House of Assembly: Vol22 - FRIDAY 8 MARCH 1968

FRIDAY, 8TH MARCH, 1968 Prayers—10.05 a.m. QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

Population Register *1. Mr. W. V. Raw

asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (1) For what purposes is the population register used;
  2. (2) (a) whether records of each race group are maintained separately and (b) in what form and order are they maintained;
  3. (3) whether the records pertaining to deceased persons or emigrants are (a) endorsed or (b) removed or otherwise separated from current records;
  4. (4) how many persons are recorded in the population register.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (1) The purposes of the population register are—
    1. (a) to obtain the information prescribed by section 7 of the Population Registration Act in respect of every member of the population and to make such information available to any department of state for the purposes of that department or for the purpose of criminal proceedings and to furnish such information to any person on written application and subject to the provisions of the act;
    2. (b) to classify the population into racial groups and
    3. (c) to issue identity cards to all persons over the age of 16 years to enable them to identify themselves if and when required.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) Records in respect of Bantu are maintained separately but those in respect of all other races are maintained collectively.
    2. (b) A record card is maintained in respect of each individual. The cards in respect of Bantu are filed numerically and those in respect of all other races are filed alphabetically.
  3. (3) (a) Yes. (b) No.
  4. (4) An estimated 7.5 million, excluding Bantu. Bantu records total approximately 10.276 million. The figures include persons under and over 16 years of age as well as persons who have died or left the country since the 1951 census.
Population Statistics *2. Mr. W. V. RAW

asked the Minister of Planning:

  1. (1) From what sources are population statistics compiled;
  2. (2) whether the population register is referred to in regard to the differentiation of races; if not, how is this differentiation established.
The MINISTER OF PLANNING:
  1. (1) The source of poulation statistics is a census of the population which is periodically undertaken by the Bureau of Statistics.
  2. (2) No, the race of every respondent is furnished on the census questionnaire.
Dredging in Durban Harbour *3. Mr. W. V. RAW

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether any dredging is necessary alongside the proposed pier No. 2 in Durban harbour;
  2. (2) whether any dredgers were transferred from Durban recently; if so, why;
  3. (3) (a) when is it estimated that pier No. 2 will be completed and (b) how many berths will it provide.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Yes. The dredger Blesbok was moved from Durban to East London early in 1967 to meet service requirements.
  3. (3)
    1. (a) It is not possible to indicate at this stage precisely when Pier No. 2 will be completed, but as stated in the reply to part (2) of question No. *17 asked by the hon. member on 9th February, 1968, the work is programmed to progress without interruption.
    2. (b) Seven.
Accidents on Urban Bantu Rail Services *4. Mr. D. J. MARAIS

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) (a) How many accidents occurred on urban Bantu rail services in the Transvaal during the period 1st January, 1966 to 1st January, 1968, and (b) how many persons were (i) injured and (ii) killed as a result of these accidents;
  2. (2) how many persons were (a) injured and (b) killed as a result of accidents on the Soweto/Johannesburg service;
  3. (3) (a) how many trains operate daily between Soweto and Johannesburg, (b) how many passengers are carried in each direction and (c) at what frequency do the trains operate during morning and afternoon peak periods.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) Two.
    2. (b) (i) 70. (ii) 21.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) 70.
    2. (b) 21.
  3. (3)
    1. (a) 215 in each direction.
    2. (b) Approximately 190,000 in each direction on weekdays.
    3. (c) At intervals of approximately 2½ minutes on weekdays.
Bantu Males Accommodated in Bantu Town-ships *5. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) (a) How many males over 18 years of age are accommodated in bachelor quarters in Soweto and (b) how many of them are married;
  2. (2) how many of the men housed in bachelor quarters in Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu are married.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:
  1. (1) (a) 14,425.
  2. (1) (b) and (2) No statistics are available.

State versus Phillip Otto:

Comments on Police Conduct *6. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Police:

Whether his Department has taken any action as a result of the judge’s remarks, in regard to the conduct of certain policemen, in the case of the State versus Phillip Otto in the Natal Supreme Court; if so, what action; if not, why not.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE:

Yes, the matter is being investigated.

Land Purchased under Bantu Trust and Land Act *7. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) What was the (a) cost and (b) extent of land purchased in each province under the Bantu Trust and Land Act during 1965, 1966 and 1967, respectively;
  2. (2) how many morgen remain to be purchased in each province.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

(1)

(a)

Cape Province

Transvaal

Natal

Orange Free State

1965

R3,180,187

R2,920,744

R3,376,011

R43,968

1966

R4,573,334

R1,225,729

R2,488,727

Nil

1967

R6,445,535

R1,679,610

R1,585,563

Nil

(b)

1965

39,249

59,602

54,270

999 morgen

1966

64,621

23,310

28,700

Nil morgen

1967

100,103

37,806

13,878

Nil morgen

(2)

578,095

751,957

93,650

Nil morgen

Teaching Staff at Bantu University Colleges *8. Mr. P. A. MOORE

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) How many (a) White and (b) non-White (i) professors and (ii) lecturers were on the teaching staff at the University Colleges of Fort Hare, Zululand and the North, respectively, at the end of the 1967 academic year;
  2. (2) (a) what was the amount of (i) salaries paid and (ii) other expenditure for 1967 and (b) what are the corresponding estimated amounts for 1968 in respect of each college.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION (reply laid upon Table with leave of House):

Fort Hare

Zululand

North

(1)

(a)

(i)

25

12

16

(ii)

52

50

45

(b)

(i)

2

1

2

(ii)

18

8

16

R

R

R

(2)

(a)

(i)

546,254

344,248

430,876

(ii)

195,014

169,527

238,094

(b)

(i)

576,582

385,000

480,033

(ii)

261,390

164,000

229,727

Cases of Tuberculosis Notified *9. Dr. E. L. Fisher

asked the Minister of Health:

How many cases of tuberculosis were notified during the period 1st January, 1966, to 31st December, 1967, in (a) the magisterial districts of (i) Tsolo, (ii) Butterworth and (iii) Umtata and (b) the area of the Divisional Council of the Cape.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH:
  1. (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) and (b):

Tsolo

994

Butterworth

134

Umtata

1,095

Cape Divisional Council

3,066

Estimated Population of Certain Magisterial Districts *10. Dr. E. L. FISHER

asked the Minister of Planning:

What is the estimated population of (a) the magisterial districts of (i) Tsolo, (ii) Butterworth and (iii) Umtata and (b) the area of the Divisional Council of the Cape.

