12 000 housing units will be required by the time Prospecton is fully developed, which means that there will be a demand for something like 21 804 houses in the Isipingo area. Now I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in this connection. I did put a question to him some time ago as to whether he had considered the possibility of having Malagazi deproclaimed as a Bantu area and to allow it to continue under Indian ownership for the eventual development as a housing township. I appeal to him to consider this, because this is the only piece of land into which Isipingo can develop. I would have imagined that there was more land in the hinterland which could have been used for Bantu development, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to discuss with the Department of Bantu Affairs whether this decision in regard to this particular piece of land can be reversed.

I also briefly want to refer to Cato Manor. On June 12 last year, in this House the hon. the Minister said that he was looking into the prospects for this area. There has been some Press publicity about it of late, and I sincerely hope that his department will see its way clear to announce very shortly that this will be allocated to the Indian community.

Finally, in the last minute or so that I have, I should like to remind the hon. the Minister of some correspondence I had with him some time ago about an Indian family in my constituency who are having trouble with the Mixed Marriages Act. He referred me to the Minister of the Interior and I had a meeting with the hon. the Minister of the Interior on the subject and I am afraid I was unable to assist this particular Indian family. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to use his position in the Cabinet to try to persuade his colleagues to re-examine this particular Act. Having now had some personal experience in handling such a case, I cannot help but feel that those in authority and in the Cabinet should give this some further consideration at this particular time. Sir, I do not believe that it is up to us as politicians to try to decide who a person should fall in love with and whom he should marry. After all, marriage is considered as a holy estate, and I believe that it should be our duty as politicians to encourage people to embark upon happily married lives so that they can bring up their families in a family environment to become good citizens. I realize that this falls under the Minister of the Interior, but this being the Minister of Indian Affairs and the case I am referring to concerning Indians, I ask him to pay attention to the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to heartily endorse what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said at the start of his speech, viz. that the Indian community has made remarkable progress during the last couple of years and that they have taken tremendous strides forward. The Indian community is inexorably on its way to a bigger and greater dispensation socially, economically and politically, and therefore I find it rather distressing that the hon. member for Randburg, if I may have his attention, has sought to disparage the constitutional development of the Indian over the last couple of years. He spoke about the inferior status of the Indian, the second-class citizenship of the Indian and he sought to label the Indian Council as an inferior body. The reply to that would be that for 50 years successive governments in this country have had an emigration scheme which has been a colossal failure. It has been a failure for one reason and that is that the Indians are happy here because they are embracing the council which the hon. member calls an inferior body. They are embracing this council and they are using it to promote the interests of the Indian community.

*In 1966 the Government took certain decisions about medical schools. Over the course of years some of those decisions have already been put into practice. The first decision which was put into practice, is that a medical faculty was established at the University of the Orange Free State. A little while ago the dental faculty of the University of the Western Cape came into being. A few weeks ago this House approved a Bill which authorizes a medical university at Ga-Rankuwa and from this I believe that another two medical schools will arise, both in Durban. One school will be for Whites, which I cannot advocate during the discussion of this Vote. The other school will be for Indians and I can and will advocate that school this afternoon.

If there was ever a community who deserved such a medical faculty, and if there was ever a community who could legitimately lay claim to such a medical faculty, then it is the Indians. I do not know of a single population group who are more eager to study and who have greater idealism than the Indians. It is one of the fine stories which must still be recorded, namely the sacrifice and dedication which the Indians showed in connection with the education and training of their children. It is a community which seeks to improve itself by education and training. These people made a gigantic contribution through the course of the years. These people have made an enormous contribution over the years. Their disposition alone is probably sufficient justification for the medical school which we have been asking for for such a long time.

However, there are other reasons which I want to mention like the immense shortage of doctors. After the Whites the Indian community probably have the greatest potential for contributing towards alleviating that shortage. It is calculated that the ideal situation is for us to have one medical practitioner per 1 000 people. The present ratio is however far less favourable. If we just want to keep pace with the population increase in the next 15 years, we must turn out 800 doctors every year. If we want to make up the backlog, an additional 400 must be turned out annually; in other words, 1 200 annually. The figures for the last year indicate that 692 doctors were turned out. Six hundred and one of them Whites, 21 Coloureds, six Bantu and 65 Indians. This indicates that Indians produced more doctors this year than the other two non-White population groups put together. The Indian community is a community which has potential for producing future medical practitioners. If one considers the numbers of those among the Indian community who can undertake medical studies, it is apparent that last year there were approximately 4 500 matriculants. However, not all of them are potential doctors, but a large number of them are. Last year at the University of Durban-Westville there were 678 students who took physical science subjects. Of them a good half took the four basic subjects which give admission to a medical faculty. These subjects are chemistry, physics, botany and zoology. In the first year at medical schools in Natal which were established primarily for the Bantu, but at which there is now a preponderance of Indians, there were 29 students. At the University of Cape Town there were 22 students, and at Wits, 27 students. Therefore, there were a total of 76 students at three South African universities last year. Apart from that, at the University of Cairo and the University of Dublin and in Pakistan, India and elsewhere in the world there are also Indian students from South Africa who are studying medicine. It is calculated that there must be approximately 300 of them. In spite of the fact that the students are distributed among seven and more institutions, there is no single institution where the Indian can say that he receives preferential treatment and that it is his own. He really does not have any security. At the beginning of the year an Indian father came to plead his case with me. Two years ago his son obtained four distinctions in Matric, but was not admitted to the Natal Medical School.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

My time is extremely limited, and your question must be very brief.

I would like to ask the hon. member whether he would agree that any surplus of Indian doctors should be used to supplement the shortage of Bantu doctors.

That is in a completely different direction. The hon. member will pardon me if I cannot answer him due to the lack of time. There is another reason which I should like to point out. The Indian Council of which the hon. member for Randburg spoke so disparagingly a moment ago, has repeatedly requested that there should be a medical faculty for Indians. Indeed, shortly after the establishment of the Indian Council in 1964, one of its very first requests to the Government was that a medical school should be established at the University of Durban-Westville. This request has been repeated over the years. There is ample opportunity for Indians to study elsewhere. There are three other universities to which an Indian may send his children. He may receive the best training abroad, but a self-respecting community, like that of the Indians, prefers to have its own institutions and wants its own medical school. He wants to believe that these well-motivated requests of the Indian Council which are repeatedly addressed to the hon. the Minister, will not fall upon deaf ears. I do not have any doubt that the request will succeed. The hon. the Minister must use his inimitable powers of persuasion, his experience in these days of a shortage of money, because costs will escalate if we postpone the construction of this medical school for too long. He must finalize this matter now and fulfil the wish of the Indian community.

I have about a minute more available to me and I should like to discuss the extended family which we find among the Indians. We find the extended family amongst the Indians in contrast to the basic family which consists of a father, a mother and children, as we find it in our Western community. In the extended family the grandfather and grandmother, the aunts and uncles, are also members of that family under one roof. The principle which forms the basis of this is that the stronger support the weaker members. In times of unemployment those who work share their bread with those who do not work. As a result of this family system we find that if one of the parents falls away, the children are not cast out to suffer deprivation without parents. As a result of this system the crime rate among the Indians is the lowest of all population groups. We find the fewest children in children’s homes among this community. Old-age homes are redundant in the Indian community. This splendid system is disappearing in our country and it is also disappearing in India. A community is dynamic and I suppose we cannot turn back the clock. However, we can delay that process. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Natal delivered a plea here for the establishment of a medical faculty exclusively for Indians in Natal. We on this side of the House, however, accept that a medical faculty or medical school for Whites, Indians, Bantu and Coloureds is needed in Natal. We do not accept that there is only one group there. There are all these various groups there and proper provision is not being made for them. In fact, the 1966 Van Dyk report recommended the establishment of an institution for Whites. It does not matter to us whether it is at Durban-Westville or at the University of Natal, as long as it is a faculty where the various race groups can be trained.

The hon. member also mentioned constitutional development and objected to the allegations that it was a farce. Of course the plans for the NP for Constitutional development are farcical to the Indians, but I shall return to this later in my speech.

Shame!

Yes, I, too, say shame if a Government which has been in power for 28 years can only offer us a farce instead of something positive.

†Education happens to be the shop-window for separate development for Indians whenever any hon. member opposite or any Nationalist wants to sell this idea to someone else. There is no doubt that Indian education stands out when one compares it solely with non-White education in South Africa. Indian education has advanced further than that of any other non-White group as far as compulsory education is concerned, as far as the percentage of pupils at school is concerned, in relation to the elimination of double sessions and in relation to the percentage of qualified teachers. It should immediately be remembered, however, that the key to educational advancement is the amount of money being spent on such education.

In 1974 the expenditure on Indian education at primary school level was R146 per pupil, at high school level R235 per pupil, with an average therefore of R170,94. That being the case, it is no wonder that the situation is more favourable than, for example, for the Coloureds, for whom the per capita cost is far lower—somewhere in the region of R110 and R140 respectively. Comparisons with African schools are, of course, completely unrealistic. My point is that comparisons with other non-White groups is not really important when it comes to the success or failure of multinationalism or separate development for the Indians. What is important is that Indian education should be compared with White education and that one should be conscious of what is happening in White education. If we make this comparison, we find that the position is still bad. My submission is also that when one is discussing Indian education one must make comparisons with the existing state of affairs in Natal where the majority of Indians live.

There in 1973-’74 the per capita cost for White school pupils was R557. Bearing in mind that this figure would be higher for 1974-’75, one can safely say that the cost ratio between Indian and White pupils is 1:3. If there were no deficiencies in Indian education, this discrepancy would have been purely of academic interest. The fact is, however, that there are still many deficiencies in Indian education. For example, although the position is improving, the failure rate at matriculation level is still high while the drop-out rate still gives cause for grave concern. Only 25,5% of the 1966 Std. 6 intake reached Std. 10 in 1970, while only 28% of the 1971 Std. 6 intake reached Std. 10 in 1975. The position is improving, however, and one is grateful for that, but we still find that it is 100% behind the position in White schools where the drop-out rate between Std. 6 and Std. 10 is in the region of 56%. Although in future the lowest professional teaching qualification will necessitate three years of training instead of two, and in spite of the fact that many teachers make use of part-time courses to improve their qualifications, there is still a high percentage of Indian teachers with poor teaching qualifications. Graduates constitute some 17% of the total teaching establishment.

Last, but not least, the Indian teacher is still very far from reaching salary parity with his White counterpart who holds similar qualifications. I may add, Sir, that in spite of promises, there is no immediate hope of his being able to achieve this in foreseeable future under this Government. Bearing all these factors in mind, one has to arrive at one conclusion, and that is that far greater expenditure on Indian education is an absolute necessity. I must remind the hon. the Minister of another important fact. During the last few months, the hon. the Minister of National Education has embarked upon a crusade—although it would appear to be a one-man crusade—to get the Government to award the highest priority to education. Recently that Minister told this Committee that he knew of no country that had gone bankrupt because it has spent too much on education. I agree with that. We know that when the hon. the Minister of National Education speaks about education, he speaks on behalf of and for White education. If there is a need for this in White education, the need for it in Indian education is far greater and more pressing. The hon. the Minister must regard it as his duty to join this crusade. He should in fact just sing much more loudly. His message should be that: “Bankruptcy is the fate of a country which neglects the education of any section of its population.” This is the task he faces. If he succeeds in that task, we shall find that there will be even more spectacular improvements.

I now wish to come to another matter which is not unrelated to the topic I have been discussing, and that is the inherent weakness of the present constitutional arrangement for the Indians in terms of the Government’s policy. In respect of education, the hon. the Minister has made a public announcement that as from 2 January 1976 he has transferred all the powers vested in him in terms of the 1965 Education Act to the executive of the South African Indian Council. Theoretically this means that, unlike his predecessors, the hon. the Minister no longer needs to pose as also being an educational expert. He is no longer the Minister of Indian Education in addition to being the Minister of Indian Affairs. This was one of the de facto honours his predecessors received. They were regarded as being experts in the field of race relations, with particular reference to Indian affairs—that is why they were Ministers of Indian Affairs—and they were also regarded as being experts in the field of education. In theory, in the light of that statement by the hon. the Minister that he has transferred the powers vested in him to the Indian Council, the new Minister of Indian Education in South Africa is the member of the executive of the Indian Council responsible for education. Yet, Sir, this person belongs to a body which has no power or say in respect of the most important aspect of Government, namely the appropriation of money. Ultimately the Indian Council will receive a sum of money as the result of today’s proceedings here in this Committee. If that amount is inadequate, there is nothing which the new theoretical Minister of Indian Education can do about it. Mr. Chairman, this is making a farce of democracy. The hon. the Prime Minister can come forward with fancy Cabinet committees, and we in the Opposition and everybody else can wish them well, but the system cannot work. When the hon. the Minister made that statement that he had transferred all his powers, he must have done so in a moment of complete over-optimism. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central made certain references to Indian education. I shall deal with this during the course of my speech. However, I should also like to say that we cannot agree with the hon. member at all when he refers to the policy of the National Party Government and describes our constitutional development as a farce. As far as the Indian population is concerned the National Party Government has placed it irrevocably upon the path to good neighbourliness within the same national borders. Therefore with its policy of separate development it wants to lay down guidelines which ensure stability, continuity and progress for the Indian population.

This is precisely what the case is at present. In spite of what the hon. member for Randburg said here and in spite of what the hon. member for Durban Central also wanted to say, a meaningful relations situation has already been created through this policy. What is more: With this policy a great deal has already been done to place the Indian population on the road to development in many spheres of life. If we contrast the factual situation as it is today with that of a little more than a decade ago, or with that which existed when that side of the House was in control of matters, one cannot but realize what phenomenal progress has been made with the creation of opportunities for the development of the Indian population.

I want to come now to the matter to which the hon. member for Durban Central referred, namely education, and I want to make the statement that education is one of the spheres in which spectacular progress has been made. The story of Indian education is indeed a success story which testifies to the success of the Government’s policy. We may be very grateful for this, because it is an irrefutable fact that the future of South Africa is going to be determined to a great extent by the quality of the education which we give the children of the peoples of South Africa.

While we are speaking of success, we do not only want to ascribe success in this particular connection to the policy of the Government. A very great deal of praise is due to the Indian community in general and the Indian leaders in particular for the contribution which they have made thus far. Through their responsible behaviour and guidance these people, as far as the education of their children is concerned, have proved that the road of consultation, of negotiation and discussion, is the road of evolutionary progress, and that this road is always better than the road of confrontation, the road of which the hon. member for Randburg is so fond of discussing. The Indian population have done a great deal more among their own people in respect of the development of education than the other population groups of South Africa have done among their own people. The Indian community deserves the greatest praise for this commendable example which they have set and which may be beneficially followed by the other people.

It is as a result of this disposition which prevails amongst the Indian population that the National Party Government can put its policy of the recognition of the equality of the peoples in South Africa into practice in regard to Indian education. For this reason the Indian population are also obtaining an increasing say in its own affairs in respect of education. It is also the policy of the National Party Government that every trace of guardianship over the education of the Indians should be removed as soon as possible. Available statistics also indicate that, when these things are said, it is not mere lip service. Statistics indicate that this policy is becoming a reality. If one considers only the teaching staff, it seems that, with the exception of 41 Whites and seven Coloureds, Indian education at the moment is in the hands of the Indians themselves. With respect to the opportunities for advancement as well—I should like to refer to this—it is very clear that the NP has kept its word, that Indians with the necessary experience and qualifications will be able to advance to the highest posts in education.

Now it is particularly interesting to note that the Natal Provincial Administration—at that time, when Indian education still fell under its jurisdiction—seemed to be the opinion that no Indian was competent enough to be an inspector. Therefore they were given an inferior sort of job and were called supervisors. In contrast with this, today, after only a few years, we can say that in respect of opportunities for advancement several opportunities have already been created … [Interjections.] Hon. members must please listen to this. Several opportunities have already been created and at the moment there are two Indians who are chief inspectors of Indian education. At the moment there are also 15 Indian members of the school inspectorate.

I do not say these things in order to hold them up as a show window. What is pleasing about the policy which is followed by the NP Government, is that spectacular results are being produced. If one looks at the number of registered pupils it is apparent that that number increased from 161 000 in 1970 to 183 000 in 1975. One also notices that the number of pupils at high schools for Indians has increased phenomenally. In 1966, the Department of Indian Education was taken over, there were 19 000 high school pupils, while at the moment there are 50 000. The most important reason for the amount of students rising and increasing, is the fact of free education, as well as the large number of bursaries which are made available. However, hon. members mentioned very little concerning this. Since a system of compulsory education was instituted in 1973, pupils at present stay at school very much longer, too. As a result of this the number of early school leavers is decreasing, and it will decrease even further in the future. Between 1970 and 1975 the number of matriculation pupils increased by 66%. Therefore there is also a larger number of qualified Indians now who are entering the labour market.

With regard to the Indian teaching staff, to which the hon. member for Durban Central also referred, it is interesting to note that, when Indian education was taken over in Natal on 1 April 1966, approximately 20% of the teachers were not properly qualified, while when the take-over took place in the Transvaal in 1967, 12% of the educational staff were unqualified people. At present there is only a very small percentage of teachers who are not properly qualified; only 3,8%. This is the lowest figure for all the population groups. Nevertheless the hon. members levelled criticism at this.