The MINISTER OF PLANNING:
  1. (a) Estimates for separate magisterial districts are not available. The latest figures available are those of the Population Census, 1960, namely:
    1. (i) 48,595
    2. (ii) 32,407
    3. (iii) 70,937
  2. (b) No figures are available. The boundaries of the area of the Cape Divisional Council do not coincide with the boundaries of magisterial districts and the figures are compiled according to magisterial districts.
X-ray Units in Transkei *11. Dr. E. L. FISHER

asked the Minister of Health:

  1. (1) How many X-ray units are there in the Transkei;
  2. (2) whether all these units are in operation, if not, (a) how many are not in operation and (b) for what reasons.
The MINISTER OF HEALTH:
  1. (1) There are three mobile X-ray units in operation in the Transkei.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) All three units are in operation.
    2. (b) Falls away.
Re-employment of J. J. Arlow by Police Force *12. Mr. T. G. HUGHES

asked the Minister of Police:

Whether J. J. Arlow, who was previously a sergeant in the South African Police and was dismissed in February, 1961, has been re-employed by the Police Force; if so, (a) in what section, (b) in what rank and at what salary and (c) on what date; and (d) at what place is he employed.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE:
  1. (a) to (d) Yes, as a temporary constable since 1.9.1967 on scale R2,280 × 120— 3,000p.a. He is being employed on special duties which it is not in the public interest to disclose.
Apprenticeship Contracts Registered during 1967 *13. Mr. S. J. M. STEYN

asked the Minister of Labour:

  1. (a) How many apprenticeships for (i) Whites, (ii) Coloureds and (iii) Asians were registered at the latest date for which information is available and (b) how many of these contracts were newly registered during 1967.
The MINISTER OF LABOUR:
  1. (a) (i), (ii) and (iii). During the five year period ended 31st December, 1967, 44,660 apprenticeship contracts were registered of which 40,254 were in respect of Whites, 3,832 in respect of Coloureds and 574 in respect of Asiatics.
  2. (b) 10,011, namely 8,738 in respect of Whites, 1,084 in respect of Coloureds and 189 in respect of Asiatics.
Labour: Determinations in Respect of Inter-Racial Competition. *14. Mr. S. J. M. STEYN

asked the Minister of Labour:

What percentage of the country’s total labour force is (a) potentially affected by determinations thus far made under section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act and (b) in fact so affected in view of exemptions granted from these determinations.

The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

It is not possible to furnish exact percentages but on an estimate the details are as follows:

  1. (a) 3.08 per cent.
  2. (b) 3.06 per cent.
Bantu Trained under Bantu Building Workers’ Act *15. Mr. S. J. M. STEYN

asked the Minister of Labour:

How many Bantu (a) had completed their training and (b) were still in training under the Bantu Building Workers’ Act at the end of 1967.

The MINISTER OF LABOUR:
  1. (a) Up to the end of 1967 altogether 4,383 Bantu obtained registration as building workers in terms of the Act. This figure includes Bantu who were not trained under the Act but who passed a trade test prescribed in terms of section II.
  2. (b) 117.
Siting of Petrol Filling Stations *16. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Economic Affairs:

Whether the siting of new petrol filling stations is controlled by this Department; if so, on what basis.

The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

No.

New Definitive Issue of Stamps *17. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) Whether the introduction of a new definitive issue of stamps for the Republic is under consideration; if so, (a) when is the new issue likely to be introduced, (b) what is the estimated cost of the change-over and (c) who will be responsible for the new designs;
  2. (2) whether details of the new designs are available.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) No, but because of several requests for and enquiries about a new series, the Department is at present obtaining the views of responsible persons and bodies. The need for a new definitive series will be considered in the light of the information obtained in this way.
  2. (2) Falls away.
Applications for Closed-Circuit Television *18. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) How many applications to operate closed-circuit television have been received each year for the last five years for which figures are available;
  2. (2) whether any of these applications were refused; if so, (a) how many during each year and (b) for what reason.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1)

1963

24

1964

23

1965

26

1966

33

1967

44

  1. (2) Yes.
    1. (a)

1963

5

1964

5

1965

6

1966

7

1967

16

  1. (b) because the applications did not meet the requirements in terms of which use of closed-circuit television could only be permitted for essential medical, educational, commercial or industrial purposes.
Water Shortage in Eastern Province *19. Mr. T. G. HUGHES

asked the Minister of Water Affairs:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to reports of the water shortage being experienced in King William’s Town and East London which is affecting production by the textile industry at Zwelitsha;
  2. (2) whether he will make a statement in regard to the position and the action he intends to take.
The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Powers have, in terms of section 9 (a) of the Water Act 1956 (Act No. 54 of 1956), as amended, and promulgated by Government Notice No. 328 of 1st March, 1968, been delegated to the Resident Engineer, Kat River Government Water scheme in order to enable him to exercise control over the abstraction of water from public streams within the Upper Buffalo River Government Water Control Area which area includes King William’s Town, the Good Hope Textile Factory and Zwelitsha. The Resident Engineer has already instituted a joint committee on which King William’s Town, the Good Hope Textile Factory, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and the riparian owners are represented. Certain measures have been taken to economize on water and further ways and means to combat the threatening water shortage are under consideration.
Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, may I ask him whether production has been affected at the Good Hope Textile Industry because of the shortage, up to date?

The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS:

No.

For written reply:

Naturalization Certificates for Stateless Persons 1. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of the Interior:

(a) To how many stateless persons were naturalization certificates issued during each year since 1963, (b) what were their countries of birth and (c) how many were there in each year from each country.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

(a)

1963

606

1964

813

1965

646

1966

490

1967

586

  1. (b) and (c) See list below.