When one refers to the University of Durban Westville, it is further proof of a success story. The Indian community sees it in this light as well. The University has five faculties and 51 departments at the moment. The total of registered students increased from 114 in 1961 to 2 674 in 1975. I can continue in this way.

If one considers the success story of the Indian education in this way—and I believe that the future of South Africa is going to be determined by the quality of education which is given to the children of the peoples in South Africa—then I think that we can rightfully say today that we need not fear the future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Geduld says that we must choose the path of consultation rather than that of confrontation. With every respect for that hon. member, I am afraid that the policies of the Government are not going to lead us to anything else but confrontation. When the hon. member for Port Natal talked about the constitutional development of the Indian people in South Africa, there was a certain sense of unreality. Fine words flow from his mouth, but the reality is something very different indeed. However, I must admit that I agree with the hon. member for Geduld on the question of the education for Indian people.

There has been considerable improvement in and success with the education policy for Indians during recent years. I was very pleased indeed to see that two chief school inspectors, Indian people, have been appointed. I want to congratulate the department and the hon. the Minister for the considerable progress that has been made in this field.

I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister today, namely the matter in regard to Indian traders in Grahamstown. When I raised this matter last year, I pointed out that people such as the Grahamstown town council, the local Chamber of Commerce and a number of other people in Grahamstown did not want the Indian community to be moved. Indeed, the hon. the Minister added to this when he referred to the fact that the hon. member for Albany had presented a petition to this effect from the people of Grahamstown.

The hon. member for Albany has done a very good job of work in that respect and I do not know why you should want to interfere with it.

The hon. Minister, as is his wont, in the most genial manner, but lacking the elements of ordinary politeness, replied the matter had been referred to the Department of Community Development and added that it was being done on the initiative of the hon. member for Albany. I am not decrying what the hon. member for Albany has done, but what exactly has been done as the result of this initiative is now clear for all to see. According to Press reports, it appears that the Indians are being kicked out by this same hon. Minister, wearing his Community Development boots. I gather that the hon. the Minister saw no special circumstances which would warrant any deviation from Government policy. There are many reasons why this should be considered. The first is that these people do not wish to move. Secondly, the local people do not want them to move. Thirdly, the expensive resettlement, especially at a time when Government expenditure should be curbed, is a criminal waste of money. The fourth good reason is a moral one, because I think it is criminal to insist on the removal of traders, knowing that it might well destroy their ability to make a decent livelihood. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, assumingly having the best interests of the Indian community at heart, should talk to himself in his capacity as Minister of Community Development and decide that this sort of removal should be altered immediately. It has been taking place throughout South Africa for years, and it is still happening, for example, at Piet Relief, where the White business community has signed a petition pleading that Indian traders should be allowed to remain where they have been for 70 years. It is happening in Pageview in Johannesburg where traders have been forced to move to other premises. It is a matter of considerable regret that Durban’s Grey Street complex is being destroyed as an Indian residential area. It is tragic that a community such as this should be destroyed. There are schools, religious institutions, hotels and cinemas in the area which will have no purpose at all and will probably not survive. New amenities will have to be built in areas where this community is going to be forced to live in the future. Again, this is a tragic waste of money. When it comes to residences, there is already an enormous backlog of houses for Indians. Why should these people move? Could I ask the hon. the Minister whether there is any reason why Indian people who are living in the Grey Street complex, should not be allowed to remain there?

What complex?

The Grey Street complex in Durban. It is interesting to know that the hon. the Minister is not even aware of the fact that there has been a tremendous problem regarding Grey Street. [Interjections.] Regarding the question of housing, I have high hopes that the hon. the Minister during the debate on the Vote Community Development will commit himself to getting rid of the backlog within a limited period, as he did in the case of Coloured housing. As other members have stated, adequate housing is a priority for the Indian people, and I hope it is regarded as top priority by the hon. the Minister and the Government.

I now want to change my tone and congratulate the hon. the Minister on one matter. I was interested to read in the annual report of the department a statement of policy in regard to the employment of Indian people in the department’s establishment. As the hon. the Minister will remember, I raised this matter last year and expressed the hope that the hon. the Minister would see his way clear towards giving Indians the opportunity to fill senior posts in the department. I am glad to see that this is being done. It is a very great step forward. Last year I asked the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the plight of certain members of the Indian community who, for religious reasons, were restricted to marrying those belonging to their own faith. This has been raised again. Where the particular religious community is a very small one, the choice of possible marriage partners is very restricted, as, for example, the very small Parsee and Gujarati communities. I know of cases where South Africans have married people living outside the country, because of this religious restriction. Their marriage partners have not been allowed into the country. Last year the hon. the Minister pointed out that he was not the Minister responsible for this matter, but he did say that he did know from his friend, the hon. the Minister of the Interior, that the question of Asian immigrants was being reconsidered. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is in a position to tell us whether anything has been done to assist these unfortunate people. Very small numbers of people are involved, and nobody will be harmed if special consideration was allowed them.

The last matter I want to raise with the hon. the Minister concerns his attitude towards the local affairs committees. As I am not quite clear on this I am asking for guidance. There is considerable frustration amongst the Indian community, who do not regard local affairs committees as the real answer to their aspirations in the field of local government. Take the example of Durban. The Indians feel that they pay tremendous amounts of money in rates. This is, in fact, the case. However, the local affairs committee has no direct say in the policy-making of the city council. As a result they feel that they are badly treated in the provision of civic amenities. Many Indians feel that local autonomy is being shoved down their throats. They say that it is meaningless unless there is an equitable distribution of civic funds. I agree with them. They must get their fair share. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has anything in mind to put this situation on a reasonable footing.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to a few of the speakers today, and it is important to note that most of the speakers on this side of the House see the problem of our Indian population as one that must be solved and that the efforts to find a solution arise from a genuine feeling, although perhaps with a different aim than in the case of the Opposition. The Opposition, on the other hand, has had many opportunities over the years to come forward with the things they are putting forward to us today. I regret to say that history, particularly the history of Natal, is a black record that augurs nothing positive for the progress of the Indians. I think that some of the poorest Indians are found in Natal.

Where do you get that from?

I find it so wonderful when hon. members ask me where I get that from. I have first-hand knowledge of it.

Have you ever been in Natal?

I can tell the hon. member that before they started marching in Natal, I have already been in Natal.

*I know them; I know the mentality of people who threw out 1 220 Indians without building houses for them. Show me a case of an Indian being thrown out of his house today without being given another one! The hon. member’s party did that. The municipality did that. Let us go further. The whole history of that party is one of lip service. The Indians may perhaps say that they do not like the ideology of the Nationalist Party, but what the Government does for them in practice is more than anyone else has ever done. When we come to the Progressive Party, I think it is a party which is searching, but which does not yet know where it is going. I think it is a party that does not yet understand the backbone of administration. In fact they are still only a party whose point of departure is the hon. member who is now in America, an individual, the hon. member for Houghton, who has the intuition of a woman to tackle certain things, but, true to the intuition of a woman, can only see the beginning of something, but not its consequences. [Interjections.] That party has revealed itself. They do not speak on Public Works.

Order! The hon. member really must not return to that again.

The point is: What have they done in this debate? All they talked about here, was confrontation. They come along with confrontation. The Indian population in South Africa are the people who have suffered most from confrontation. Do hon. members know how much they lost at the time of Cato Manor and now in Alexandra? The Indian shops there always looked so pleasant to me when I drove past, but now there is a notice up: “All Goods Must Go.” And last week it was all destroyed.

You saw that on television. We all saw the same programme.

The fact that those hon. members also saw it only goes to show that what I say is true. The point is that everything went in one night, and I ask in this House today that when payments to these people are being considered, those Indians who lost everything should be borne in mind. Those people should be aided first, the people who, through no fault of their own, lost everything that they had built up. Most people in South Africa who do not know Indians well, see him as a waiter, an able waiter. We cannot get away from the fact that he is a particularly good waiter. One sees him as a dealer, in every respect. As a dealer he does business where other people fail. He is one of the best dealers one can find.

Now I want to make a plea in this House today that more opportunities should be created for Indians in our industries, opportunities to be productive. For example, these people are among the most skilled workers in the textile industry in South Africa. In the textile industry the Indian can make a bigger contribution than many of our other people are able to do. From Karachi to Hongkong these people are the most capable of maintaining a sound and cheap textile industry and manufacturing textiles. It is for this reason that I believe that the Indian can be absorbed into our textile industry, into the manufacturing industry. They are people with a talent for commerce. Our Indian community are the true capitalists. Over the years the Indian community has never asked for socialism or anything other than capitalism; it asks for a capitalist system and it must be afforded opportunities to give full expression to this. When I go to a place like Lenasia today, I find it pleasant to see that the residential areas have become model residential areas in recent years. One can speak about the community of Lenasia very appreciatively. It is an orderly community, and when clinics had to be built there, these people were prepared to contribute out of their own pockets. This is also applied to the Coronation Hospital, and when any fund has to be established, they are the first with their contributions. This is an orderly community, one that can look after itself.

†They do not need political mongers. They are people who know how to run their own affairs and they will decide whether they want the council, whether they want to work within such a council or not.

What happens if they do not want to?

What happens if they do not want to? The trouble with the hon. member is that I cannot answer him in the space of ten minutes. There are also other things that I would like to mention.

*What is of particular importance to me, is that a formidable problem was encountered in Lenasia and its vicinity with regard to dolomite, particularly in the new residential areas. The dolomite caused long delays because what the depth of the soil was and the location of the water level had first to be ascertained. Those problems delayed certain building programmes. Another matter to which I want to refer, is the Indian plaza. We are aware that the cost of the plaza is high and we ask that the Indians in the plaza themselves be afforded an opportunity to prevent the rent and its structure being changed soon because it is difficult to pay even the interest on such a project during the initial years. The plaza should be used to afford the Indian the opportunity to show that he is able to establish himself there and that the project could also be beneficial to the tourist industry. One should be able to eat real Indian food there and one should have the opportunity to see the wares as they are exhibited in an Indian bazaar. This is part of our culture; these people have become part of the South African culture, and we should like to see these people realizing themselves to the full and making full use of the opportunities that have been created for them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with the hon. member for Langlaagte that the Indian community of South Africa are generally peaceful and moderate and that they are already making a considerable contribution to the South African economy; also that they should be given a better opportunity to prove themselves, especially in the industrial sector. Investments by Indians in the manufacturing industry are expected to double from the 1972 level to about R60 million in 1980.

In the ten years to 1971 the Indian-owned and controlled factories in Natal increased more than sixfold, from 110 factories to approximately 712 employing approximately 14 000 Indians. Today they control about 800 factories, some of them with working capital amounting to millions of rand. In the light of this, it is incredible to me that such a sophisticated and economically active and capable group of people should still not be allowed by the Government to have their own fully-elected South African Indian Council. At the moment 15 of its members are elected and 15 nominated by the Minister. I know the Government intends to improve the situation, but still not to the point of a fully-elected South African Indian Council. Because of this, the Indian councillors are having difficulties gaining the confidence of their own people and especially of their young people who are still saying that they are nothing but Government stooges and that they go into the council and talk to themselves without achieving anything for the Indian community as a whole. The South African Indian Council have to work with a Cabinet Committee which they feel frustrates all their requests and demands. No progress is being made to solve their real problems. At recent meetings of the S.A. Indian Council four members objected and voted against working through the Cabinet Committee, with 17 members being prepared to give it a 12-month trial, I believe, and to see if it could prove itself by providing, first of all, for a fully-elected Indian Council, by bringing relief to the land and housing problem and, thirdly, by providing for trading rights in recognized commercial areas.

Did you say that 17 councillors voted against the Cabinet Committee?

17 were prepared to give it a trial for 12 months to see whether they would be able to prove themselves.

I believe that it has been decided to give the members of the CRC a salary increase of 15% and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has considered giving the Indian councillors a 15% increase as well. I am sure they would be very grateful to hear if that is taking place.

The answer is “yes”.

Thank you very much.

It is not only prepared, it is being done.

In several places of South Africa there are still the most appalling Indian slums. On the near East Rand there is a place called the Germiston Asiatic Bazaar where Indian families, several to a house, live in corroding corrugated iron houses with effluent running down the centre of the streets. This problem has been there for many years. I have spoken about it in the past and I know that the Germiston municipal council, although prepared to build houses for this community, were frustrated in their efforts, I think, because of Government policy. I should be very grateful if the hon. the Minister could tell us whether he has any plans for solving that appalling sore on the face of the East Rand at the Germiston Asiatic Bazaar. I believe they might be removed to Rietfontein beyond Alberton in the future. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could tell me when this will materialize.

Then on the far East Rand we had visits by two hon. Ministers in the past: By Senator Horwood in 1972 and by Mr. Marais Steyn in 1975. They saw a reasonable township, like the one at Actonville, slowly degenerating into a slum. The reason for this was that there were up to five families in some cases crowding into one small house; families were occupying garages, living in every nook and cranny they could find, building additional storeys to garages and living with entire families in those—just so they had a place to live. There is no room for the normal population increase in Actonville, no room for expansion. Yet still we hear that in terms of Government policy Actonville must take in the Indians in the surrounding areas so that there can be one Indian community on the Far East Rand. There is seething dissatisfaction in a place like Actonville, especially among the young people, and I can assure the hon. the Minister in all seriousness that the seniors of those young people are very worried about the conditions. They are worried, first of all, at having their families growing up in crowded conditions like this, and also because of the reactionary elements who are slowly asserting themselves more and more, rejecting the views of their seniors. This is leading towards an explosive position. I believe that by proclaiming additional areas for Indian occupation on the East Rand, this position could be eased considerably.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why it is taking such a long time to find additional land where these people can build for themselves and where houses can be built for them, because this is rapidly developing into an enormously serious situation. That is not the only place where this sort of thing is happening. There is also Lenasia, at one time a model township as the hon. the Minister knows. Especially in areas like Tomsville and Greyville in Lenasia conditions are really becoming appalling. There, too, one has the same kind of overcrowding. There are 388 houses in Tomsville occupied by 468 families, with at least 80 families, or 21%, occupying more than one four-room or two-room living unit. We have found houses there with up to 12 people living in a one bedroom-one kitchen two-room unit. Four families have to share one toilet. The mess is absolutely appalling. The doors are broken. I can assure hon. members that one would not like to have to wade in there to use those toilet facilities. This is the kind of situation we have at the moment in Lenasia which used to be a model township.

Approximately 920 families will still have to be moved, I believe from Pageview, to be housed in 234 units that are available at the moment in Lenasia. I want to ask the hon. the Minister where he will house the other families from Pageview that have to be housed in a place like Lenasia. In the meantime the shopkeepers of Pageview have to move out to Vrededorp—to the new Oriental Bazaar in Fordsburg—by the end of this month. Where are all these people expected to reside if this should happen? Must they all move out to Lenasia as well? I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister what building plans he has in mind to solve this problem. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have now had the opportunity of listening to a number of speeches from the other side of the House—speeches by members of both the UP and the PRP.

Good speeches.

I hear an interjection to the effect that they were good speeches. Everyone to his own taste, of course. Some, of course, were good, and others, again, were less good. But I should certainly not give all the speakers equal points.

Make one of the best for us now.

I should certainly not award the hon. member for Durban Central the most points.

It must be interesting for any member of the Indian community to listen to the debates or read at leisure the debates conducted here, because the debates are about them personally. I do not think it would always be very easy for them to judge really accurately the movements and trends in White politics or to gain a clear insight into them. Of course, it is also interesting to read or hear how people in world politics feel about my people and the situation here in South Africa.

In the nature of the matter, in a debate lasting 2½ hours it is impossible to cover the whole community with its problems. As a result one may sometimes gain the impression that the various parties deal superficially with the problems of the population groups under discussion. However, I must point out that there are study groups, too. There are also many other occasions on which we can take a very close and thorough look at the problems of the communities in question, and on which we can discuss those problems in great detail with the Minister concerned. I say this merely to obviate any impression that may be created that these matters are given only superficial attention.

Recently I discussed the broader aspect of responsible leadership. I mention this theme in particular because throughout the world today we are experiencing a sore need for responsibility. This applies particularly to responsible leadership. The approach of the NP is that there are various population groups in South Africa, and due to our policy various leaders have come to the fore. It is therefore important that when one calls oneself a leader, one should also test oneself against the qualities and characteristics of responsibility. The fruit of true freedom is responsibility, and that is why all of us in South Africa must ask ourselves what the concept “freedom” means to each of our population groups. In the course of our history this question has issued from the hearts of various Bantu people and tribes, from the hearts and the aspirations of the White people and also from the hearts of the Indians and the Coloureds. When each of these groups seeks to acquire freedom, it will have to seek it in the light of its own history and the history of the other population groups. That is why I want to say that when groups which are non-Whites—and I do not want to use a negative term now; by that I mean Indians, Coloureds and Bantu—consider the history of the freedom of the White man in this country, then they must consider it clinically and scientifically, because to me it is very clear that in the history of the freedom of the White man in South Africa there have been two definite groups that have called for freedom. In its urge to achieve freedom, the NP has tried to obtain and stabilize its freedom in a specific way, and therefore, in acquiring it, it will ensure that it will also give it to the other groups. When the non-White groups consider the demands and the call for freedom on the part of the White man, I want to point out to them that among the White group, too, they will find a small group of irresponsible people.

It is important for us in South Africa today to know that in every population group there is a small group of irresponsible people who do not have true freedom and responsibility at heart. As a member of the White population group in South Africa which genuinely wants to base itself on freedom and responsibility, I want to say that there are members of my community, too, in the ranks of the academics, the politicians and the Press, who do not have the sense of responsibility we should very much like to see. That is why I want us to take a very careful look at this. It is important, too, that when anyone in South Africa requests freedom for his group, in his appeals and his striving for freedom, we should not make inroads on the freedom and the rights of other people. In the discussion being conducted to solve the population questions of South Africa, one cannot listen to two groups only in such a way as to exclude the other groups. If, then, there is a call and a striving for freedom among the Whites or the Indians, we shall always have to bear in mind that there are other population groups in South Africa as well that will have to be considered. Recently I had the privilege of listening to an Indian leader who said that he appealed for freedom. When freedom is requested in this way, we must acknowledge that there is a diversity of freedoms in South Africa which must be satisfied.

Another important matter which we in South Africa will also have to consider is the issue of what becomes of so-called minority groups in other countries. In this regard it is important that each population group in South Africa will have to look at its place of origin, whether it be further north in Africa, in Europe, or in Asia or India. Account must be taken of the situation in those countries. One should also look further than just those countries in order to see how minority groups in other parts of the world are being treated. It is of vital importance that when we come to the basis of discussion, the freedom of people, we do not cause the spotlight to fall on lesser problems and questions in South Africa and try to tell ourselves that in other parts of the world things are easier and better.

I want to conclude by saying that when one looks at the report tabled this year and when one looks at the activities of this department, it may be said that the problems of this specific population group are being considered in an entirely responsible way. I accept that with reference to speeches made here today, final solutions have not yet been found with regard to many fields and facets, and that not all social problems have yet been solved. One asks oneself whether it is possible, in mankind’s present state, ever to find a total solution for all social problems. One is also inclined to think, when one looks at the discussion of the Votes of the Minister concerned with matters relating to colour, that it is only the people of colour who have social and other problems. Therefore, when one considers the White community, one is inclined to overlook the fact that there, too, there are social problems and bottlenecks.

In spite of the United Party’s criticism of the National Party, and in spite of the Progressive Party’s criticism we have experienced growth over the past 25 years with regard to the solution of population questions in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, as is customary, I want to convey my appreciation to members on both sides of the House for their contributions to this discussion. Today, however, it is more than merely a custom I am observing. I really feel a heartfelt need to express my appreciation for the level at which the debate was conducted by members on both sides of the House. There were lapses here and there; that is only human. I believe that if we could always approach our national relations in South Africa at such a level, we could face the future with confidence.

The debate was introduced by my hon. friend, the member for Mooi River, and, as one might expect of him, it was a well-considered and stimulating speech. I found it very interesting that he was followed immediately by the hon. member for Rissik, also a widely-read man of profound insight. The exchange of opinions and the mental friction which took place between these two hon. members, and the hon. member for Newcastle as well, was particularly interesting and illuminating and was perhaps a glimpse of Parliament at its best. However, what I found most striking in this debate was that with very few exceptions, the matters discussed were the important matters affecting the future of the Indian population as part of the population of the Republic of South Africa. Many lesser matters, which are also important and which I expected to be raised, were not raised. This I can understand. We are living in serious times and that is why it is the overall set-up, the fundamental matters, which must receive the attention of our people today. We also experienced this here today. I want to reply individually to the speeches made by hon. members. My time is limited. Subsequently I should like to refer in general terms to matters bearing on the standpoints of my hon. friends opposite.

†The hon. member for Mooi River has said that we are entering a new era in the history of South Africa. I agree with him. However, I believe we must not over-exaggerate that. We should not minimize it either. But we, should not over-exaggerate events which have taken place to the north of us during the past few days. Those are phenomena of change, phenomena of stress, which are essential to a society seeking to adapt itself to a final way of co-existence. I believe our history has changed for other reasons as well. Our history has changed particularly because of the ultimate and more fundamental consequences of the Second World War. I also believe that our history has changed because of the emergence of a vast number of newly independent nations, having ascended from a colonial status to full participation in the world councils. I do agree with my hon. friends that our history has changed, that our whole situation has changed, because of the rise of communism and of the influence of communism, even on the face of southern Africa during recent months. I am sorry to say that I also believe that our history has changed on account of the apparent inability of the Western world to contain this ebullience and this expansion of communism.

All these factors have to be considered. And now the hon. member has put the very pertinent question to me, namely what the answer of the Government is to this new situation, especially to the potential appeal which communism may have for sections of our South African population. It is a pertinent question. It is also a fair question. My answer is that I believe—I believe sincerely, having tested other alternatives over a long period of my life—that the greatest prospect that we have in South Africa for peaceful development—peaceful development which may occasionally be marred by temporary periods of dissatisfaction, which are part of human evolution and of human institutions— is the hope emanating from the plans of the Government, from the thinking of the Government and from the broad concept of the Government, the hope which is the best hope for peace in South Africa, for the appreciation of a common destiny of all the people of South Africa and for the fundamental common interests of the people of the Republic of South Africa.

My hon. friends of the UP have to some extent appreciated the fundamental philosophy of this Government. My hon. friends of the PRP make their concessions to federalism, meaningless concessions to federalism … I do not have the time to go into that now, but within the context of the South African problem, those concessions have no value whatsoever. They have all, however, made the major concession to the way of thinking of the Government. That is that we have in South Africa a coming-together of communities, each with its own identity, an identity which should, for political reasons, be recognized. We should also, for reasons of common sense and for reasons relating to the merits of these identities, not only recognize those identities, but grant them the fullest opportunity of developing to the maximum of their potential. On that point, I believe, there is a measure of agreement among the parties.

We believe that the separate identities of our peoples are so important that the whole philosophy of the Western World, of international politics, is based on the concept of self-determination. The policy of this Government is based on the concept of self-determination of communities. To a large extent, the policy of the UP is based on the recognition of the right of people to determine their own future, their own destiny and their own character. This is of vital importance. That is the policy of this Government, and that is why we believe that, through their own institutions, people will be able to determine their own identity, to develop it and—in the process—realize themselves by way of their potential, both as individuals and as communities.

I believe it is a simple fact, an undeniable fact of contemporary history, that this policy of the National Government in South Africa is going to be tested; is going to be tried to the full. During my own lifetime, and during the lifetime of my comparatively young friend, the hon. member for Mooi River, no other policy is going to be put to the test in this country, except if there should perhaps be an attempt at a violent communist revolution in South Africa, something which may be the supreme test of this Government’s policy. For the time being, and it is going to be a long time, other political parties in South Africa can put their alternatives, but I want to suggest that when putting their alternatives, they should also consider in which way they can assist the people of South Africa and the State of South Africa to carry out the only possible policy for our lifetimes. I am referring to the policy of the NP Government. That is where Parliament can play its most constructive role and where we can face realism.

The hon. member for Mooi River appealed to me particularly that I should advance the federal idea in the NP, because according to him I was the champion of federalism in the UP. I was, but in the first speech I made from this side of the House, I explained the problems which I had developed with the UP on this score. The UP decided to have two Parliaments, one an exclusively White Parliament, which would be supreme, at the top of the see-saw. At the other end of the see-saw they wanted to have a mixed Parliament. The White Parliament then gradually had to ride the see-saw downwards while the mixed Parliament was being pushed up. This policy abandoned federalism and produced a new policy of potential polarization which must be fatal, and deathly in the future of South Africa. That party, with its principle of a White Parliament to control the destiny of the country and to take the ultimate decisions for all people in this country, certainly has no claim to the federal idea in in South Africa any more. However, I am interested in the experimentation by the UP and the PRP in this regard. I say this, because they confirm one thing which we on this side of the House feel as well, viz. that the classic Westminster parliamentary constitution does not contain the final answer for the problems of South Africa. We in South Africa have to devise new, amended and adapted methods of Government, methods of democracy, in order to solve our multinational problems. I am glad to know that we and the major Opposition are on common ground in accepting the fact that we cannot model our parliamentary institutions blindly upon those of Westminster, and that because of our peculiar problems, we should be willing to adopt peculiar experiments.

This brings me to one aspect of this experiment about which several members asked me, viz. the hon. the Prime Minister’s concept of a Cabinet Council as part of the development of the new institutions in order to meet the peculiar problems of multinational South Africa. A month or so ago, at a meeting with the Indian Council executive, the hon. the Prime Minister announced—and it was published—that he was going ahead with the establishment of a Cabinet Council, and that the Cabinet Council would meet for the first time during the recess, and at regular intervals thereafter. I want to recommend hon. members who are interested in this experiment, to read the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech which he held here on 5 February of last year during the no-confidence debate. He positively put the philosophy and the practical implications of this policy. The idea is that there will be consultation—not merely talking together, but consultation—which can lead to common decision-making at the highest level between the representatives of this Parliament and representatives of the parliamentary institutions of the other permanent constituents of South Africa’s population, viz. the Indian and Coloured people. At the moment we have the problem that the Coloured people have their difficulties about accepting this policy, but I am satisfied that we are going to see spectacular developments in the near future. However, I shall not go into that now. The hon. the Prime Minister is willing to go ahead with his concept of a Cabinet Council with the Indian population who are willing to co-operate in this regard. I am sorry that the hon. member for Benoni is not here at the moment …

He is here.

I am very sorry. He, together with another member, suggested that there were members of the Indian Council who recently voted against accepting the concept of a Cabinet Council. He said there were 17 who voted against it.

No, I said four people voted against it.

Five people voted in the minority, but they did not vote against the concept of a Cabinet Council. Where do hon. members get that from? It is absolutely and totally wrong. I had representatives of the department at this meeting. They always attend these meetings. I have had reports from them. There was a motion before the Indian Council that participation in the Cabinet Council should be postponed until after the election next year when there would be a more representative and democratically elected Indian Council who could then go to the Cabinet Council to present the views of the true Indian electorate. There was no suggestion of divorcing themselves from the idea or of rejecting it. It was merely a question of asking for a postponement until the Indian Council, in their opinion, was more representative of the Indian people. And only 5 people voted for that out of a council of 30. It was not a rejection. The Indian people are willing to accept the Cabinet Council idea. They say, and they are entitled to say …

There is nothing else for them to accept.

But they do not reject it.

Because there is nothing else.

Is the hon. member trying to defend the hon. member for Benoni? The hon. member for Benoni said that they rejected the idea of a Cabinet Committee, and I said that they did not.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether there was a qualification in the proviso that they would give it an opportunity to prove itself in the following 12 months to see whether it would solve some of the problems?

That, of course, is not what the hon. member said when he spoke. He said that they rejected the idea. I am not certain about this particular point, but there may be reservations. They may want to try it out and test it. I do not blame them for this. We are entering a new field of political structuring in the field of government. Surely people are entitled to say, as we as the Government are surely also entitled to say, that they will see how this works and that if it does not work a rethink will be necessary. That is fair enough. However, to suggest that there was a rejection of the idea is ridiculous. In any case, the point is that we have here the idea, in the scientific sense of the word, of a new structure for our South African State where there will be institutions to give expression to the separate identity of three very important communities and three highly respected communities, the one towards the other, and to give them an opportunity of retaining their identity, developing their identity and realizing themselves within the framework of that organization through their own identity. There will be a common institution at Cabinet level where there can be common discussions and where there will be common decision-making in the interests of all the people of South Africa, with the understanding that each of the separate institutions will have the maximum authority in determining the happiness and the life of the community concerned. Each one will have the maximum say over each community in those matters of peculiar interest to that community. That is the way in which this Government is going and the way in which the hon. the Prime Minister is leading South Africa. I want to make a suggestion to those who feel a responsibility for the peaceful future of South Africa. Let them criticize and let them differ, but at the same time let them be willing to see, with open minds, whether this is not, as we believe and as I most certainly believe, the only answer in this beleaguered South Africa to the problems that beset us.

Mr. Chairman, may ask the hon. the Minister whether, once the Cabinet Council is set up and consultation does take place between the representatives of the Cabinet and the representatives of the Indian Council, and consensus is perhaps not arrived at on certain specific points, he can tell me how the decisions will eventually be taken?

I have not been in the Cabinet very long, but I have read about Cabinets ever since the day they met in the King’s bedroom in London, and I have never yet heard of a case where the Cabinet votes. I think all that can happen is that if there is no agreement, the Cabinet Council will adjourn its meeting and will seek agreement by consensus. That is how Cabinets work all over the world and that is how this one will work, too. [Interjections.] Sir, let me say that I am convinced—and I think my hon. friend will agree with me—that provided the people who form that Cabinet Council meet together with a common purpose of making this system work in the interests of all the communities of the Republic of South Africa—White, Coloured and Indian—I am convinced that it will work. I have respect for and confidence in the responsibility of the communities of South Africa. I believe that what is happening with the Coloured people is a passing phase. Perhaps it is an understandable phase and a regrettable one, but it is a passing phase. I believe that once we can get people to accept that through the Cabinet Council, through our own separate institutions also, through common action on the level where day-to-day decisions are taken of detailed matters of administration, e.g. the various boards throughout the country, like the National Housing Commission in my other department—I am satisfied that when this thing starts working and one sees the progress and the results, then, fortunately for South Africa, it will work well. This is the policy of South Africa. It is the policy practised in South Africa. Let us as South Africans not in advance try to condemn this policy with theoretical objections, but let us give it a chance. Criticize its working and its establishment, but do not go out of your way, like the hon. member for Randburg, to theorize about the polarization of the communities in South Africa, and theorize in a way which I find most regrettable, because the very theorizing was also the motivation for polarization. I am getting a little worried personally, and I said it in the Other Place yesterday too, about these people who run about South Africa with their solemn warnings of conflict and explosions in South Africa, and as and while warn, they also motivate people to cause an explosion. By the very nature of their warning and the wording of the warning, they motivate people to cause an explosion, and in voicing their warnings and putting all the blame on the Government, sometimes upon the language majority in the Government, they also exonerate evildoers in South Africa in advance. I think people who do this sort of thing should think a little and take stock of the course upon which they are setting South Africa.

The hon. member for Umhlanga said some nice things about me and I am human enough to appreciate them, and I want to thank him for them. He asked me about the establishment of a rehabilitation centre for Indians. I want to say at once that my department and I are unhappy because of these delays, because I agree with the hon. member that it is urgently necessary. It is one of the few fields of our Indians’ needs which has not been met as we would all like to see it met, but we had practical problems. We first had problems with the suitable land. We found land near Pietermaritzburg which was proved to us by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to be suitable but we had difficulty with an access road. Then, when we did find alternative land which was suitable, a disaster struck, namely that it was decided to transfer the psychiatric treatment of Indians from Pietermaritzburg to Durban. In a rehabilitation centre one deals with problems with a psychological content, problems like alcoholism, drug addiction, etc, and it should therefore be in close proximity to a mental hospital or a hospital where psychiatric services are easily available. So we had to abandon all our planning in Pietermaritzburg. Now we are again looking for land and we are going to find it—it will be easy—near to Durban, in order to establish a rehabilitation centre there. I can only hope—and this is a very sincere hope—that quite soon we will be able to make an announcement and get ahead with the establishment of this highly needed service for the Indian community. I am grateful to the hon. member for raising it, because it is right that people should know that it is not something that has just been forgotten, but that unfortunate developments have caused a delay.

The hon. member asked me whether I would not reconsider site-and-service townships for the Indian people. I am not going to discuss that now, as it is a matter which can be discussed under the Vote “Community Development”. However, I wish to tell him that the answer is “no”. This Government will not in any circumstances be a party to the construction of slums. This is not our intention.

That was Dr. Verwoerd’s idea.

I know, but Dr. Verwoerd faced a crisis unparalleled in the history of South Africa due to the war. I am not blaming anybody, for as a result of the war, we faced a situation which was completely and utterly untenable, and that was the reason for taking emergency measures, measures one would not in normal circumstances indulge in. In all the years that the hon. member and I were together we always paid tribute to the NP for at least one thing, and that was what they had done to solve the housing problem after the war.

*My hon. friend, the hon. member for Newcastle, made an exceptionally valuable contribution and said one thing which I should like to stress, viz. that South Africa is one country in the developing world of Africa in which the Indian community’s right to exist is not threatened. I am told that we in South Africa probably have the biggest Indian community outside India. They are safest here, and hon. members should make no mistake about that. Here they know that they are respected, that their identity is recognized, that opportunities for them to progress are being created, as other hon. members mentioned today, that they are being afforded an opportunity to become autonomous, to make a respectable living and that as long as they form part of the Republic of South Africa together with the Whites and the Coloureds, they can be sure of the future. They will not suffer the fate of Indians in other countries in Africa, who were kicked out and had to go to Britain with their British citizenship so as to create a problem for the community there, too. The Indians have a right to exist in South Africa and everyone respects that right.

I have already replied to the questions of the hon. member for Randburg. I can only say that I disagree with him, that there are no signs whatsoever of a polarization between Whites and Indians in this country, that there are no signs of any responsible Indian making common cause with extremists among the Black people of South Africa, and that I deplore most strongly his having added to his unfounded warning the motivation for such a polarization between the Whites and the Indians in South Africa. I deplore it, and I want to suggest to the hon. member, together with the rest of the PRP, to please do a little introspection in order to find out where they are heading with South Africa.