(b)

(c)

1963:

Angola

2

Austria

4

Britain

2

Congo

2

Czechoslovakia

9

Egypt

8

Esthonia

4

Germany

6

Hungary

121

Indonesia

1

Israel

2

Lapland

1

Latvia

11

Lithuania

56

The Netherlands

2

Poland

41

Rhode Islands

1

Rumania

2

Russia

6

Republic of South Africa

1

Yugoslavia

23

India

301

1964:

Angola

12

The Argentine

2

Belgium

1

Botswana

1

China

1

Cyprus

2

Czechoslovakia

5

Egypt

7

Esthonia

5

France

1

Germany

7

Hungary

49

Italy

2

Latvia

5

Lebanon

2

Lithuania

45

The Netherlands

4

Poland

19

Rhode Islands

1

Russia

4

(b)

(c)

South West Africa

3

Turkey

2

Yugoslavia

4

Zanzibar

1

India

628

1965:

Angola

10

Belgium

2

Britain

1

Czechoslovakia

6

Egypt

3

Esthonia

3

Germany

3

Hungary

43

Israel

1

Latvia

4

Lithuania

20

Poland

14

Russia

3

South West Africa

6

Switzerland

1

United States of America

1

Yugoslavia

6

India

519

1966:

Angola

4

The Argentine

1

Austria

2

Belgium

1

Egypt

4

Germany

4

Hungary

78

Israel

1

Italy

1

Latvia

1

Lithuania

21

Mozambique

1

The Netherlands

3

Poland

18

Rumania

2

Russia

2

South West Africa

1

Switzerland

1

Turkey

2

United States of America

1

Yugoslavia

10

Saudi Arabia

1

India

330

1967:

Austria

3

Belgium

3

Congo

1

Cuba

1

Egypt

9

Esthonia

1

France

2

Hungary

94

Italy

1

Latvia

2

Lithuania

18

The Netherlands

3

Poland

27

Rumania

2

Russia

5

Republic of South Africa

1

South West Africa

1

Swaziland

1

Switzerland

1

Syria

2

Turkey

4

United States of America

1

Yugoslavia

19

Zambia

1

Tanzania

2

Uganda

1

India

380

Committees Appointed in Terms of Drugs Control Act 2. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Health:

Whether any committees have been appointed in terms of section 9 (1) (b) of the Drugs Control Act; if so, (a) what committees, (b) what are their functions and (c) what are the names and the qualifications of the members of the committees.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH:

Yes.

  1. (a) Committee for efficacy of drugs; Committee for safety of drugs; Committee for evaluation of analytical protocols of drugs; Committee for adverse reaction of drugs; Committee for presentation and manufacture of drugs; Committee for advertisements and information of drugs.
  2. (b) The functions of the committees are to furnish the Drugs Control Council with advice in connection with those matters indicated by their titles.
  3. (c) Committee for efficacy of drugs:

Chairman: Prof. D. Botha (Physician and Pharmacologist), Medical Faculty, University of Pretoria.

Members: Prof. E. B. Adams (Physician), Department of Medicine, University of Natal; Dr. R. Morris (Physician), Johannesburg; Prof. P. J. Pretorius (Paediatrician), Medical Faculty (Department Paediatrics), University of Pretoria; Dr. S. K. Spies (Physician), Medical Centre, Pretoria; Dr. W. A. van Niekerk (Obstetrician), Medical Faculty (Department Obstetrics and Gynaecology), University of Pretoria; Dr. J. P. Verster (Psychiatrist), Robert Koch Medical Building, Pretoria; Dr. J. Marshall (Dermatologist), Cape Town; prof. N. Sapeika (Pharmacologist), Department of Pharmacology, University of Cape Town; Prof. H. W. Snyman (Chairman of the Council), Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Pretoria and Vice President of the South African Medical and Dental Council.

Alternate Members: Dr. A. G. Buys (Anaesthetist), Pretoria; Prof. J. Offermeier (Pharmacologist), Department of Pharmacology, University of Potchefstroom; Dr. S. J. Powell (Physician), Amoebiasis Research Unit, Institute for Parasitology, Durban; Dr. W. J. C. J. Rosentrauch (Physician), Medical Faculty (Department of Internal Medicine), University of Stellenbosch; Dr. G. E. J. Seymore (Physician), Medical Faculty (Department of Internal Medicine), University of Pretoria; Dr. A. van Zyl (Pharmacologist), Medical Faculty (Department of Pharmacology), University of Stellenbosch; Dr. J. B. King (Physician), Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town; Prof. H. W. Snyman (Chairman of the Council).

Committee for safety of drugs:

Chairman: Prof. G. A. Elliott (Physician), Rondebosch.

Members: Prof. R. W. Charlton (Pharmacologist), Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, University of the Witwatersrand; Prof. L. S. Gillis (Psychiatrist), Department of Psychiatry, University of Cape Town; Prof. J. D. L. Hansen (Paediatrician), Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town; Prof. O. V. S. Kok (Anaesthetist), Medical Faculty, (Department of Anaesthetics), University of Pretoria; Prof. J. Offermeier (Pharmacologist), Department of Pharmacology, University of Potchefstroom; Dr. I. F. H. Purchase (Toxicologist), Head: Division of Toxicology, National Nutrition Research Institutes of the C.S.I.R., Pretoria; Dr. F. P. Scott (Dermatologist), Bloemfontein; Dr. G. Weiss (Physician), Department of Internal Medicine and Therapeutic Trials, H. F. Verwoerd Hospital, Pretoria; Prof. H. W. Snyman (Chairman of the Council), Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Pretoria and Vice President of the South African Medical and Dental Council. Alternate Members: Prof. A. B. Bull (Anaesthetist), Department of Anaesthetics, University of Cape Town; Dr. J. A. Erasmus (Paediatrician), Pretoria; Dr. F. O. Müller (Pharmacologist), Medical Faculty, University of Pretoria; Dr. J. G. Prinsloo (Paediatrician), Medical Faculty (Department Paediatrics), University of Pretoria; Dr. S. J. Saunders (Physician), Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town; Dr. E. W. W. Sonnendecker (Gynaecologist), Pretoria; Prof. A. J. Wilmot (Physician), Department of Medicine, University of Natal.

Committee for evaluation of analytical protocols of drugs:

Chairman: Mr. J. W. de Graad (Analyst), Head: Section Chemical Laboratory (Health), Pretoria.