My hon. friend, the hon. member for Kimberley South, in a notable contribution to which I listened with great pleasure, advanced important arguments concerning the value of representation by a permanent minority in this House. I can discuss this matter with feeling. I do not want to hurl reproaches in connection with my stay in the Opposition, nor shall I do so, but my hon. friends on the other side of the House will remember that when we were together on that side, the Separate Representation of Voters Act was passed. At the time we had to decide what we were going to do in the future and we announced that if we were to come to power, we should place the Coloureds back on the common voters’ roll, only those who had been there before, viz. those with the same qualifications that had applied before. Hon. members will remember that after about a year we found that this was a totally untenable position. How can one adopt a standpoint in terms of which one places a group of male voters from the Cape back on the voters’ roll whereas one has no policy for the other provinces? We had no policy for the women nor for the Orange Free State or Transvaal. At the party’s national congress, we as the United Party were obliged to drop that idea and that is why we came up with the idea of federalism, because we realized that the idea of a common voters’ roll with one Westminster type Parliament would not be to anyone’s benefit and could only cause friction and tremendous political frustration on the part of such a permanent minority which, whenever it did not get its way, would always think that it was due to the race prejudice of the majority. Whatever the solution may be for the future, I hope that we shall not go back to a situation of having these statutory minorities in Parliament which must constantly disturb race relations in the country, because race and minority are two concepts which are associated in the minds of the minority, and this leads to frustration.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who apologized for not being here, raised a matter in connection with his own local area, a matter which, strictly speaking, falls under the Department of Planning. He has written to us, however, and we are giving the matter consideration, because, as hon. members know, the Department of Indian Affairs is also a liaison department with other departments. I want to assure the hon. member that the matter is receiving continuing attention and that I

There is also the metropolitan concept which is useful for that.

Yes, that is an interesting point the hon. member has made, one which one could examine. However, in order to establish within a larger metropolitan concept municipalities which will form the large metropolitan conglomeration, one still has to take into account where rates will come from. Rates cannot only be derived from homes, particularly not if those homes are sub-economic homes and owned by public authorities and therefore not rateable. This is a problem which is receiving the attention of the department, and not only of the department, but also of the Government, because this matter also affects my colleague, the hon. Minister of Coloured Relations, and we hope to be able to present a policy statement with regard to this matter in the near future.

*My friend, the hon. member for Port Natal, raised the issue of a medical faculty for aspirant Indian doctors. It is of course the policy of the Government to establish such a medical faculty. There is already a suitable hospital. But in order to establish such a faculty another R10 million to R12 million is required. This does not deter us. In fact, I have pledged the department to establish a faculty as soon as possible. However, new ideas are now being developed and new plans are being made with regard to a medical faculty in Natal for our Indian community. The matter must still come before the Cabinet, and as soon as the Cabinet has issued a final decision, an announcement will be made, and I hope that it will be positive news in connection with the establishment of such a faculty in the near future.

I just want to say that I believe that such a faculty is an urgent necessity. When lesser privileged communities—if I may call them that—progress towards equality with other communities, then the professional door is the one through which they can progress most rapidly. Initially, such a community produces many advocates, doctors, etc. This helps the community to boost its status. After that, the children can develop their abilities in other fields. This is the stage through which the Indian community is passing at the moment. They attach immense value to the professional qualifications of their youth, particularly medical qualifications, and one has to take this into account. Because the desire is so strong, we have the phenomenon that although they share a faculty at the University of Natal, many of them are enrolled at the University of Cape Town and at the University of the Witwatersrand. As my hon. friend mentioned, at the moment there are about 300 studying overseas—at the Universities of Cairo and Dublin as well as in India, America and elsewhere. We owe it to this community to create opportunities for them so that they may undergo the medical training they so much desire at a South African institution because I know it is their desire to maintain a South African character. That is why I am pleased that my hon. friend raised this matter. The matter will continue to receive urgent attention.

At the end of his speech my hon. friend also mentioned the issue of the multiple family. I think he wanted us to bear the multiple family system in mind in the planning of townships and residential areas. However, this is a very difficult matter. At the moment the Indian community is undergoing a transformation. It remains an Indian community with its own character and its own religions, but at the same time it is becoming Westernized to a large extent, and sometimes its own institutions are not quite appropriate to the needs of a Western community like the one in South Africa. Many things have disappeared. One no longer sees Indian women in purdah in South Africa. In many respects this matter of the multiple family is also disappearing because it is extremely difficult to uphold it. Houses of enormous size are required for it, and consequently only the rich can really afford it. In cases, therefore, where Indians wanted and can afford it, we shall not hinder them, but I think it would be a mistake for the State to encourage it. For example, it would be difficult to get Indian families to occupy flats, because the multiple family cannot be accommodated in a block of flats. And yet, in view of the shortage of land, high building costs and special problems, it is vital that our Indians, too, be encouraged to live in flats for at least a part of their lives.

The hon. member for Langlaagte said that we should make more use of the productive ability of the Indian community. This, of course, we are already doing. The hon. member for Benoni mentioned figures in this connection. Since the department has been making a point of encouraging our Indians to diversify their own economy, there has been spectacular progress. For example, we now have the M. L. Sultan school for higher technical education in Durban. About 8 000 full-time and part-time students are studying there to become artisans and technicians in professions that have never before been open to the Indians. There is the University of Durban-Westville, which has 3 250 students this year. In addition, there are more students at other institutions—chiefly Unisa—than at the University of Durban-Westville itself. This is a community which is undergoing a revolution, and I am grateful to think that South Africa will enjoy the benefit of their ability, energy and first-class business acumen.

The hon. member for Benoni also raised a number of matters. I have already discussed the Indian Council. He asked me a question in connection with Rietfontein, the new Indian residential area which is being established near Alberton, and which will serve the Indians of Alberton, Edenvale and Germiston. I can tell the hon. member that it has already been proclaimed. It is now in the hands of my other department, the Department of Community Development, which will develop that area for Indian occupation. I agree with the hon. member with regard to the conditions in Germiston. Right at the outset, when I took over this portfolio, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs drew my attention to it, and I am pleased to be able to say that something will now be done to improve that situation without delay.

The hon. member also referred to Acton-ville. Actonville is too small. There is no doubt about that. That is why Rietfontein has now been established as a second Indian residential area on the East Rand. We should have preferred to establish one large Indian residential area with a view to viability, etc., but that is impossible. I agree with what the hon. member had to say in connection with Actonville. I was there with him in the old days, and I have been there just recently without him, and I know Actonville. I agree that something urgent must be done there. The immediate possibility, of course, is to consider the future of Wattville. Wattville is out of place in its present situation, and I think the events over the weekend have taught us once again that despite the nonsense spoken by the hon. member for Randburg about polarization, it is not sensible to have the Indians and the Bantu in adjoining townships. We shall have to look afresh at that matter in order to ascertain whether we could not afford relief there as well.

The hon. member also pointed out that Lenasia has insufficient land or insufficient erfs, and that over-population occurs there. This is quite correct. Over-population does occur in Lenasia. Unfortunately this is due to the fact that certain dolomitic phenomena have come to light, with the result that large areas intended for occupation has been found to be unfit for that purpose. As a result we had to plan afresh. Erven are now once again available in a new township. A proclamation is to appear in the Gazette either this Friday or next, in terms of which a further 9 000 ha will be made available to Coloureds and Indians on the Witwatersrand. 5 900 ha will be made available to Coloureds and 3 100 ha to Indians. In this connection, too, the hon. members therefore have the assurance that the Government is not letting the grass grow under its feet. We are dealing with these matters and prompt relief will be afforded to the Indian community of Johannesburg as well.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would consider rendering financial or other aid to the Indian businessmen whose shops have been plundered, damaged or destroyed during the recent riots?

Yes, definitely. I discussed the matter this morning with the heads of the Departments of Community Development and Indian Affairs. Steps have already been taken in the case of Wynberg, next to Alexandra township, to accommodate the Indians who have been left homeless there without delay in available houses. They will also be assisted to re-establish their businesses. I am grateful that the hon. member afforded me the opportunity to announce this.

Sir, once again I want to convey my sincere thanks to all who have taken part in this debate. I thank them for a very interesting discussion. I only hope that what I have said will be taken to heart, viz. that although we must be as critical as possible in our discussions, we must not, by giving vent to all kinds of sad tidings and Jeremiads, create a situation which could result in an accident. If warnings are to be sounded, let this not be done so injudiciously as, in fact, to bring about the very consequences which we fear.

Vote agreed to.

“Vote No. 35 and S.W.A. Vote No. 22.—Community Development”:

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half hour. Mr. De Wet, the managing director of Trustbou, recently said the following—

I think no one will dispute the words of Mr. De Wet.

†The hon. the Minister has after a short period on the Government benches been entrusted with a department of State which is responsible for the fulfilment of what I would term a basic desire of all men, i.e. to own a house, and a department which must ensure the extension of home-ownership in the interests of national stability. My fairly long association with the hon. the Minister has convinced me of his sincere concern for the needs of the family man in regard to community aspects of life. Thus, in congratulating him on the new responsibilities he has been entrusted with in this department, may I say too that I welcome his appointment because it affords him the opportunity to implement his oft expressed concern for the welfare of the individual in the field for which he is now responsible as head of this department. I want to say at the outset that he is most fortunate in having a highly efficient Secretary for Community Development. I immediately want to congratulate the Secretary for Community Development on the report which has been placed before us, for its fullness and its effective portrayal of the activities of the department. May I also suggest to the Secretary that there was really no need for him to have included the apology which he has made in the last sentence of his report. I should like to read this. The Secretary says in his report—

I would suggest that the hon. the Minister sees to it that this comment is brought to the notice of other departments and State institutions who find it necessary to have reports with glossy covers and many photographs. Those luxuries are not really necessary.

The importance of housing with maximum opportunities for home-ownership and the creation of community facilities cannot be over-emphasized. The hon. the Minister will be aware that the Theron Commission has fully canvassed issues which affect the Coloureds in these spheres. This can be seen in its recommendations, particularly paragraphs 98 to 116 of the document which has been tabled in this House. I do not believe that this is the opportunity, nor have we the time, to go into those matters fully. However, the needs and general principles which are expressed in those recommendations are endorsed by us on this side of the House and have our support. I am sure that in the main these will similarly have the endorsement and support of the department. Some of them have in fact already been implemented by the department. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not, as soon as possible, have a memorandum prepared dealing with the recommendations and the attitude of his department to the various recommendations in regard to Community Development affairs.

At this stage I want to merely touch on issues which relate specifically to Cape Town. Firstly, the hon. the Minister will not be surprised when I say that my first reference will be to District Six. Surely, after all these years, the Government can now accede to the appeals of the City Council and the citizens of Cape Town for District Six to be returned to the Coloured people for their occupation. It is recommended in the report of the Theron Commission. There is a small minority who made other suggestions, but I do believe the time has come to do this. There is no reason why this request should not be acceded to.

Secondly, there is reference to the future of the areas of Woodstock and Salt River. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister not to apply and enforce removals from the Woodstock and Salt River areas, whether it be the removal of Whites or of Coloureds. People are living happily and contentedly in reasonable accommodation. It should be left alone and allowed to continue as it has continued over the years in the Cape Town community life.

There is a third matter, which I have already raised with the hon. the Minister in correspondence, in connection with those areas and in connection with other areas in older Cape Town. That is the question of urban renewal. I believe there are existing historical and well-constructed period terraces of homes and other individual houses which could well be renewed instead of being demolished, as has been done so effectively by the Cape Town City Council, with the aid of the Government, in the Malay Quarter of Cape Town. I believe that, out of what outwardly appear to be neglected houses and homes, there can arise in Cape Town homes and buildings of historical value, of interesting architectural format, which could be the pride of the city and of South Africa as a whole. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give this matter his urgent attention, to give the City Council the green light to go ahead and to do a survey in order to find out where these types of buildings are that can be so renovated and improved and which can also continue to provide housing for the people of the city.

Much has been done for housing. I have already said in previous debates that one realizes that a considerable amount is being done towards the housing of the Coloured people. The private sector is also becoming involved. The private sector is becoming increasingly involved in providing accommodation for their employees. However, I want to warn the hon. the Minister—and I believe all of us in this House should take cognizance of the fact—that we do not want to reach the situation which has now been reached in Britain, where 60% of the population are living in what are termed council houses. They live there without the responsibility of ownership. We should be careful to ensure that, whilst the State builds houses and provides them, the maximum effort, regardless of their quality, is made to promote home-ownership for the people who acquire occupation of those houses.

The Theron Commission has also raised an issue in this regard, which is referred to as “self-help”. I believe that if this self-help can be introduced with regard to the provision of housing, we could avoid what one could term the creeping socialism of the demand on the Government to provide housing for people from all the strata of the population.

In reply to the Indian Affairs Vote debate this afternoon the hon. the Minister did touch on the question of site-and-service. I am going to be very persistent in this matter. I have again taken the trouble to obtain the paper which was read by Mr. Mocké, the then senior Urban Areas Commissioner, on site-and-service procedures. The paper was read by Mr. Mocké to the Institute of Municipal Officials in 1956. This was a scheme and an approach which was approved by the late Dr. Verwoerd, but the only answer which I can get from the hon. the Minister and from this Government is: “We tried it at Elsies River and it failed; we do not want to create more slum conditions.”

Mr. Chairman, it failed there because there was no follow-through administration which must go with a site-and-service scheme. That is the reason why it failed, and I want the hon. the Minister—I have copies available of the discussion in which municipal engineers took part at that particular conference—to try to find time again to look into this matter. The more I read of it, and the more I see site-and-service working, as I have seen in other countries in Africa, the more I believe that this hon. Minister is wrong in not accepting site-and-service as a successful method which can be applied. Immediate action in regard to site-and-service will tide over the seven year period, which the hon. the Minister has already said would be necessary to catch up with normal housing for the Coloured people. It will bring relief to the Coloured squatters who have to live in the awful conditions in which they are living at the moment. It will defuse—and I want to emphasize this—a potentially volatile situation amongst squatters, a situation which is nurtured in the frustration of the conditions in which they live and in waiting to get accommodation. It could be extended also by the Bantu Housing Boards to ensure that a similar provision is made for Black squatters.

We want to defuse this situation which creates so much frustration, and the only way in which it can be done immediately is by means of site-and-service schemes. If the hon. the Minister still has doubts about the efficacy of this system, I want to ask whether he will refer the matter to the committee of inquiry which is investigating matters relating to housing at the present moment. Will he allow that committee to have a look at it? It seems to me as if he and the Secretary have had too much of this “toenadering”. They both shake their heads when I talk about site-and-service. If I cannot get through to them, perhaps the commission of inquiry, which is sitting at the moment, may be able to do it.

As far as White housing is concerned, I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister about a matter which needs serious attention. The rich can look after themselves, and the lower income groups are well catered for by the facilities which are available through Government schemes and housing schemes, but the middle income group are in a most difficult situation at the present time. I have read with interest that 75% of the Whites in South Africa earn less than R500 a month. At the same time, one reads that with the present construction costs of flats, a family flat cannot be let economically for less than R200 a month. In the case of a person earning R500 a month, that is out. At present interest rates it is impossible for a person earning R500 a month to buy a house of R20 000 on a 90% bond. It simply cannot be done and those people are falling into debt or they are failing to obtain proper accommodation. I have raised this before with the hon. the Minister, but perhaps he can tell me whether any progress whatsoever has been made in regard to the suggestion which I made at an earlier stage during this session, i.e. that there should be provision for a capital depreciation allowance on flat buildings for tax purposes, so as to enable these flats to be let that the owner obtains the same net return.

Having dealt with housing, I want to move on to another matter, viz. the question of permits under the provisions of the Group Areas Act. The issue of permits, under section 21 of the Act, is the exclusive responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. There are certain provisions in terms of which the Minister of Bantu Administration is affected, for example, in the definition of “group”, etc. However, when it comes to permits for functions, theatrical performances, the use of premises, restaurants, etc., the responsibility lies with this Minister. Permits are not concessions, and if the system has been introduced on the basis that there should be permits, they cannot each be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. In reply to a question from me, the hon. the Minister said that each one is dealt with on its merits. Surely, there must be some policy principle which is applied in dealing with these permits? I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would elaborate on his approach. When one looks at the total number of permits that are issued by the department, there are not many that are refused, but the ones that are refused are of the type that hit the headlines of the world’s newspapers. That is the unfortunate position we have. How, for instance, does one explain anywhere, even in South Africa, that the Chinese circus can perform in the Nico Malan Theatre in front of mixed audience, but that when it returns to Cape Town for another season at the Three Arts Theatre, it must then perform before segregated audiences? How does one explain that to anyone in this country and overseas? The question which is frequently asked is: Why do people in authority not give individual persons or individual communities the right to make their own decisions about their relationships with other persons or communities? It has been suggested that the answer is that too many decisions about relationships between men and men are taken in Pretoria, and that not enough freedom is left to the people in the communities and areas where they spend their daily lives. I know the hon. the Minister will agree with me, because I am quoting his own words. If we must have a permit system, then I plead with tears in my eyes to the hon. the Minister to let the issue of the permits be left in the hands of the local authorities. Why can they not decide?

Who is paying the bill?