Members: Mr. R. R. de Villiers (Analyst), Department of Microbiology, Pretoria; Mr. A. P. Goossens (Pharmacist), Department of Pharmaceutics, University of Potchefstroom; Dr. E. R. Kaplan (Pharmacist), Department of Pharmaceutics, Rhodes University; Dr. J. E. C. Mullen (Biologist), State Pathology Laboratory, Cape Town; Prof. M. C. B. van Oudtshoorn (Pharmacist), Department of Pharmaceutics, University of Potchefstroom; Prof. H. W. Snyman (Chairman of the Council).

Committee for adverse reaction of drugs:

Chairman: Prof. H. Grant-Whyte (Anaesthetist), Department of Anaesthetics, University of Natal.

Members: Dr. B. M. Clark (Medical Practitioner) (Former Secretary for Health), Constantia; Dr. G. Dean (Physician), Port Elizabeth; Dr. T. B. de Bruyn (Anaesthetist), Pretoria; Prof. L. Eales (Physician), Department of Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town; Dr. J. A. Erasmus (Paediatrician), Pretoria; Dr. F. P. Scott (Dermatologist), Bloemfontein; Dr. G. Weiss (Physician), Department of Internal Medicine and Therapeutic Trials, H. F. Verwoerd Hospital, Pretoria; Prof. N. Sapeika (Pharmacologist), Department of Pharmacology, University of Cape Town; Dr. B. M. Nel (Medical Practitioner), Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town.

Committee for presentation and manufacture of drugs:

Chairman: Prof. C. H. Price (Pharmacist), Department of Pharmaceutics, Rhodes University.

Members: Mr. A. P. Goossens (Pharmacist), Department of Pharmaceutics, University of Potchefstroom; Dr. E. R. Kaplan (Pharmacist), Department of Pharmaceutics, Rhodes University; Com. N. C. Larken (Pharmacist), Central Medical and Veterinary Stores, Department of Defence, Pretoria; Dr. T. J. McCarthy (Pharmacist), Department of Pharmaceutics, Rhodes University; Dr. B. M. Nel (Medical Practitioner), Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town; Mr. R. Pannall (Pharmacist), Bloemfontein; Prof. M. C. B. van Oudtshoorn (Pharmacist), Department of Pharmaceutics, University of Potchefstroom; Dr. F. O. Müller (Pharmacologist), Medical Faculty, University of Pretoria; Prof. H. W. Snyman (Chairman of the Council).

Committee for advertisements and information of drugs:

Chairman: Dr. D. Krige (Medical Practitioner), Stellenbosch.

Members: Prof. D. Botha (Physician and Pharmacologist), Medical Faculty, University of Pretoria; Dr. H. P. Botha (Medical Practitioner), Pretoria; Prof. R. W. Charlton (Pharmacologist), Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, University of the Witwatersrand; Mr. J. B. Israelshon (Pharmacist), Johannesburg; Mr. O. Knox (General Manager), Mine’s Benefit Association, Johannesburg; Mr. C. de K. Theunissen (Pharmacist), Durban; Prof. M. C. B. van Oudtshoorn (Pharmacist), Department of Pharmaceutics, University of Potchefstroom; Dr. E. R. Steyn (Assistant Chief Health Officer), Department of Health, Pretoria; Prof. H. W. Snyman (Chairman of the Council).

Alternate Members: Dr. A. C. Buys (Anaesthetist), Pretoria; Dr. R. Morris (Physician), Johannesburg.

Indian Pupils Successful in Matriculation Examinations 2. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Indian Affairs:

How many Indian pupils in Natal and the Transvaal, respectively, (a) entered for and (b) passed the matriculation and the matriculation exemption examination, respectively, (i) each year for the ten years prior to and (ii) since the take-over of Indian education by his Department.

The MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:

Natal

(a) and (b) (i)

Year

Entries

Matriculation

Matriculation Exemption

1956

429

71

136

1957

456

68

121

1958

457

84

118

1959

470

75

126

1960

530

158

157

1961

553

231

197

1962

660

201

198

1963

959

339

251

1964

1,167

354

201

1965

1,328

375

187

(a) and (b) (ii)

1966

1,551

692

278

1967

1,617

577

165

Figures for Indians in the Transvaal prior to take-over in 1967 are not available as the Transvaal Education Department did not keep separate records for Indians and Coloureds. The figure for 1967 is: Entries, 470; Matriculation, 221; Matriculation Exemption, 57.

Financial Assistance for Immigrants 4. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Immigration:

(a) How many of the immigrants who arrived in the Republic during the years 1965, 1966 and 1967 received financial assistance from his Department and (b) how many of them received such assistance since their arrival in the Republic.

The MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION:

No immigrant receives any financial assistance from my Department before his arrival in the Republic. Statistics in this regard are kept by my Department in respect of financial years. The numbers of immigrants who received financial assistance during the last three financial years are as follows: 1965-’66 —29,648; 1966-’67—30,885; 1st April, 1967 to 31st December, 1967—18,455.

Southern Africa League and Die Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie 5. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Immigration:

  1. (1) (a) What salaries are paid to the managers of the Durban branches of the Southern Africa League and Die Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie, respectively, (b) how were these managers appointed and (c) what special qualifications do they hold;
  2. (2) (a) how many immigrants were assisted and (b) what state assistance was received by each of these branches during 1967.
The MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) The Southern Africa League— R3,000 per annum fixed and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie—R2,160 per annum on the scale R2,160 × 120—3,360,
    2. (b) the officer of the Southern Africa League was transferred from the League’s Cape Town office on promotion.

      The Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie advertised the post and the officer was selected by its Durban regional committee from amongst eight applications received and

    3. (c) the officer of the Southern Africa League is a former civil servant from Kenya and is considered to possess exceptional qualities in respect of human relations.

      The qualifications of the officer of the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie are a first class matriculation certificate and a diploma in secretarial work. In addition she is a qualified typist with experience in organizing and fund raising activities.