Who is paying the bill? The bill is being paid by the proprietor of the theatre or of the restaurant. We now have a situation which is becoming serious. I am pleased to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is in the House. The Nico Malan situation arose, and there were difficulties. I want to pay a tribute to the hon. the Leader of the House for the prompt action which he took to clear the matter up. It was welcomed. It did an incredible amount of good to the country all over the world. There have been no incidents whatsoever in this regard. But, Sir, what does the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education have to say? I quote from Rapport of 6 June—

What does the hon. the Deputy Minister mean? He goes further. In the same interview he makes the threat that he thinks the time has come when there should be legislation to prevent a racially mixed cast on the stages in the theatres in South Africa. I suppose that, if the hon. the Deputy Minister has his way, Othello on the stage must be a White man with his face blackened with boot polish, because it would be quite wrong and would break down the whole of our civilization if a Coloured man were allowed to play Othello on the stages of South Africa. No wonder Rapport—and I quote from Rapport of 6 June again—had this to say in its leading article—

Reference is then made to Minister Jimmy Kruger and “die beoogde wetgewing teen filmvertonings op Sondag”, and then—

And then the editorial continues—

I do not think this situation can continue. The responsibility, as I have said, is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I think we need clarity. It has been suggested in one newspaper that the statement of the hon. the Deputy Minister was issued after consultation with, and apparently with the agreement of, the Minister of Community Development. I find that hard to believe. We have the hon. the Minister of the Interior imposing conditions about what audiences an artist can perform in front of when he issues a temporary residence visa to the man. I believe this state of affairs is most harmful. As far as we are concerned, we believe that the right of access to theatres, to restaurants, to amenities which are established by private persons, should be determined by the proprietor himself. It is his money which is involved; it is his investment and he will not render a service which is not acceptable to the public at large because he will lose out on it. His ways will be regulated. He will regulate his business so that it meets with general public acceptance. Why cannot that be done? If it is a municipal authority or other public body which has established the amenity, for heaven’s sake let the local authority decide who shall use it and who shall not use it.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that this is a “netelige probleem”, and I do believe that the time has come to do something. We are all committed, on both sides of this House, to do away with discrimination on the grounds of colour only. Is it necessary to go on with these petty pin-pricks that are continuing, in Cape Town particularly, as regards the Coloureds and the Whites? We read in the Theron Commission’s report that culturally their future is with the White people. They are called our “vennote”, by the hon. member for Moorreesburg but they cannot come inside a theatre if there is a White man sitting there and a White man cannot go inside the same theatre if a Coloured man is sitting there. Sir, this is a ridiculous situation. It is one of those decisions which the hon. the Minister in former days condemned, i.e. that Pretoria should dictate what is to be done in the Cape or all over the country. Sir, the time has come when those parts of the country should be entitled through their own local authorities to make decisions on these matters and I hope the hon. the Minister will find it possible to work in that direction and that he will take the advice of the local authorities and not of Ministers who have no real say or responsibility in regard to the administration of this law.

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the speech of the hon. member for Green Point, I just want to avail myself of the opportunity to extend a hearty welcome to this particular portfolio to the hon. the Minister, who is now in charge of this Vote in the appropriation committee for the first time. In the time during which he has occupied this post we have found him to be a very accessible person. We have found in him a great idealist who is dedicated to this department. We therefore expect the Department of Community Development to reach very great heights during his term in charge of this Vote.

The hon. member for Green Point only touched on the Theron Report today. I do not want to allow myself to be sidetracked by following up on what he said at this stage. In the first instance, he discussed the issue of the restoration of District 6, and I think that he could have discussed this to far better effect on a different occasion. He asked the hon. the Minister not to carry out large-scale resettlement from District Six, Woodstock and Salt River at this stage. The fact is that it has already been indicated to hon. members that as far as resettlement is concerned, the mass of housing that will be made available in the future will in the first instance provide for new needs and that the provision of accommodation to existing squatters will be a priority, with the result that it will not be possible to make so much of it available for the purposes of resettlement. The hon. member again made a very big issue of the site-and-service scheme which, according to him, should be followed up. Sir, when discussing the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill we spent hours discussing the whole issue of squatting and Coloured housing, in depth and in general.

To come along again at this stage and advocate a site-and-service scheme which we have dealt with in the finest detail and which the Minister and the department have repeatedly indicated cannot be the solution to our problems, is futile. The fact is that 95% of all Coloureds living in cities and townships today already live in houses provided by the State. This gives us some idea of the enormous demands made on the Government with regard to Coloured housing and the large measure of success already achieved. But then hon. members should also not overlook the fact that local authorities have not always co-operated so readily in housing matters as is the case at present. Many of them even shamefully neglected to provide Coloured housing, so much so that a backlog which had been caused by the growing migration from the platteland to the urban areas was aggravated still further.

The hon. member raised a great song and dance about the issuing of permits. He saw fit to dwell on this at some length, and if the hon. the Minister sees in this an opportunity to score a few political points, I do not begrudge him that pleasure. I could probably question the hon. member’s motives. Last year, in reply to the hon. member’s speech in this connection, I spelt out the position to him very clearly and all I can do today is merely to refer the hon. member to the relative column of last year’s Hansard. Perhaps I should just restate the position to the hon. member briefly, viz. that the attendance of another colour group at a presentation in a theatre, a hall or similar venue is permitted on occasion. The method by which this is done is determined in consultation with the management of the hall in question. The essence of government policy has always been, and still is, that such attendance is by permit and that it takes place on the recommendation of the management concerned that is presenting the show and with the necessary permission from the hon. the Minister.

The fact that the hon. the Minister is involved in the granting of permission ensures that every application will be considered on merit. By this one does not want to give the impression that the issuing of permits is a formality or a simple matter, because in the nature of things this creates problems from time to time. However the allegation is often lightly made that conflicting decisions are taken, something which may appear to be true on the surface. The fact is, however, that the nature of the show necessarily plays a part when a decision has to be taken about a permit. Factors relating to the nature of the show must be taken into account. For example, account must be taken of whether it is a show capable of being repeated or whether it is one to be performed once only, and how the show is made up. Our guarantee is to be found in the very fact that all these factors are considered at a very high level and that the Government is prepared to take that decision at a high level. It would of course have been far easier to drop this matter in someone else’s lap, for example, the lap of the local authorities, as the hon. member argued, but because it is such a delicate matter we are not prepared to have any lesser bodies deciding on the norms and deciding who should get a permit and who not. That will continue to be the position and it would be sensible for the hon. Opposition to put up with it.

I want to touch on another matter which is causing growing concern and that is the issue of rent control. In recent times an increasing number of voices have been raised in favour of the abolition of rent control. Rent control in South Africa has a particularly long history. I think it dates from 1920, when legislation was passed shortly after the end of the First World War. At the time the legislation was called the Tenant’s Protection (Temporary) Act and from the name hon. members may deduce that the intention was that this legislation should be merely of a temporary nature.

In 1942, during the Second World War, the Rents Act was passed, legislation which was basically a consolidation of the various Acts relating to the protection of lessees. In 1946 this was further extended when office and business premises were also placed within the framework of the legislation of 1942. However, this control was lifted in 1951. This Act, which originated in 1920 on a “temporary” basis, and was consolidated in 1942, was extended in 1947 when other war measures were replaced. The present position is such that the Act applies to all dwelling units occupied on or before 31 May 1966. I read recently in a Press report that the managing director of a building society said that rent control should be repealed in its entirety. He went on to say that in times of accelerating urbanization, virtually no new blocks of flats were being built any more. What is important, and I quote verbatim, is that he said—

Just recently, the property manager of the Nictus group in South West Africa maintained that the number of flats being built had dropped heavily in South Africa as a result of rent control; that it had almost come to a standstill, because developers and owners of blocks of flats had the sword of rent control hanging over their heads. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise only to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. One would probably be justified in asking oneself whether the claims of those gentlemen are fully justified. I have already indicated when rent control began to apply in South Africa, viz. from 1920, but perhaps more effectively from 1942. It is a fact that developers built flats freely up to about 1974 and that the drop has occurred since then. In that period, during which large-scale development took place in that field, the Rents Act applied and developers were not deterred from building. All accommodation up to May 1966 was under rent control at that stage, too, and all accommodation after May 1966 was free of rent control, as is the case at present. Consequently, to point to rent control as the primary factor behind the drop in the number of flats provided does not sound like a watertight argument. The fact that exceptionally high interest rates and the steadily rising cost of construction apparently had a strongly inhibitory effect, is probably nearer the truth. A spokesman of the property organization SAPOA maintains that the gradual elimination of rent control would cause a substantial increase in the number of flats being provided. I do not want to reply to that and enter into a dispute with him; I merely want to quote from what the managing director of the building society, the man I have just quoted, said in this connection. I quote verbatim—

By means of these excerpts I have tried to indicate that the abolition of the Rents Act is not a prerequisite for larger-scale flat development in South Africa. Only last year we adjusted the Rents Act in order to relieve the situation to some extent. At that juncture I asked the hon. the Minister of Community Development that we should keep a very close eye on this situation, and said that we should have to view the matter afresh if drastic rent increases occurred as a result of the amendment of the Act.

I read in a newspaper report the other day that a random test to determine increases during the nine months between July 1975 and March of this year had been carried out. The random test was carried out here in the Cape metropolitan area and indicated that the average increase in the four rent board regions in the Cape Peninsula ran to about 20,4%. Individual increases varied from 0,2% to 365%. In certain cases, therefore, drastic rent increases occurred and this is really a cause for concern.

Everyone living in rent controlled flats does not of course necessarily fall into that category which the Rents Act in fact seeks to protect. The biggest deficiency in the present rent control situation—except for the fact that it only controls a certain sector of the market—is the fact that people of means are staying in controlled flats at the expense of people who cannot afford the very high rentals for uncontrolled flats.

The total abolition of the Act would cause rentals to rocket due to the tremendous demand that still exists as against the limited supply of flats. One automatically asks: How can people who are unable to afford these excessive rentals be protected against such increases? On the other hand: How can the developer who, in point of fact, is subsidizing rentals—even for people who do not qualify for it—be given a higher return on his investment? It is clear that there will have to be control of rentals for a number of years yet, because there will always be people in a specific income group who will not be able to compete on the free market.

I feel that the present Act is not fully geared for this purpose. Even though the Act is being implemented, things are not going at all well at present. Rightly or wrongly, the rent boards as we know them today lack the status even to create the impression that they are able to see to it that justice is done. On the one hand there are the lessors who crucify them because rent increases are not readily granted, and on the other there are the lessees who, in turn, are of the opinion that increases are granted too readily. In the meantime one group of people is living well, people who have not the slightest need for protection, while another group of people struggles to pay rent. Last year we effected one particular amendment to the Act. Where an increase in rent is granted, it can be made retrospective for three months. I want to ask that the hon. the Minister take a very close look at this provision, because one of our biggest difficulties is caused by this very factor, viz. the repayment of three months’ money.

To conclude, I want to make a very earnest appeal that the whole issue of the control of rentals be thoroughly investigated. I want to ask the hon. the Minister that this aspect be included in the terms of reference of the Fouché Committee. If he is unable to fit this into their present terms of reference, could the terms of reference not be extended so as to cover this aspect.? It it is necessary to consider other systems in other countries, we simply must do so in order to find a better solution for rent control in South Africa.

In the minute or two still left to me, I want to avail myself of the opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to the department for their major share in the redevelopment of one of the oldest sub economic schemes in my constituency and in the Cape Peninsula. I am referring to Epping Garden Village. We had a situation there, not of urban decay, but of a large concentration of people of the lower income group, with all the problems that involves. By means of redevelopment the department is now succeeding in converting that community into a healthy and balanced community, one of which the inhabitants can rightly be proud. I am very grateful for the assistance we are being given in that connection.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say immediately that we in these benches are in full agreement with the hon. member for Tygervallei in calling upon the hon. the Minister to institute an urgent investigation into the implications and effects of rent control. This is what I particularly want to talk about this afternoon.

Last session we had legislation which brought certain improvements, but I think the hon. the Minister is aware of the malpractices and the ill-effects of certain situations which are allowed to continue in Johannesburg and in the Cape. The hon. the Minister is reported to have given an undertaking to investigate the activities in Johannesburg of a gentleman called Wainer. I want to say at the outset that when it comes to rent control, there is in our opinion a very difficult problem to solve. The question remains: How does one strike the correct balance? I am sure that both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Tygervallei will agree that at the moment there is wide-spread dissatisfaction and concern. This concern and dissatisfaction really arises out of five factors. It arises out of the size of the increase granted; the method of determination and procedures adopted by rent control boards; and the increasing frequency of awards being made—they give the impression of being made annually if not more often and their size gives the impression of being far in excess of what one might expect as fair, and certainly they seem to be far in excess of the rate of inflation. Another factor which worries people considerably is the critical shortage of such accommodation. Perhaps this is one point where I disagree with the hon. member for Tygervallei. This critical shortage reflects the simple fact that it is not an economic proposition to erect or renovate buildings which are subject to rent control. The last, but probably the most important factor is the harassment and intimidation of tenants by a few heartless and despicable landlords.

The result has been a continuing cause of hardship and anxiety to a very large number of people. Of course, the inhabitants of the types of blocks of flats which are subject to rent control are found almost exclusively in the urban areas, but they tend in general to be among the senior citizens. By that term I mean the old, the retired citizens. Many of them are single—either widows or widowers. As such they are totally ill-equipped to take on the likes of Messrs. Mouton and Wainer, and action needs to be taken on their behalf. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with the hon. member for Tygervallei and myself that there is a serious problem. He must also tell me whether he has under consideration the introduction of legislation to rectify the present situation. I should also like to known whether he is satisfied with the workings of the rent control boards.

However, in particular I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister again—we have brought it to the attention of his predecessor—the harsh and unscrupulous and indeed abominable practices perpetrated by such creatures as Wainer and Mouton. What they do is to push the law to the absolute letter. What I am suggesting is that this may simply mean that the law needs to be changed. These gentlemen chose to become landlords and if they are prepared to act almost like hyenas in an effort to extract the last from tenants of the sort that I have described and are in fact scavenging upon them, then something needs to be done without delay. We want to repeat the warning that we gave in the past—I can certainly only speak from personal knowledge in so far as Johannesburg is concerned—that they represent an evil octopus whose tentacles are still growing and are still permeating through our cities.

I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister the mechanics of the operation by people like Wainer and Mouton whom I could simply describe as merchants of a greed.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a typical example, a series of events which occurred in relation to a particular block of flats in Johannesburg, flats which are subject to rent control. On a day in March this year, the tenants were given notice without compliance with section 24 of Act 30 of 1975, to vacate their premises. On the same day, those tenants were informed of an application for a rent increase of no less than 400%. A month later, actually on 25 April, these tenants saw and read in the Sunday Express, also in subsequent issues, that the flats in which they live and which were, and indeed still are, subject to the rent control legislation, with the all reassurances which that gives the tenant, were for sale. The publication or the announcement in the Sunday Express was cast in such a way or manner, not to put too fine a point on it, as to give an impression or description of the premises which, to put it mildly, was misleading and false. The natural result, as I am sure the hon. the Minister can imagine, was that a whole hoard of strangers appeared and started calling at the flats with the not unnatural purpose, from their point of view, of inspecting the flats which they understood were for sale. It was not, I should imagine, calculated to improve the tenants’ state of mind.

In that block of flats, too, Mr. Chairman, there was further harassment of the tenants when the landlord established a site office and actually commenced work on the premises. He also insisted through agents on taking measurements of the flats and served a list of repairs which needed to be done and which, if set in motion, purported to require the necessity for those tenants to vacate the premises.

The reason why I bring all this up, Mr. Chairman, is that this is unfortunately by no means an exception to the rule. Some, or all, of the same treatment has been administered to the tenants of Clarendon Heights, Earlridge Court, San Francisco and a number of other blocks. Yet, Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that some of these tenants—mainly widows, widowers and old couples—were taken in by these vile tactics, when I asked his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice, on Thursday, 6 May, this year, whether an application had been made to his department for registration of sectional titles over the flats in these buildings, the answer was simply “no”. Can there be anything worse than this, old people being pressured and tricked into leaving or entering into a contract and making a deposit to buy their flats on an instalment basis in anticipation of a successful application for sectional title for which approval may never be forthcoming?

In conclusion I would like to ask the hon. the Minister that the whole question of rent control, as the hon. member for Tygervallei has suggested, needs to be re-examined, and it needs to be re-examined with a view to giving much greater protection to the tenants against landlords of the ilk of Wainer and Mouton. The second broad question I would like the hon. the Minister to have a look at, is at the quantum, frequency and approved size of rent increases.

I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North can derive this satisfaction from the complaint he has brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister—that where any irregularity is brought to the attention of the government, action has always been taken to ensure that justice is done. I believe that if anything is in any way wrong in this regard, the government will take action in this respect as well.

However, Mr. Chairman, I want to confine myself to a different subject, viz. that of housing. Next to the provision of food, the provision of housing is probably one of the world’s greatest problems, particularly in the light of the population explosion we are facing. This is so grave a problem that at the beginning of this month the UNO held a conference on Vancouver to discuss this very problem. I think that as far as this problem is concerned, as the world and the UNO experience it, South Africa will not be able to escape it either. Notwithstanding the tremendous effort which this Government has made to construct 98 000 dwelling units over the past five years alone … Perhaps I can illustrate this better by pointing out that over the latter nine months of last year, 19 427 dwelling units were completed for both Whites and non-Whites. Nevertheless, it is becoming steadily more difficult for the average man to acquire a house of his own. Various factors contribute towards this, for example the land which is too expensive, the high cost of construction, the scarcity of money, the steadily increasing prices of building materials, etc.