  2. (2)
    1. (a) The Southern Africa League—754 individuals and he Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie—499 families and
    2. (b) the allocations made to their Durban branches by the organizations themselves from the globular subsidies received from my Department during the financial year ended 30th June, 1967, are as follows: the Southern Africa League— R9,351 and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie—R4,856.
Students at Bantu University Colleges 6. Mr. P. A. MOORE

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) What was the number of enrolled students at the University College of Fort Hare, Zululand and the North, respectively, at the end of the 1967 academic year;
  2. (2) how many of these students at each college (a) were fully matriculated or had the matriculation exemption certificate and (b) did not have the matriculation or matriculation exemption certificate;
  3. (3) whether any of these students were in receipt of a State bursary; if so, how many in each case;
  4. (4) what number and percentage in each college passed all their (a) first, (b) second and (c) third year degree courses at the end of 1967;
  5. (5) how many students at each college left during the year without completing their courses.
The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

Fort Hare

Zululand

North

(1)

436

331

538

(2)

(a)

290

174

410

(b)

146

157

128

(3)

Yes.

7

9

9

Fort Hare

Zululand

North

(4)

(a)

Number

28

9

44

Percentage

18.0

20.9

20.0

(b)

Number

46

15

40

Percentage

46.0

42.8

35.7

(c)

Number

42

20

44

Percentage

65.0

51.2

64.7

12

29

115

  1. (5) Statistics in paragraphs (1) and (2) are as on the 1st Tuesday of June, 1967).
Bantu Entries for Higher Education Examinations 3. Mr. S. J. M. STEYN

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

How many Bantu entered during 1967 for (a) the matriculation examination conducted by the Joint Matriculation Board, (b) the equivalent examination and the school-leaving examination conducted by the provinces and (c) the National Senior Certificate examination conducted by his Department.

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:
  1. (a) 1,093.
  2. (b) None.
  3. (c) 941 (the examination is conducted by the Department of Higher Education, but the Department of Bantu Education awards the certificates to successful candidates).
Students and Staff at Bantu University Colleges, 1968 4. Mr. S. J. M. STEYN

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) (a) How many applications have been received from new students to enter each of the Bantu university colleges during 1968 and (b) how many Bantu students have applied for admission to the White universities;
  2. (2) how many students are at present attending each of the three Bantu university colleges;
  3. (3) what is the number of lecturers and professors employed (a) part-time and (b) full-time at each of these university colleges.
The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

Fort Hare

Zululand

North

(1)

(a)

750

525

580

(b)

White universities: 12

(2)

457

364

610

(3)

(a)

Lecturers

5

2

none

Professors

none

none

none

(b)

Lecturers,

57

58

61

Professors

28

12

17

White Students Successful in National Technical Certificate Examinations 9. Mr. S. J. M. STEYN

asked the Minister of National Education:

How many White students passed the full National Technical Certificate I, II, III, Iy and y examinations, respectively, in 1967.

The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

N.T.C.

I

3,026

N.T.C.

II

3,314

N.T.C.

III

2,042

N.T.C.

IV

830

N.T.C.

V

441

10. Mr. S. J. M. STEYN

—Reply standing over.

11. Mr. S. J. M. STEYN

—Reply standing over.

FIRST READING OF BILLS

The following Bills were read a First Time:

Mines and Works Amendment Bill.

Census Amendment Bill.

Statistics Amendment Bill.

Livestock and Produce Sales Amendment Bill.

UNIVERSITY OF THE WITW ATERSRAND, JOHANNESBURG (PRIVATE) AMENDMENT BILL

On the motion of Mr. P. A. Moore, the Bill was read a First Time.

Statement by Speaker: Exercising of Discretion in respect of Private Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The University of the Wit-watersrand, Johannesburg (Private) Amendment Bill, which has just been read a first time, seeks to amend a private Act and, as it has not been introduced by the Government, the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills would normally have had to be complied with.

However, the promoters submitted a request to me during the recess that I should exercise the discretion conferred on me by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and permit the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public bill.

As I was of the opinion, after careful examination of the Bill, that it would not adversely affect the rights or interests of any persons, I informed the promoters that I was prepared to accede to their request.

The Bill may accordingly be taken through its remaining stages as though it were a public measure.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

Thank you, Sir.

WAR GRAVES AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage taken without debate.

PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL

Bill read a Third Time.

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL

Bill read a Third Time.

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL (Third Reading) The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.
Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

When the Bill which is now before us came up at the second reading, we on this side supported it but we made it known that we were not happy about the contents of clause 2. When the Committee Stage came along we moved an amendment in the hope that if the fears we had were not justified, the hon. the Minister would accept our amendments, in which case all would probably have been well. I think in moving my amendment I made it quite clear that the effect of it was not to defeat the object of this law, but purely and simply to alter the details in such a way that they would give the people affected by this clause the opportunity of taking some action in the future should the necessity arise. But unfortunately, on the showing yesterday in this House, we realize now that our fears were well-founded, and on the performance put up by that side of the House we know now that the intention of this Bill as it is now is absolutely clear. It is a Bill which we on this side cannot under any circumstances support.

You see, Sir, under this Bill the hon. the Minister is taking powers unto himself to cure what he believes to be an evil as regards the administration of this Act. He has found a loophole in regard to children who are only classified when they become 16 years of age, so by putting in a little sting in this amending clause, instead of amending children’s registration under the Population Registration Act at the age of 16, he is now going to do this at birth. Sir, what is the effect of this going to be upon the people to whom the contents of this Bill will be applied? It will mean that they will be aliens in their own home amongst their own people. This is the effect that it is going to have upon them. I raised these points yesterday and not one member on that side of the House dealt with any of the important effects that this Bill will have upon the people to whom it is going to be applied. Sir, let us look at that particular group on whom it will have the most serious effect. I refer to that group of people who have married legally under the laws of this Government, in terms of the Mixed Marriages Act. In passing I might mention here that the hon. the Minister did not even seem to know yesterday that that Act existed. Sir, they have married in a perfectly legal manner, and, as normal people do, they will have children, and the act of having a child is going to bring the provisions of this clause into operation as far as those people are concerned. What effect is it going to have upon them? Until the hon. the Minister dispels these fears, we say that amongst other things this Bill will have the following effects: One of the effects is going to be that a mother with a white identity card under the Population Registration Act can have a child who is Coloured. The question automatically arises: How can that child live with its mother; how can it occupy premises in a group area which will have been proclaimed for white occupation? These are but some of the questions which arise. I asked the hon. the Minister yesterday to which nursing home the mother would go to have this child, which is obviously going to be Coloured, because it is labelled “Coloured” before it is born. The only reply I could get in a laughing, joking manner, was that nursing homes did not fall under this Minister, but my question was not answered. I still wonder to what nursing home she will in fact go when the provisions of this Bill are applied to her. I want to know too where this child is going to live until it attains the age of 16 years. I also want to know to what school it is going to go from a white home in a white area. It is going to go to a Coloured school if the hon. the Minister applies the terms of this Bill to that child. These are but a few of the difficulties; I could go on for hours mentioning other difficulties that will arise from the passing of this Bill. Obviously other speakers on this side are going to mention other points of their own, but I mention these few points to show why we are going to vote against the third reading of this Bill and to show in no uncertain terms to this House that this Bill cannot possibly be accepted.