To begin with, I want to say something about the high price of land. I believe that the average man cannot afford to purchase his own piece of land. For the rich man this problem does not arise, and the same goes for the poor man, or those who are eligible for economic or sub-economic accommodation. One naturally asks oneself what factors contribute towards such high prices. In the first place, I believe that in the township development that takes place nowadays, plots are far too big. In this regard no provision is made for the average man by private developers. It is a simple fact that the bigger the plot the higher the cost of providing services. We know that services such as the provision of water, drainage, roads and their maintenance are affected by the size of the plots in the area in question. It is calculated that 40% of the price of a plot of 10 000 square feet goes towards the provision of services, whereas in the case of a plot of 8 000 square feet, the provision of services comprises a mere 25% of the cost of the plot.

I want to know whether South Africa can afford to carve up its best agricultural land in so lavish a fashion. The fact is that where development takes place, it so happens that our best agricultural land is lost. Furthermore, it is also true that the bigger the plots, the further one has to drive and the more of our precious fuel is lost in the process. In the case of low density accommodation, a system of public transport is often by no means a paying proposition.

One of the recommendations in the report of the Driessen Commission on urban transport is that greater housing density should be promoted in urban residential areas in order to make public transport pay better, and by so doing, to compel people in an indirect way to make less use of private transport. I also believe that there are thousands of property owners who would like to have their plots subdivided, due to the high property rates imposed in urban areas. For some people it has become simply impossible to keep up with the payment of rates.

Similarly, there are thousands of landowners who would like to have an extra dwelling unit built on their land, on land where subdivision is not permitted. I know of many people who want to build a full dwelling unit on to their houses, but the condition is set that the dwelling unit must not be attached to the house and that there may be no kitchen in the extra dwelling unit. One does not want such additions to carry on in an unplanned and uncontrolled way. However, I believe that we could accommodate thousands of people in this way without in any way damaging or prejudicing the character or appearance of any residential area. Another factor contributing to high building costs is the lack of uniform building regulations. I could mention, as a simple example, that the National Building Research Institute has given its approval for the use of concrete instead of bricks. Not only is this a cheaper component in building, but it also saves much time and labour. I have seen some of these houses here in the Cape and they look just as neat as any brick house. According to a newspaper report, the hon. the Minister estimated that 30 000 houses would have to be provided for Whites alone up to 1980. Subsequently, between 38 000 and 56 000 dwelling units per annum would have to be provided until the end of the century. That is why I think the time has come for the Government to step in and put a stop to the unnecessary wastage of land. I think the time has come for the Government to legislate to compel our local managements to adopt uniform building regulations so that the cost of housing may be cut in that way as well.

I should like to bring a local problem to the attention of the hon. the Minister, viz. the issue of the Indian traders in Reiger Park, the Coloured area. I know that an area has already been identified for a business centre for those Indian traders, but I do want to ask whether that scheme could not be expedited. I do not ask this for the sake of the Group Areas Act or for the sake of the Whites. Hon. members of the PRP must listen when I say this, because accusations are always being hurled at this side of the House. The resettlement of those Indian traders is for the sake of the Coloureds themselves, who have long been complaining and expressing their impatience at the presence of the Indian traders in the Coloured area. Apart from this, I believe that it will be to the benefit of the Indians themselves if they are established at a place at which not only Whites, but Blacks, too, will have access to their places of business. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to an issue raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The hon. member used very strong language when dealing with the issue and I believe it is a matter which has reached a stage where very strong language is indeed justified. The hon. the Minister will recollect how several years ago he and I, by way of a snap debate, tried to draw the attention of this House to the activities of certain ruthless landlords and, more particularly, the leader of this group, who seems to be Mr. Wainer. The position then was almost untenable and I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is even worse today. At the time we indicated how these gentlemen operated. They bought rent-controlled flats and then intimidated and harassed the tenants, very often elderly people, in a manner that could never be condoned in a civilized society. Once they had got rid of them, they titivated and renewed the flats, often only in a marginal way, and put them on the market again at highly inflated rentals. At the time the hon. the Minister and I put up, I thought, a very strong case indeed, and certain remedies were promised.

I thought so too.

I am interested now in the remedies, because the position of the hon. the Minister has changed. At that time he was the political frog; now he is the prince. Now that he is the prince we want to know exactly what he is going to do about the situation. It is true that we were promised at the time that the matter would be attended to, and it is also true that there were court cases. However, it seems that there are many shyster lawyers around, and if one is prepared to pay them enough they can always wriggle out of these situations. That seems to be what has happened in many of these cases.

Sir, ours is a free enterprise system; nobody denies that. I think there should be just reward for people who want to make an honest penny. However, what we are concerned with here is wicked racketeering of a kind that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. As far as this man Wainer is concerned, I just want to say that he always seems two or three steps to be ahead of the Government. He is cocking his snook at the Government. Here we have a “kragdadige” Government, but as far as I can see Wainer is playing the fool with them, because he is always a few steps ahead of them.

Why do you not buy his flats and make it easier for him?

I gather that that hon. member is in the monied class and I think must follow that advice himself. When we drew attention to the activities of Wainer the Government changed the Rents Act. Hon. members will remember that section 12 was introduced specifically to make the harassment of tenants a punishable offence. We all supported that at the time, because we thought that it certainly was one of the steps one ought to take under these conditions. However, things have gone on as before, because this modem Shylock’s greed seems to know no bounds. People throughout the country, in the areas where he operates, have a feeling of helplessness. At the time when this matter was discussed, I mentioned that there was a chairman of a tenants’ association who had put before the Government information of a kind which really should have led to action in a court. [Interjections.] This chairman of the particular tenants’ association claimed at the time that he had over 100 sworn affidavits showing how people were being harassed and intimidated. He claimed that this information had been put at the disposal of the police, but apparently there was no action, certainly not the kind of action one would have expected. What is worse, the chairman of this particular association made all sorts of insinuations about the officials of the Rent Board. He inferred quite clearly that bribery was rife and talked of trips to California and all sorts of things of this kind. I do not for one moment support these allegations, because I do not think they are true. However, at the time I asked the hon. the Minister’s predecessor for a full inquiry in order to clear the officials of the Rent Board as I did not think that they should be permitted to live under a shadow of this kind. To my amazement, however, the hon. the Minister’s predecessor turned an inquiry of this kind down, which means that these rumours are still rife. I can only say that if a tenth of them were true, then several people ought to be strung up from the nearest lamppost. I think I ought to tell the hon. the Minister that these insinuations are being made against the officials of the Rent Board and that, to my mind, he should do everything in his power to clear the position as far as they are concerned. It creates a situation which is intolerable.

As I have said, this Wainer is always a couple of steps ahead of the Government. The Government never seems to be able to catch up with him. After the one loophole had been closed, he immediately found another one. His latest modus operandi is to buy flats up, indulge in some cosmetic surgery to make them look a little bit better and then sell them under the new Sectional Titles Act. Apparently the hon. the Minister knows what is happening here. He sells them on a never-never system. The installments are worked out in such a way that people think they are paying off on a flat which will one day become theirs, but in fact all that is happening is that they are becoming deeper and deeper into debt. The hon. the Minister obviously knows what is happening, because he is reported in the Press recently as having said that his department’s regional office in Johannesburg had confirmed newspaper reports concerning Wainer’s schemes of selling rent-controlled flats at monthly repayment rates well above the rent determined, but not high enough to cover the interest on the capital amount owing. The Minister had threatened to act even retrospectively if landlords were selling rent-controlled flats under sectional title on unfair terms. Now, Sir, I think the Committee would be obliged to hear from the hon. the Minister precisely what action he is taking and how he intends dealing with this particular situation. I want to mention, too, that apparently a partner of Mr. Wainer in these negotiations is a certain Mr. Kay. This Mr. Kay was previously known as Isaac Klavonsky, who fled South Africa in 1969 because his business empire collapsed completely.

Now, whether people of this kind should be permitted to operate again in the way they are doing I think is something on which the hon. the Minister should enlighten us too, I think this sort of selling of flats on the never-never system is certainly something which we cannot tolerate. We have here a Minister who held specific and clear points of view on this issue when he was a political frog. Now he is a prince, and I think we on this side of the House would like to know what he is going to do to stop racketeering of this kind.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will excuse me if I do not follow up on his argument. I must say that we have now just had a foretaste of a forceful Opposition with dwindling numbers. He also referred to the hon. the Minister here, and it is a fact that the hon. the Minister knows the sick body of the United Party very well and will deal with the hon. member’s problems in his characteristic way.

Sir, looking at the report of the Secretary of Community Development, the introduction to this report is a fine testimonial in which the good deeds and the work of the department are praised in fine language. For my part, I too, should like to pay tribute to the department for what they have achieved. In the same introduction, on page 1, the subject is specifically the new approach in terms of which community facilities are established at the same time as housing. In other words, the town is constructed as a whole, in this case Mitchell’s Plain. The Secretary of Community Development pays tribute to the hon. A. H. du Plessis, the former Minister of Community Development up to 16 November 1975, for his share in the realization of this ideal, and then the Secretary concludes with these words—

Sir, I should like to thank the department for these words of praise to the leader of the National Party in South West Africa. It is quite correct to say that the hon. A. H. du Plessis resigned. He resigned to devote his full attention to the activities of the conference in South West Africa as the leader of the White deputation. But what is perhaps less well known is the fact that he is now working there full-time without receiving any remuneration. We want to pay tribute to him for that. This is truly outstanding evidence of service to one’s fellow man. I think there are few cases like this and few people who can claim to have rendered a greater and more unselfish service to a community than this very person. We praise him for this.

The department can look back with pride at its activities over the year, and if we look back further still over the years, the achievements become truly astronomical. Of course, it is limited in its activities by the funds at its disposal. These are determined by the Treasury in the light of the availability of funds. Against the background of the scarcity of money, and inflation, its present achievements are truly praiseworthy and testify to the Government’s earnest intention to solve the housing shortage. That is why I should like to request the attention of the hon. the Minister and hon. members for a brief discussion of the Home Ownership Savings Scheme. Both the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Boksburg have already referred to this matter in passing. The provision of housing for the middle-income group is indeed a matter of grave concern. The scheme to which I am drawing hon. members’ attention was announced by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech as long ago as 29 March 1972. The scheme was designed to encourage and assist both the middle-income group and the lower-income group to acquire a dwelling of their own. At the time, reference was made to the fact that it was the ideal and the longing of each individual to have his own house, or, as one of our national poets put it, ‟die sug om in die groot heelal ’n plekkie vir homself te he”. Apart from the 9% these investments earn at the building societies, the State contributes an additional 2%. On the surface, it might be thought that the 11% interest earned on capital ought to be a strong attraction. Unfortunately, however, this is not the case. According to the report of the Association of South African Building Societies, dated 31 March 1976, there was a total of 1 215 accounts for a total amount of R1 551 698 at the building societies. This is certainly disappointing, and I believe that it would be useful to look for reasons for the poor participation in this scheme. All persons, married and unmarried, with a maximum income of R7 200 per annum, qualify for participation in this scheme. Savings at a building society can accrue to a maximum of R6 000. I emphasize, to a maximum of R6 000. The interest earnings on these investments are tax-free. These savings can be applied towards the purchase or the construction of the dwelling, the cost of which, including the cost of the plot, does not exceed R25 000 and the building society loan for which does not exceed R18 000. Persons participating in this scheme take preference in the awarding of building society loans. Because there has been very little interest, this scheme has had little impact, and I should like to make a polite request of the hon. the Minister to devote attention to a few positive suggestions.

In the first instance, the building societies must be encouraged to advertise this scheme constantly. I also want to ask that consideration be given to increasing the amount from R6 000 to R10 000. In the second place, I want to ask that the possibility be considered of making plots available to the participants in this scheme, that they may purchase the plots from the Department of Community Development. Plots are very expensive, as the hon. member for Boksburg rightly remarked. If a person with a loan of R18 000, only R6 000 of which is savings, has to buy a plot as well, this means that he will have to use the full R18 000 for a loan. It is impossible for a person with an income of R400 to R500 per month to pay the interest and capital redemption on that loan. That is why participation has been poor. In Bothasig, a fine township which is well-known to us, the Department of Community Development is providing the plots at a very nominal amount to persons who are eligible. I want to ask that plots be made available to participants in this Home Ownership Savings Scheme as well. If a person could acquire a plot for R1 000 or R1 500, then, taking his savings into account—if they could be increased to R10 000—he would only need to borrow about R10 000 from a building society, and I believe that this group of people would be able to repay the interest and capital redemption on that amount. Another way in which assistance may be granted is by making building plans available. The Department of Community Development has thousands of full plans. If these people are given the choice of choosing one of these plans—at a fee, of course—then they can at least save on architect’s fees. It will then only be necessary for them to have a site plan and drainage plan drawn up. The assistance of local managements can be called in because with the funds voted for them by the department, local authorities provide accommodation for economic and subeconomic groups. The local authorities in turn provide cheap plots. Local authorities are acquainted with these problems, and I think that they would be willing to assist if appeals in this connection were addressed to them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman,

I do not want to react now to the speech of the hon. member for Omaruru. He touched on a whole number of things. I should just like to tell him that we have always been impressed by the devotion and the diligence of the retired Minister, Mr. A. H. du Plessis. I do not know whether he had it on that side of the House but on this side of the House he did have the nickname of “Avbob”, just as another hon. member on this side has the same nickname. [Interjections.] But the people who have that nickname, are known for their hard work, their insight and their knowledge of their particular subject.

†Mr. Chairman, I would like to change the course of the debate from this side into a quieter stream perhaps. First of all I would like to congratulate the Department of Community Development, which is, after all, the State housing agent, other than for Bantu Administration. It is a department which is showing most encouraging signs of flexibility and a refreshing approach to many of our housing problems. When we look at our growing population, as the hon. member for Boksburg mentioned earlier, and when we bear in mind the population explosion, it is important that we have a department which has some originality. I would like to congratulate them on the housing development—I do not wish to talk about the ideological aspect—at Atlantis and also on the housing development at Mitchell’s Plain with which the Cape Town City Council has had so much to do. I believe that we have to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on these developments, because it is what one might call “new town development”, as the British call it, and it is a source for congratulation, because we have a total community being developed, we have transport facilities provided, we have housing which takes into account what one might call in human terms all the ecological factors of a society. After all, there is also a sociological aspect to housing and we are becoming increasingly aware of this. I also believe that this is important politically. I recently saw a pamphlet which reproduced a comic strip from South America which, as far as I could see, was used by anarchists and communists to attack the whole concept of providing housing. This pamphlet sought not only to attack the existence of slums, but even where the community provided housing, it tried to attack these. In fact, all it sought to do was to create an attitude of negativism, and if one is not attacking the slums, the next thing that people are attacking is the matchbox houses and the rows of boring developments.

Are you talking about the PRP?

I believe that we have got to start in this country—in fact, we have done so and are beginning to do so at Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis—a development which I believe is one which should be supported. A feature of this development is the freehold facility which is being provided. People can buy their homes at Mitchell’s Plain. But here there is something which the chairman of our group has touched upon and what the Department of Community Development has to be careful of, namely that it does not become a socialistic function of government. I was very interested, in January, to spend some time in Washington with the Department of Housing and Urban Development of the Federal Government. What I found so interesting was the fact that they do virtually no housing construction of their own. They simply act as an agency to get free enterprise to develop housing projects. I do not have the time to go into details now, but what I found so refreshing about this American Department of Housing and Urban Development was the way in which they use free enterprise to meet the housing needs and responsibilities they have.

I also hope the department will use Mitchell’s Plain as a minimum standard in future, in fact that it will be used as a guinea pig so that we do not ever again have any housing in this country which is below the standard of Mitchell’s Plain. I appreciate the fact that Mitchell’s Plain is a very large project that is going to house many hundreds of thousands of people. However, we can surely have mini-scale Mitchell’s Plains, and I would like to know whether the hon. the Minister is planning any similar development—though not necessarily on the same scale—for Natal. For example, the Sparks Estate area could be treated with the same sort of vision that was evidenced in the case of Mitchell’s Plain. The same applies to parts of Queensburgh and Shallcross. Is the hon. the Minister not perhaps giving consideration to revising the plans for Marianhill because that, I believe, could be a development easily as imaginative, challenging and visionary as the City Council and Community Development project at Mitchell’s Plain.

In this regard I believe that the hon. the Minister’s department is showing a very relaxed attitude to free enterprise assistance in housing. We have had this in the agreement to get money from overseas, a step which I believe is welcome. The more capital we can get into this country the better. However, I think the most notable aspect of flexibility in his department has been evidenced in the acceptance of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce scheme at Belhar. I think many of us are aware of the fact that there is such a scheme, but what I am pleased about is that the Department of Community Development has welcomed this initiative on the part of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce and has given them full co-operation all along the line.

I wonder whether the department would not take further initiatives, and I would like to suggest three areas in which they could do so. One is to encourage other chambers of commerce to take similar initiatives, for example in Durban, which is an obvious area. Secondly, will the department not encourage the further establishment of the housing utilities which have functioned so well in the Western Cape? We could use housing utilities, I am sure, in the Eastern Cape, in Natal and in the Transvaal. I sometimes feel that we talk at cross-purposes when it comes to site-and-service schemes. I feel that site-and-service schemes are basically the same as schemes for the establishment of townships for White occupation, for example at Stellenbosch or elsewhere. The difference stems from the fact that site-and-service schemes are often applied to low income groups, whereas a normal township development is done in terms of private individuals who are seeking to develop an area. I believe that we can make a lot more use of Coloured and Indian money—and I also believe Black money, but that is not part of the hon. the Minister’s responsibility—to develop housing. One could dismiss this by calling it a site-and-service scheme, but that is not really dealing with the argument. I believe that the chairman of our group and the hon. the Minister are often talking at cross-purposes, although in many cases they agree on many issues. The Coloured people in Natal, in particular, desperately want more freehold land. They have the money and they want to buy it. I ask the hon. the Minister please to make freehold land available in Marianhill. I know it is the intention to do this. I know there is some land available, but that is not enough. I urge him to have more land made available in Marianhill, or else to introduce a housing development such as he has introduced in Mitchell’s Plain, where houses can be sold in one section. I say that because in Marianhill there will be a Coloured community of at least 50 000 Coloured people within the next 10 years. I should like to see it a model township because even though it is in the municipality of Pinetown and not in my constituency, it is a matter which interests me greatly. There is a desperate shortage of freehold land in Natal for Coloureds.

I should like the hon. the Minister and his department, in bearing in mind the sociological needs of the people, to realize that we cannot build houses for nuclear families only in the Indian, Coloured and Bantu communities. An extended family where the “Ngogo”—if they are Zulu—or other mother in-law lives with the family is standard social practice. I think the hon. the Minister and his department should look at the possibility of building seven or eight-roomed houses. They should make an economic breakdown of the number of persons housed in such a home. I venture to suggest that it may be just as expensive or perhaps cheaper to provide homes for extended families. We have proof today that much of the baby-bashing and many of our problems in society have been caused by the fact that we have a nuclear family—a man and a wife and their children—whereas if we had aunts and mothers-in-law or people like that living with them, those problems may not occur. We as Teutonic people have the attitude of a nuclear family. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown will pardon me if I do not respond to his arguments. I believe that the hon. the Minister will furnish him with replies in due course.

When one looks at the report of the department one is struck by the fact that the department has made excellent progress in respect of housing during the past year notwithstanding the shortage of staff and funds. What should be admired in particular, is the fact that the department succeeded in extending this so essential facet of our national economy despite serious bottlenecks such as a shortage of manpower and funds. What struck me in particular is the fact that excellent progress has been made with the provision of housing for Coloured people particularly in the vicinity of Cape Town. I want to congratulate the hon. the minister and the department on the progress which has been made at Mitchell’s Plain. In this connection I have in mind in particular the quality housing which is being provided there. When referring to quality housing, I want to refer to community facilities in particular. This is a totally new approach, i.e. that community facilities are regarded as being essential in the establishment of new housing for Brown people. This is also a new approach in the planning of housing schemes for Brown people and I believe the department should be congratulated on this score. I notice that housing is often provided to the Brown people in my own constituency without taking into account the need for community facilities existing among the Brown people. The result is often inadequate planning because, although suitable houses are built, it is subsequently realized that no space exists for community facilities.

The report also refers to the excellent progress which is being made in respect of the resettlement of squatters. As far as squatting is concerned, we are really dealing here with a scourge in a community. When referring to housing for the resettlement of illegal squatters, I have in mind in particular the shortage of funds and manpower. It would be very interesting to know to what extent the creation of new growth points such as Saldanha and Atlantis contributed to relieving the housing shortage of the Brown people around Cape Town. At the same time I want to pose the question whether, as far as planning is concerned, we should not look for new growth points such as Atlantis and Saldanha in order to provide the Brown people with accommodation.

When considering the report and more specifically that part dealing with housing for Whites, I am greatly concerned about the increasing demand for housing which exists among the Whites. Various factors play a role in the housing shortage for Whites, i.e. the increased rates of interest, the increase in building costs, the fact that it is virtually impossible to obtain loans, the drastic decrease in the number of flats erected by private people and the decrease in the number of building plans. All these factors play a role to reduce the provision of housing for Whites. On the other hand one gains the impression that funds available to the department, the building industry and the local authorities are applied in a proper manner. In other words, the machinery does exist for the expansion of housing. However, this department finds it difficult to cope as a result of inadequate funds. One is concerned about this phenomenon. This is a major cause of concern when one bears in mind that the family life of the Whites is being prejudiced as a result of this shortage. This danger does not only exist as a result of a housing shortage but also because of the kind of housing that is erected.

It sometimes happens that poor and shortsighted planning promotes inadequate design work in the erection of blocks of flats, for example, in Algoa Park. The result is that there is a considerable number of vacant flats. When one makes inquiries in this connection, one is always told that this kind of flat accommodation does not provide the space for a healthy family life. Nevertheless, the erection of those blocks of flats demanded a substantial portion of the available funds and manpower. Improved planning makes for improved utilization of funds and available manpower. The planning has often been done without any provision being made for essential community facilities. A well established family in a well-planned residential complex promotes happy family life, the mainstay of a nation. The time in which we are living makes ever-increasing demands on mankind. It is being said that 80% of our people will be urbanized by the year 2000, as against the present 48%. Since we are dealing with this continued urbanization of mankind we shall have to take into consideration the fact that the need for more adequate housing as a condition for a healthy family life will make greater demands on planning. I believe we should guard against creating future slums as a result of inadequate planning.

In the short time at my disposal I should very much like to mention another matter, i.e. the question of housing for the aged and more particularly the infirm aged. It is essential that consideration be given to housing for the economically active Whites. I believe there is a great need in this respect, but then we should not turn a blind eye to the plight of our infirm aged. It is all very well to say that the children of the infirm aged should take care of their parents. We find to an increasing extent that both husband and wife work. It often happens that the child of an infirm aged who is expected to take care of his infirm parent, simply does not have the time to do so. Perhaps he does not have the money or the accommodation either. We often find that such an infirm aged does not have any relatives either. We are faced with this fact also when we bear in mind that only in exceptional cases some accommodation can be provided for the infirm aged in a provincial hospital. I regret to say that, owing to the lack of funds, the provision of accommodation for infirm aged and the care of infirm aged do not enjoy the priority it should enjoy. All of us appreciate that what we need in these days is intensive planning in order to make ends meet with the funds we have at our disposal. However, I believe that infirm aged—people who have played a very useful role in the community throughout their lives—are so valuable that priority will simply have to be given to the provision of housing for them and more particularly the infirm aged. I want to plead for the aged, people for whom old age has in many cases become a nightmare. I think it is imperative that approved projects should not be held in abeyance, particularly not because of a lack of funds. I am convinced that we shall have to give priority to our aged. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if I listened correctly the hon. member for Somerset East—excellent minister of religion that he was—based his speech on three sound points. I agree whole-heartedly with all those three points, particularly, the last one—the point in connection with the infirm aged. I have great sympathy with the attitude he adopts in this respect and I therefore subscribe to it fully. In the Strand, which falls in my constituency, there are many aged, and I am convinced that this matter should certainly be afforded more attention.

I also want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Green Point. He referred to the remark at the end of the report of the Secretary of the department and remarked how modest the report was. I want to congratulate him. I also want to tell him that I paged through the annual report of the department when I first came to this House. At that time I was really shocked at the elaborate appearance of these reports. However, I am glad to notice that most other Government departments have followed the example of the Secretary for Community Development and that they apparently realized that the contents of the report is more important than the appearance thereof. I want to congratulate the Secretary for Community Development and his department on the contents of the annual report.

I do not want to discuss the report now, but I only want to draw attention to what I came across in the report of the Theron Commission. The report indicates that only 7% of the male population of the 23 incorporated rural Coloured areas are economically active in the relevant areas, while 28,4% of them seek to make a living outside those areas, usually in the cities or in the larger towns. As far as the female population is concerned, 4,8% of them are economically active within that area while 9,6% are economically active outside the relevant rural area. I take it that the reason for this is the lack of employment opportunities within the relevant area. I also take it that the female population are mainly employed as domestic servants in the cities and larger towns and that they are to a great extent accommodated by their employers in servants’ quarters.

As far as I know no provision is being made for solitary males—married or unmarried—of those population groups by means of the existing housing schemes. Consequently many of them resort to squatting. They cause over-crowding. Many of them are boarders and promote over-crowding in this way. I think this phenomenon is becoming a problem in our White residential areas in particular. Many of these solitary men simply move in with a Coloured woman living in a servant’s room on the premises of her employer. This is proved by the number of non-White passengers using bus services to and from White residential areas. I think the bus services in our cities are proof of the fact that many of these people reside in our White areas. The question I want to pose is whether it is not time at least to ascertain what the needs are in order to determine whether we should not start thinking in terms of the provision of accommodation for solitary Coloured males and females in the Coloured townships in our cities and towns. I want to come back to the statement made by the hon. member for Pinetown in respect of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce which participates in a housing project for Coloured employees. To my mind this is a very laudable undertaking and they have the right motivation. Particularly in these times when Government funds are being curtailed, they appreciate the fact that we are dealing here with an additional source for the provision of housing to Coloured employees which is not dependent upon Government funds. They have the following to say in their newsletter of March this year—

I think they are in the process of planning a second project in conjunction with the department. I want to agree with the hon. member that we should perhaps give some publicity to this aspect so that our Chambers of Commerce can join these projects. Another fact we have to bear in mind is that the employers of Bantu employees are allowed to provide housing in conjunction with the Bantu Affairs Administration Board in question. I think it is a great pity that this is not the case in the Western Cape. I think this is a contributory factor to the over-crowding of Bantu in the Western Cape. For that reason I believe it is only right that this concession, i.e. that White employers may assist in providing accommodation for their Coloured employees, be given some publicity in the hope that many more employers will invest in that sphere.

If what the department is doing has to be tested by the objective of their activities, I think one will be able to give the department an excellent report. One can summarize their objectives in four brief points, i.e. the clearing up and renewal of slum and depressed areas, the prevention of these conditions and the combating of squatting, the provision of dwellings and community facilities and the tempering of ever-increasing rentals. One gains the impression—and I believe this impression often manifests itself among the public—that the work of this department is only of a negative nature. Despite the sound publicity it receives from time to time owing to new building projects such as those at Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis, one nevertheless gains the impression especially from our daily and Sunday Press that the eviction of illegal squatters and the demolition of shanties are predominant and that this impression is therefore created in the minds of the public. Those very same shanty conditions and everything that goes with it, are usually presented as indications of the failure of the Department of Community Development. These are also seized upon as indications of the inability of the State to cope with the problem. However, we have every reason to adopt a positive attitude towards this department, its objectives and its activities. The annual report testifies to an excellent year and of many objectives which have been achieved. For this credit must be given to the Government, the department as well as the local authorities which give their excelling co-operation and make an enormous contribution. The Government showed its sympathy through the work of the department and through the earnestness with which it turns chaos into order by accommodating all the people of the country in a proper way. Consequently the funds of this department were increased in the current financial year.

This is really an indication of earnestness and sympathy considering that the votes of most of the departments have been reduced. It is also an indication that the Government recognizes the high priority which the work of this department enjoys. The local authorities—and I am specifically referring to the Cape Town municipality and to the Cape and Stellenbosch divisional councils—are throwing in their full weight to clear up, to renew, to provide and to wipe out the backlog. At this stage these three local authorities are rendering a service to the country, something for which all of us should be very grateful to them. This has not always been the case and for this very reason a backlog developed and there are shortcomings and conditions which are highly undesirable. However these conditions are changing rapidly thanks to the initiative displayed by this Government and the department, together with the Government funds which are being made available. I am more specifically referring to conditions regarding Coloured housing. I want to refer briefly to the Cape Divisional Council which is erecting more than 4 000 dwelling units in Coloured group areas at the moment varying from sub-economic to house-ownership houses. This is a remarkable achievement. According to their programme 1 220 units have already been completed, 6 800 are under construction or have reached a stage of advanced planning. This is evident from the figures of the latest financial year of the Cape Divisional Council. Therefore, this divisional council has already completed 9 830 dwelling units, 845 of which are for Whites and 8 987 for non-Whites. Perhaps one should pause for a moment at Atlantis, which is becoming a model township. In addition to the abovementioned developments they are also working on Atlantis. The first 600 dwelling units should be completed in August of this year. In this way various stages of this scheme are in progress. Atlantis is not merely another housing scheme, but a new city based on modem town planning principles. Firms of architects with a wide knowledge of housing, a sociologist and a landscape architect have been appointed to create a totally new approach to modem housing techniques in that area. Schools, day hospitals, a business centre, a sport centre and a recreation centre are being developed at the same time. The Department of Community contributes R½ million to the development of communal facilities for which those people will pay. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, from the speeches of the hon. members for Somerset East and False Bay, it seems as if it is generally accepted that housing should now be given priority as far as the Government is concerned, particularly housing for those sections of the community which are not in a position financially to raise the capital or pay the rentals in respect of housing in these times of increasing costs. A remark by one of the hon. members to the effect that employers in the private sector could make a greater contribution in respect of housing for their employees, is something I can subscribe to. I think that active steps should be taken to encourage the private sector, the employers, the chambers of industries and the chambers of commerce to make their contribution in respect of the housing of employees, particularly in the Cape Peninsula. I want to concede to the hon. the Minister that from his statement in this House and elsewhere it seems that he is deeply aware of the problem of housing, particularly in the Cape Peninsula. It is also apparent that he is desirous of dealing with this problem. However, there are problems, particularly financial problems. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to furnish us with more particulars in connection with the question of money, the spending of money as well as the allocation of money, particularly for Coloured housing at Mitchell’s Plain during the coming financial year.

†I think the hon. the Minister has done something else which is worthwhile, and that is that he has apparently achieved the cooperation of the Cape Town City Council and the Divisional Council of the Cape. I think it is a healthy sign when national government departments and local government departments work together on a common project. There will be criticism of details of schemes such as Mitchell’s Plain. Town planners will disagree and there will, occasionally, be wrong decisions. I have discussed this with people who have moved into Mitchell’s Plain, and it is quite clear that there are two major problems which exist at the moment and to which I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention. Firstly, he must do everything in his power to persuade the hon. the Minister of Transport so speed up transport facilities to Mitchell’s Plain. The lack of transport facilities there is a major minus factor both for the Coloured people living there and the potential buyers of homes. The other question is the question generally of amenities. I am referring not only to amenities in the form of buildings and sportsfields. In particular there is the question of telephones. People have now moved into the area, and there is scarcely a telephone available. There are no private telephones available and only one or two public telephones. My own employees have told me of the problems of pregnant mothers and of the prevention of crime without telephones in that area. I believe the hon. the Minister should put pressure on his colleagues to see that not only the bricks and mortar are there, but also the other ingredients for reasonable living.

What we are concerned about is the money and I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us about the money position. In reply to an earlier question he said that the R38 million allocated was probably going to be cut to R15 million. He has said that we can eliminate the shortage of housing within seven years provided the money is available. There is every indication that he has found other sources of money and that he has been given a certain additional allocation. Nevertheless, there is an uneasy feeling that at the rate the money is to be spent at the moment he will not be able to achieve his target of eliminating the housing shortage for the Coloureds in the Cape within seven years. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us a statement in this regard. The Cape Times this morning reported that another 1 994 building workers had been laid off from the city council’s housing unit in the Mitchell’s Plain area since February of this year. I raise these points because I believe that the amount of money available is going to be absolutely critical.

I want to move from that subject to the problem of the housing of people in the middle-income group and the older people living in our cities, to the people who, for a variety of reasons, do not live in houses which they own themselves. Perhaps they cannot afford to, or perhaps they cannot run a house on their own, for various reasons they live in apartments or flats. There are specific problems which exist in relation to these people. Last year we had a discussion with the hon. the Minister regarding rent control and the amendment to the Act. This Act attempts to deal with part of the problem. While there is, in the Rents Act, a certain amount of protection for people in the middle-income group and older people living in the cities who are unable to purchase a home, there is no assistance for these people in regard to the provision of accommodation. These people are living in flats and the rentals are rising far more rapidly than the cost of living and far more rapidly than salaries. Rentals are rising as a result of increased property values and increased building costs, because of the demand pressure and because of soaring interest rates.

I want, in particular, to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the impact of increased interest rates on residential apartments in the Cape Peninsula and elsewhere. It is a matter which is pushing up rentals beyond the reach of the average person. The hon. the Minister might say that there is rent control. Let us mention first of all that rent control only applies to properties which were occupied prior to October 1966. For the mass of people who are living in accommodation erected after that time, there is no protection and there is no assistance. They are caught in the upward spiral of rent costs as a result of increased interest rates. Where there is rent control, we are aware that as a result of the amendment to the Act last year, any increase in the interest rates has to be borne by the landlord and is not passed on to the tenant. This is a very real form of protection for the tenant. However, it also has an effect on people who own properties. With soaring interest rates, they are experiencing reduced profits and the wiping out of profits. Some have a negative cash flow, and the position may arise where they not only have no profits, but where they do not have sufficient money to pay off mortgage bonds which have to be paid off over, say, a 20-year period. This is a problem. Soaring interest rates are a major problem in the city area. I believe that the hon. the Minister should speak to the hon. the Minister of Finance in connection with certain types of residential properties, not luxury flats, but residential properties which cost no more than R18 000 per unit, which is considered to be the size of unit in respect of which special assistance should be given to people who want to buy their own houses. It should be established whether there is some way of either pegging interest rates or subsidizing the tenants so that there is a reasonable escalation of revenue to the landlord without the tenant having to bear the burden of increased interest rates.