The hon. the Minister thinks that he is blocking loopholes. He might be blocking one and he might for all time be stopping the entry of a child into a school which is intended for a group to which it perhaps does not belong because its birth certificate will now show that it belongs to another group. The hon. the Minister might stop that, but what other snags is he creating by doing this? I have enumerated a few of them. I cannot for the life of me understand why we are being asked to pass legislation of this kind. While it is intended to deal with a particular technical difficulty that the Minister or his Department is faced with, this Bill is going to create a whole set of human problems. How are we going to deal with these problems when they arise? This Minister has no idea; he showed that yesterday. He had not even thought that these problems might occur. Sir, this is what is going to happen to people to whom the provisions of this Bill will apply, and words fail me in trying to express my abhorrence of this kind of legislation. It is being introduced to deal with the odd person and it is going to upset the lives of hundreds or perhaps thousands; I do not know how many are going to be affected by it. But what is the object; what is the sense? I fail to see it. As I see it, the om effect in the long term that this Bill is going to have is that children are going to be liable now to be kicked out of their parents’ homes at the age of six months instead of at the age of 16 years. Sir, I am sorry, I cannot support legislation of this kind.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

The hon. member for Umlazi took a specific example and based his whole argument on it. The example he mentioned was that of a white woman who entered into a lawful marriage with a non-white person. The question he asked pursuant to this was: where should the child of that married couple live if, in terms of his present classification, his race is shown to be “Coloured” on his birth certificate? As far as I am concerned, that child is going to live with his parents. After all, the man, who is a Coloured, is living with his white wife—why can the child not live with his wife as well? To me this is quite simple. Why would the child be kicked out of his home simply because his race is shown to be “Coloured” on his birth certificate? Surely, what the hon. member said here, is rubbish, for why would one allow a non-white man to live with a white woman and not the children out of that marriage? The reply to the hon. member’s question is therefore that the child will live with his parents.

Let us see what would happen if the hon. member for Umlazi were to have his way. The hon. member said that in principle he had no objection to the birth certificate being altered—in fact, he is still saying so. Therefore he has no objections to the correct particulars being inscribed on the birth certificate by the registrar.

But the hon. member wants a note to be added which would indicate that the birth certificate concerned had been corrected. That is what the hon. member wants—there should be a clear indication that the child’s original classification in terms of section 5 of the Population Registration Act has been altered. But what difference does this make to the situation? The Minister said that he could have that done by way of regulation, but suppose the Minister does not keep his word. What difference would that make? If the hon. member for Umlazi has his way, the birth certificate of that child would show that he is “Coloured”. If he wants a birth certificate for the purposes of being admitted to a school, or for any other purpose, it would be indicated on the certificate that he is “Coloured”. That birth certificate will not show that it has been altered. Therefore it cannot make any difference in the life of that child. The hon. member for Umlazi is dramatizing; he is making a song and dance of something that is quite theoretic. As I have said, this will not make any difference whatsoever.

The hon. member is trying to suggest to this House that a terrible injustice is being perpetrated towards certain children. But let me point out to the hon. member that if it is his intention that on the birth certificates of all those children of parents who had previously been accepted as Coloureds and who succeeded in being reclassified as Whites—which they would not have been able to do if there had not been loopholes in the legislation—there should be an indication that they had been Coloureds, what would the position be then? The hon. member for Durban (North) suggested here yesterday that the witch-hunt, as he calls it, was continuing and that in the future people would be reclassified once again. But, surely, he was trying to convey a wrong impression to this House. After all, the Act states clearly that once the board or a court of law has made a classification—a classification with which we may perhaps not agree because those people concerned managed to do so owing to loopholes in the legislation in question—that classification is final. We cannot go back on that. But now the hon. member for Umlazi wants the birth certificates of the children of parents who succeeded in crossing the colour bar and in being reclassified as White to indicate that they had in the first instance been registered as “Coloured” and that their classification was subsequently altered to “White”. Let me tell him that if he has his way, much more grief will be caused. The hon. member should really be grateful that we are doing these things in order to make the legislation practical. If the hon. member’s opposition to this Bill is motivated by his wish that another Act of Parliament should not be implemented, then he must say so in order that we may know. Since he started to take part in this debate yesterday afternoon, he has not furnished any proof to the effect that he has grounds for his argument.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

The hon. member for Parow has illustrated the muddle he and the hon. the Minister are in about this matter. The member for Parow is obsessed, as the hon. the Minister and his Department seem to be, with the Population Registration Act because they believe the definition of a “white person” of that Act is the definition of a “white person”—“finish en klaar”. But that is not the case. The hon. member for Parow kept on saying that the hon. member for Umlazi was talking about “’n Kleurlingman wat bly by sy blanke vrou”. But this begs the question, the question of what is a white person. When we talk about a man and wife the test whether they are white persons must be the test in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949. You have to look at that Act to decide whether in fact they are White. And, indeed, they are White in many of the examples one can give in terms of that Act.

So, the hon. member cannot talk about a Coloured man being married to a white woman —because in order to determine whether that union should take place and whether the should live together as man and wife, you have to apply the test of the Mixed Marriages Act. The hon. member cannot, therefore, talk about “'n man wat’n Kleurling is wat bly by sy blanke vrou”.

Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

That is what the hon. member for Umlazi quoted as an example.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

The example quoted by the hon. member for Parow has the following meaning—and I hope the hon. the Minister will listen to this because we hope to get some reply from him.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

He will need some help.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Well, the hon. the Minister of Justice is sitting next to him—the right person to give him that help. The example of the hon. member for Parow is one of a Coloured man living with a white woman. Now in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act they are White and therefore lawfully married. If they have a child, he or she must be classified in terms of the Population Registration Act as a Coloured person. So, you have the situation where, in the example given by the hon. member for Parow, two of them are Coloured in terms of the Population Registration Act whereas in terms of the Group Areas Act all three of them are regarded as white persons under a definition different from that of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Population Registration Act. Therefore they can live in a white area because in terms of the Group Areas Act they are white people.

So you see Sir, it is not as simple as that. One cannot therefore say that, whatever one has been classified as in terms of the Population Registration Act, that Act determines whether one is White or Coloured or whatever other race. That is exactly what this hon. Minister is now proposing to do in this clause. One has one’s suspicions. One always is a little suspicious as regards legislation dealing with these matters, but one cannot oppose merely on the grounds of suspicions. Our suspicions at the second reading were mere suspicions, as the hon. member for Umlazi said. But the performance yesterday of the hon. the Minister confirmed those suspicions, that in fact what one thought might happen, the hon. the Minister in fact proposes to do. Why does the hon. the Minister want to tie everything to the Population Registration Act? In the circumstances he cannot do it. The definition of a white person even in terms of the Population Registration Act in my short time in this House has changed no less than three times. And every time there is a change, all the provisions are made retrospective. The latest provisions, which are becoming worse and worse and more and more difficult, and in the last example, (bordering on the ludicrous, have been made retrospective.

The question as to what a white person is, is something which this Government determines from time to time in amending its Acts. It determines also in accordance with a different set of criteria for different purposes. Now let us take into consideration what we are dealing with here. Here we have people who are married. They get married in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. They are white people and are married as white people. One of the purposes and one of the natural results of a marriage is that you have a child. When these people want a marriage certificate, they get one, and the marriage certificate says they are married as white people. Now they go along to the same department, the same Registrar-General, the same official at the counter. and they want a birth certificate for the child born of that marriage in respect of which they have from the same Minister’s Department a certificate to say that they were married and the races of the parents are white. Now the hon. the Minister proposes that if one of them was classified for the purposes of the Population Register as a Coloured person, the child has now to be registered as a Coloured child, the issue of a lawful marriage which complies with the Nationalist Government’s statute requiring that there should be a prohibition of marriages between white and non-white people. What is the purpose of the certificate? It is a record of the birth of a child of a white union. Why must that certificate say that that person is Coloured? This is the point. I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate what he proposes to do. He said very bluntly yesterday that if the position was as I have just indicated, the whole position has to be altered. The Mixed Marriages Act has to be amended. Everything has to comply with the Population Registration Act. Would he like also to give some advice to his other colleague who sits on the bench with him namely the hon. the Minister of Community Development, and the Minister of Planning, that the definition of a white person in terms of the Group Areas Act should also comply with it? These definitions were not lightly arrived at. They were arrived at for specific purposes. The definition that is embodied in the Population Registration Act does not necessarily bear any relation to facts whatsoever in relation to the person who is then being classified. It is not a question of classification; it is a question of whether one is allowed to obtain a certificate to say that the issue from a lawful white marriage is a white person. It is not in terms of the Population Registration Act; that has nothing whatever to do with it. In terms of the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act, if they are entitled to register a marriage between Whites then surely, in terms of the same Act, they can obtain a registration of their child as a white person. If the hon. the Minister can indicate why this should not be so and what the Population Registration Act has got to do with it at all, we would be very pleased.

This is the position. Rut what did we hear yesterday? The hon. the Minister got up and issued a general warning to the public that, if they want to have children, they have to face the consequences. Has the hon. the Minister reconsidered that statement he made yesterday? I do hope so. I do hope that he will amend it and that he will perhaps withdraw it. How can he say that, if they want to have children, they must face the consequences, when our law says they are white people and they may marry in terms of the statute that prohibits marriages between Whites and non-Whites? How can the hon. the Minister say a thing like that? I hope that he will perhaps deal with the situation. There are different tests in respect of different laws for different purposes. I can think of nothing less appropriate as to the definition of a child of a white marriage than the provisions of the Population Registration Act. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some sort of reply. I hope that he has at least looked into both these Acts, something which he had not done yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment; I support the attitude which my hon. friend from Umlazi has taken. But in the absence of an explanation from this hon. Minister there is going to be meted out more harm and more difficulties in terms of these various Acts than we have ever had before.

When the hon. member for Parow can say: “What difference does it make?” then let me ask the hon. member whether it would make a difference to him if his children were registered as Coloureds.

Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Of course, it would! And this is the whole point, Mr. Speaker. There is a twilight area, an area which, as the then Mr. Justice Fagan so wisely said, of the very Act that we are dealing with, that “the legislature wisely refrained from drawing a dividing line where the Creator had blurred it”. I think this is what the hon. the Minister should bear in mind, and not try to put into pigeon-holes children of a marriage which has been put into a different hole by the laws which exist at this time. The hon. the Minister shows not only ignorance of those laws, but in my submission he shows some contempt for them in this Bill.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a long speech during the third-reading stage. The Bill was thrashed out fairly well in the Committee Stage and it is quite clear to me where the differences lie between the speakers opposite and those on the Government side, and what the basis is of the objections raised to this Bill by hon. members opposite. The mistake they are making is that they think that this Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Amendment Bill is a Population Registration Bill. If this amendment Bill we are discussing here is adopted, it would mean only one thing: Not that the child is being classified now, since the classification takes place in terms of the Population Registration Act and not in terms of the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act; the only thing which is being set right here, is faulty inscriptions in the births register. [Interjection.] I shall explain it. Those mistakes must be put right, amended and replaced by an inscription reflecting the correct factual position. That correct factual position relates to the classification of his parents. This is where the Population Registration Act is applicable. It must relate to the race classification of the parents in terms of the Population Registration Act, because if it does not relate to that, those facts are wrong and the facts on that birth certificate will have no legal status. I fail to understand why hon. members on the Opposition side are pleading that one should have a wrong entry on one’s birth certificate and not the correct one.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

That is not true.