The next point I want to deal with is the Act relating to rent control. It is quite clear, not only in general terms but also in particular terms, that there is a number of ways that the Act appears to be not operating satisfactorily. The hon. member for Johannesburg North in particular has mentioned the question of the harassment of tenants by a limited number of unscrupulous landlords. There is the other question of the uncertainty and concern. Those of us who have a significant number of the older blocks of flats in our constituencies know that we are ’phoned repeatedly by elderly people who just express a concern. They hear that the building is up for sale. They hear that the owner is thinking of applying for sectional titles. This creates a tremendous sense of insecurity and when some of the flats are sold under sectional titles and others still remain occupied by the statutory tenant, there is tension between the people living in the block of flats itself. I believe this question, the uncertainty and the concern which arises from the question of sectional titles, is a matter which must be resolved.

There is a third area of uncertainty which affects the hon. the Minister directly and that is the question of decontrol. When it comes to the question about determining rentals, there are very elaborate procedures to be followed. Notices go to the tenants informing them that there is going to be an application for rent control. There is a public hearing before a Board and if the tenants are aggrieved, they can go to the Rent Control Board in Pretoria. When it comes to the question of decontrol, which removes all the protection as far as rent is concerned, the protection as far as harassment is concerned, the protection as far as the permanency of their tenancy is concerned, there is no procedure laid down at all. There is no formalized procedure whereby they can know what rights they have in this matter.

Secondly, there is no provision for hearings. It is in the discretion of the Minister. The decision takes place in his office. I believe that for so vital a matter as decontrol, some kind of open procedure, some means whereby people have got a right to appear before the Minister or a board, should be instituted. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with other hon. members who conveyed their congratulations to the hon. the Minister on taking over this department which will fall under him in future. I also want to add my good wishes and express the hope that he will have a very successful career in this department.

I should like to say something in connection with urban renewal and I want to put the question whether—since we are discussing this department—we have really succeeded in doing enough as regards urban renewal. On the basis of personal experience in my area, I should like to refer to the issue of shifting the businesses of Indians from Newlands and Westdene and ask whether, as was promised in the old days, a place cannot be made available for their businesses in the Fordsburg Plaza or elsewhere. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and the department to the fact that in terms of an agreement with the Johannesburg City Council, the Newclare Coloured township and the Western Bantu townships, which are also being used for Coloureds now, will be renewed. Apart from the central section of the business complex in Newclare, nothing has been done to bring about renewal as far as housing is concerned. This matter deserves very serious attention because in my opinion, the housing in Newclare and the Western Bantu townships really do not redound to our credit.

Secondly, I want to say something in connection with community facilities. I am pleased to see that reference is made in the report to what has been done as regards the overall planning of Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis and that provision has been made for all forms of community facilities. At the moment, 75% of Johannesburg’s Coloureds, and, according to official information, 80% of the Transvaal’s Indians, are settled in my constituency. Lenasia, which has been referred to so often today, also falls within the borders of my constituency.

I should like the hon. the Minister and his department to give very serious attention, in collaboration with the local authorities concerned, to community facilities for these people. I say this because additional group areas are now to be announced for Coloureds and Indians, as the hon. the Minister said under the previous Vote, and that that planning should now be done in advance in such a way that we ought to achieve the same result as we have achieved here in Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis. Those facilities must first be created for the people. It is necessary to look at the two areas I have already mentioned, namely Newclare and the Western Bantu townships. I also want to refer to Bosmont, which is a Coloured area, and to Eldorado Park, also a Coloured area in my constituency, as well as Lenasia for the Indians and emphasize that I want the same community services and facilities under this department for the Coloureds and the Indians as those which the Whites enjoy. However, this must be in their own areas as far as possible. Such an crying need for community services and facilities has developed among those people that, at the so-called pleasure resort Van Wyksrust, for example considerable problems have occurred.

Is the place called after you?

No, I had nothing to do with naming it. The pleasure resort came into being 41 years ago, at a time when the Coloureds and Indians probably did not think they needed a swimming pool. All these years it was simply accepted that the swimming pool there was only intended for use by Whites. Accordingly, only Whites made use of it. In the process of development, and due to the fact that the owner of the pleasure resort did not keep up with the times—he never modernized the facilities there or brought them up to date, it so happened that in the course of time the facilities offered by the resort—including the swimming pool—were less readily patronized by the Whites. As a result the owner no longer made as good a profit as before.

On the recommendation of the Department of Community Development, the Johannesburg City Council considered purchasing the swimming pool in 1974 with a view to making it available to Coloureds. The Johannesburg City Council initiated a thorough inquiry into the matter and came to the conclusion that it could not purchase the resort, since it would cost too much to renovate the existing facilities there to comply with modem requirements. The hon. the Minister probably knows that during the sixties the Government—I think it was as a result of a Cabinet decision—instructed the provincial authorities to establish public pleasure resorts for Coloureds and Indians.

The Transvaal provincial authority also inquired into the possibilities afforded in this regard by the pleasure resort at Van Wyksrust. The resort was turned down by the provincial administration of the Transvaal as well. Then, last year, the owner of the pleasure resort opened the place overnight for the exclusive use of Indians and Coloureds, with the result that Whites were immediately excluded from it.

The fact is that in all the years nothing has been done in the southern areas of Johannesburg to establish any facilities of this nature for Whites, Indians or Coloureds. Those that were established due to private initiative; private initiative which at the moment has developed into a major bone of contention.

The Van Wyksrust pleasure resort is actually situated in a controlled area, a so-called White area. The action of the owner immediately deprived the Whites of a facility which they have enjoyed in their own area for 41 years. Obviously those people are very dissatisfied with the present state of affairs. On the other hand, the Coloureds and the Indians have made ample use of the new facility in the mean time, because they need it badly. According to the health department of the Johannesburg Municipality, the condition of the pleasure resort, particularly that of the swimming pool and of the drinking water, definitely does not comply with the necessary requirements. According to the specifications and requirements of the municipal authority the pleasure resort must be replanned and rebuilt from scratch and a proper filter system for the swimming pool water must be installed. Water for drinking purposes must also be provided exclusively by the municipality, in terms of the regulations. To make possible everything which has to be done there, will cost an immense sum of money.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to this matter. It is a matter which most definitely requires attention. The conditions which prevail there at the moment, cannot be allowed to continue.

Furthermore I want to point out that the Johannesburg City Council was engaged in providing community facilities to Indians and Coloureds in their own residential areas. However, as a result of the dispute which arose concerning the Van Wyksrust pleasure resort it seems as if the City Council is now to some extent holding back the provision of such facilities elsewhere. At the moment no progress is being made with this. Somebody who knows a great deal about the matter, is Dr. Jamine of the Johannesburg City Council. As far as I know, he is the chief of the non-White Affairs division. He can wax lyrical about the planning which is proposed for Angler’s Halt—a pleasure resort for Coloureds. It will be a very large and fantastic undertaking. It is a pity that this development cannot be expedited a little so that the bone of contention which has now arisen in the White area, may be removed. I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would devote attention to this matter, so that it may be rectified by giving the Coloured people the necessary facilities in their own residential areas.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate after the hon. member for Maraisburg. We represent neighbouring constituencies and our problems are usually of a communal nature. I should like to associate myself with the congratulatory words which previous speakers conveyed to the new Minister of Community Development.

When one looks at the census of 1970, one notices that 85 551 Coloureds and 39 312 Indians are resident in Johannesburg. According to surveys based on population projections there will be approximately 150 000 Coloureds and approximately 100 000 Indians living in the Johannesburg area in the year 2000. In order to sketch a background, one can look at the Coloured township Eldorado Park where between 2 500 and 3 000 dwelling units per year are at present being built by the department in collaboration with the Johannesburg city council. By the end of this year Eldorado Park will be fully utilized. If one looks at Lenasia—this is situated in the constituency of my hon. friends—one notices that the land there is almost fully occupied.

The Government is not unsympathetic towards the Coloureds and the Indians. Therefore I want to broach a few ideas today about a matter to which the hon. Minister referred during the discussion of his Indian Affairs Vote. The Grassmere - Lawley - Lenasia - Nancefield area will be proclaimed a Coloured and Indian area on Friday. This proclamation will affect three constituencies—the Maraisburg and Meyerton constituencies as well as my constituency. I shall refer to the other constituencies as well in broad outline, but as far as the detail is concerned, I shall confine myself to my own constituency.

In terms of a statement by the Secretary of Planning and the Environment on 30 August 1973 an ad hoc committee was appointed in order to prepare a guide plan for this complex so that guidelines for the future development of the area could be laid down. The terms of reference of the committee were to make arrangements for the acquisition of land for agricultural, industrial, residential and other purposes taking into consideration the future requirements for extension of the existing Indian and Coloured groups areas in Lenasia and Ennersdale respectively.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member in which greater area those group areas are situated?

The Indian and Coloured group areas are situated in the Grassmere - Lawley - Lenasia - Nancefield area.

It is realized that this is a serious matter. We are on the threshold of the proclamation of an area which will eventually make provision for 4 000 ha for Indian development and almost 6 000 ha for Coloured development. Once the area is fully developed, there will be approximately 400 000 Coloureds and Indians living in the complex. These are not inferior areas; it is a fine area. The area has ample potential for the accommodation of balanced, independent communities. It has good possibilities as regards full-fledged community development. Sufficient land will be made available for housing as well as for schools, hospitals and recreation facilities. It will be possible to provide all other facilities which the Indians and Coloureds will need for a healthy community life.

This land will be able to meet all needs up to the year 2000. The Department of Community Development has tried hard to plan and develop ahead and I should like to pay tribute at this stage to the Secretary of Community Development and the officials of the Department of Community Development for the zeal they have displayed and the initiative they have taken here.

However, Sir, I now come to a very important aspect, and this is the Whites in this area. The Whites, the residents and landowners of this area, will now have to leave their land and find somewhere else to stay. The question which occurs immediately is what these Whites think? I should like to read an extract to you from The Star of Wednesday, 18 February 1976. It is entitled “Whites await decision”. It reads as follows—

However, Mr. Chairman, this is an aspect which is of primary and utmost importance to me personally. The interests of these Whites who now have to make sacrifices, must at all times be protected and enjoy priority. We realize the nature of the economic climate in which we are living at the moment but there is a need among my voters for the proclamation and purchase or expropriation of this land to be finalized as quickly as possible. In my constituency, for example, the Lawley Township has 700 residential plots. Not all are occupied, but those who do live there must nevertheless find another place to stay. I say in all modesty that there are needy people living there, people who have to be looked after and who have to be thought of. There are many smallholdings owners and farm owners who will now be forced to acquire farms elsewhere in order to continue their farming activities. I should be obliged if precise details could be provided, as the matter progresses. I should like to have precise details as regards the time when the Whites will have to leave the area. There is also immense White capital investment in this area and it is important that they should free this capital as soon as possible to be able to re-establish themselves elsewhere. Practical problems which a matter like this entails have already begun to appear. The number of pupils in the schools has already begun to decrease drastically. Whites have begun to move away from the area. Farmers are hesitant about ploughing and sowing again. Over the past two years there has already been a great deal of uncertainty about the future of the area and this has caused stagnation and degeneration. However, as I know this department, its Minister and its officials, we are full of confidence that they will stand by these people in the future, as they have done in the past. I have heartfelt desire in this regard. The hon. the Minister knows this area as well as I do. Years ago the hon. the Minister worked and lived there, but we have a strong desire to ask the hon. the Minister to pay a visit to this area and go through it with us. Sir, this would be very welcome.

Mr. Chairman, in wishing the hon. the Minister well in the new office that he has assumed as Minister of Community Development, a very important office in the executive of our country, I also want to express my appreciation to the Secretary of the department for his never failing courtesy whenever one has approached him or his department for information or in order to obtain the necessary details of facts flowing from some of the issues that arise in this House.

I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to another aspect, which I think is very important, and in regard to which I think he must take steps. I am referring to the protracted delay with regard to proclamation of townships. This is unquestionably one of the factors that slow down the question of housing. They slow down, not only housing on the part of the department or on the part of local authorities or other types of bodies such as utility bodies, but at the same time they slow down the building of houses by private entrepreneurs themselves and by those who want to own their own homes. I can give the hon. the Minister some very interesting figures which indicate what has taken place recently. There is a township called Bassonia, for which an application was received by the town council on 4 June 1956. The township was only promulgated, however, on 25 November 1974, a delay of 18 years and five months. There is also the township of Eastcliff, in respect of which there was a delay of nine years and one month. In the case of Bramley Manor, with 65 special residential stands, the delay was seven years and two months. Then there was Comer Gardens Extension, with a delay of six years and 10 months. In Lenasia itself, while there was the possibility of some areas being proclaimed, there was a delay of five years and eight months in respect of Extension 4 and a delay of six years and three months in respect of Extension 5. Let me also refer to the Coloured township of Westbury—with 135 special residential stands and four general residential stands—where there was a delay of nine years and eight months.

It is quite clear that it is impossible for the relevant department to cope with this situation. In fact, in the province of the Transvaal this situation has created a great many difficulties. I should therefore like to put a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. He should try to find the necessary machinery to enable local authorities to play their part in handling the proclamation of townships.

The delays are with the local authorities.

No, the delays are not with the local authorities.

Oh no, surely you know better than that.

It has been suggested … [Interjections.] I am not dealing with Mr. Wainer’s case now, so I do not know why the hon. member for Langlaagte is suddenly jumping around for the second time this evening. I am merely dealing with the question of the delay in the proclamation of townships.

It has been emphasized by a leading exponent in the field of housing that it would be a good idea if special powers were granted to some of the bigger local authorities to proclaim their own townships, particularly when it comes to the provision of housing on an assisted basis. In other words, some machinery can be found. Another authority can be found to deal with this, particularly if authorities are empowered to deal with housing matters. I know that a great deal has been said here about Mitchell’s Plain. The hon. the Minister has proclaimed with a great deal of satisfaction—and I concede that he is entitled to enjoy that sense of satisfaction—the progress that is going to be made in the Cape at Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis. The position in Johannesburg and its environs is not good at all, however. There things are moving very slowly indeed because of this particular problem. It is a problem that is worrying everyone. This also applies to the Indian community, of course. I was glad to hear tonight that some more land would be made available, but unless the townships can be proclaimed expeditiously we shall have the same backlog that we have grown accustomed to in the past.

In fact, in the report of the department special mention is made of the fact that there is a substantial demand for Indian housing, and indeed a fairly serious shortage in certain centres. I am sure the department is doing all it can to meet the demand, but a number of Coloureds and Indians are financially in a position to build their own homes if they only have the land. I think this is an important factor that must be borne in mind. I think the time has come to get away from always thinking that the State or other authorities must provide these facilities. If people are in a position to provide their own homes, it is the State’s duty to expedite the provision of land for such purposes.

Years ago the city council of Johannesburg proclaimed quite a number of residential stands in respect of land which it had required to provide for ex-servicemen. It was done in order to enable them to acquire land cheaply to build their own homes. As recently as 15 years ago many hundreds of stands were made available in the north-western part of Johannesburg. Land was made available at cost price, that is without any profits being added, and some beautiful townships were erected there by private home-owners themselves. This is a very important feature which the department should take note of, and I hope the hon. the Minister will do something in order to accelerate the opportunities to the Coloured and Indian communities, particularly in our southern areas of Johannesburg where they are now being confined to Eldorado and Lenasia, to enable them to build their own homes. When talking about Lenasia, I must draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a very serious situation which I have examined a few months ago. I cannot remember if the hon. member for Benoni made reference to it, but I did not hear any reply from the hon. the Minister on this point. In Lenasia itself there is an extension known as Thomsville. I know the hon. the Minister has been to see it. I went to see it. The conditions are worse than it was in Moroka at its zenith. There I saw the worst living conditions I have seen in years. I could hardly believe it. Eight members of a family live in two rooms of which one is the kitchen. Latrines are provided to the extent of three latrines for about eight or ten families. Many of these have broken doors, broken sanitary-ware. The conditions are absolutely appalling. Unfortunately, this is part of the concern of the Department of Community Development. Despite the fact that the Johannesburg City council has taken over the provision of services in the township, which it has incorporated, the department is still responsible for the housing side. I am not complaining about the other sections of Lenasia, but that section, Thomsville, is the worst I have ever seen and I think it is a blot on the escutchen of the department and it is certainly a blot on conditions in a country like the Republic of South Africa. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will have a look at it again. I am quite prepared to go out with him or with any member of his department during the next few weeks to examine the situation in order to arrive at some solution for these people, people who are absolutely frustrated. They can only make their representations through the Johannesburg city council, which has to appeal to the department to do this work, unless it feels called upon to do it itself. I should like to express a few thoughts of my own. If the hon. the Minister looks at his own figures, given in reply to question 377 this year, he will find that from a point of view of numbers very little indeed has been done in the provision of housing or in the provision of flat-dwelling accommodation, particularly for the Indians and, to a large extent, for the Coloured community themselves. I think it is a situation which deserves serious attention. I think the avenue would be to provide more land, the acceleration of the proclamation of townships and, perhaps, the use of the larger local authorities, of which some are very highly experienced, in this particular field which could make a useful contribution in this direction.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.