*The MINISTER:

That is what the hon. member for Umlazi is advocating. He says that it should not be altered “because it will cause hardship”. Then he quoted instances where, in terms of the Mixed Marriages Act, people were married by a marriage officer in terms of the provisions of that Act, which has nothing to do with my Act at all. The hon. member for Durban (North), as well as the hon. member for Umlazi, says that there are such cases where a non-white person marries a white person …

*Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

No!

*The MINISTER:

Yes, where a non-white person marries a white person. Because, if both of them are white persons, the Marriage Act provides that they are married. But the fact that I am a married man, has not made me White or Black.

*Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

But he was married as a white person.

*The MINISTER:

Whether I am married or unmarried has nothing to do with my race classification, because the hon. member himself was classified as a white person, and if he had only married after 1951, he would already have been classified as a white person prior to his marriage. That does not enter into the matter at all. What does in fact enter into the matter, is the following: If the hon. member were to say that I or the Government is not going far enough and that we should also review the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and bring it into line with the correct provisions and the Population Registration Act, that the Minister of Justice should go into the matter to see whether there is a possibility of eliminating in the future all marriages between people belonging to the white race group and people belonging to the non-white race groups, then I would say that he has an argument. But because he claims that such things happen in terms of the Group Areas and other legislation, he wants us to have no population registration at all. If we do not have population registration, on what will hon. members opposite base the representation in Parliament which they want to grant the non-Whites? How are they going to compile separate voters’ rolls without any population registration? Simply by judging on the face of it? Are they going to open mouths, extract teeth, are they going back on the history of the people? What are they going to do?

No. Mr. Speaker, the position is as follows: The Population Registration Act provides explicitly—and this is one of the clauses which is so binding and in regard to which they are complaining that we have changed it—that if the parents of a child belong to the same race group, in that they have already been classified as members of that same group, such a child cannot, if they are his natural parents, belong to a race group other than that of his parents. The Act also provides explicitly that, if a child is born out of a marriage, i.e. a child whose parents do not belong to the same race group, such a child cannot be a white person. The only thing we want to do here, is not to allow the registrar of births, when people notify him of the birth of a child and declare that they are white persons, simply to accept their word for it and then to record their race as White.

*Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

They were married as white persons.

*The MINISTER:

We say that the registrar of births should make sure of those facts before he records the race of such a child on the birth information form. Listen to the example the hon. member quoted in that regard. He says: Oh, it will be terrible that it can now happen that the children of people who were married as white persons—they were not White, but the marriage made them White— cannot, in the view of the Minister, be White if both of them have been classified and do not belong to the same race group, in terms of the amendments to the Population Registration Act. But the hon. member has forgotten how many people, when they registered their children, gave their race as “Coloured”. The hon. member for Parow also mentioned it. In terms of the reclassifications which took place according to the old formulas—in the first instance for many years according to appearance only, and according to the second formula, in terms of appearance and association —both parents of those children have now been reclassified and declared to be white persons. The race of those children is still recorded on the birth certificate as being Coloured. Does he not have any sympathy with those children? I shall remedy their position.

*Mr. M. L. MITCHLL:

But only for the purposes of a marriage.

*The MINISTER:

No. The hon. member only complains when a person who has unlawfully been accepted as a white person is declared to be a Coloured. He complains when those facts are correct and are entered on his birth certificate. But if one makes the mistake of recording on a person’s birth certificate his race as White when such a person is actually a Coloured, then he has no objection to it, because then one is supposedly doing a good thing; one is helping him. That is the only reason he mentions, and for that reason one may not have such a law, because then one would be attaching a stigma to that child if his classification corresponds with that of his parents. This is so ridiculous to me, Mr. Speaker, that I really do not have any answer to it other than the following: If the classification is made, it is made in terms of the Population Registration Act. All the clauses and all the determining factors will then be taken into account, and even if the entry on his birth certificate is faulty, it still has nothing to do with his classification. But if it is entered correctly it will have the same effects as it will have when it is entered incorrectly. Now the following question is asked: Why not correctly, why incorrectly? That is the whole question. We say that it is being corrected in this way, and the hon. gentlemen opposite want to drag politics into it and make the world believe that we are conducting a witch-hunt and dragging sinister ulterior motives into the matter. I do not think that that ruse will be successful.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—94: Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C; De Wet, J. M.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C; Key ter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, J. P. C; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, W. A.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnich, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C, V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. L; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—35: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

WINE AND SPIRITS CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL

Bill read a Third Time.

WATERVAL RIVER (LYDENBURG) BILL

Bill read a third Time.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AMEND-MENT BILL (Second Reading) *The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is actually twofold in nature. In the first place it is being introduced to eliminate certain shortcomings and close certain loopholes which have come to light in the Community Development Act in the course of time, thereby to improve the administration of the Act. Secondly, it deals with the control of the licensing of disqualified persons in group areas and with the issuing of trading licences to qualified persons in designated group areas.

I shall first deal with those clauses relating to the elimination of shortcomings and loopholes occurring in the Act. Clause 1 deals with the ownership of affected properties. The owner may claim all the benefits of depreciation contributions if the property concerned was owned by a disqualified person at the basic date, i.e. prior to the proclamation. This fact is also very clearly stated in the Act in respect of ownership by individuals. In respect of ownership by companies the concept “basic date” was inadvertently omitted from the original legislation; this has caused confusion and is now being rectified.

In terms of section 20 the Community Development Board is exempt from a variety of commitments, inter alia the payment of endowment fees in respect of lots subdivided and developed by the Board for sale mainly to the group of persons in the lower and lower middle income groups, specifically so that the land prices will not be increased unnecessarily to the detriment of these persons. From subsection (2) it must be clear to everyone that as far as the spirit of the exemptions in this section is concerned, the Administrator will only be consulted in respect of the provisions of a town planning scheme and the subdivision of land, matters which were included in the subsequently passed Removal of Restrictions Act with the general approval of all the provinces, and which in any case means that it will also be possible to amend these provisions. With the co-operation of local authorities very good progress has in fact been made with the implementation of section 20, but it now appears that in respect of one specific area the payment of endowment fees was imposed under a local authority ordinance, and in terms of the present wording of section 20, endowment fees will in this case now have to be paid by the Community Development Board upon the subdivision and development of land, which increases the land prices concerned and will place a burden which is specifically meant to be avoided, on the shoulders of the low-paid groups. The object of the proposed amendment is merely to bring the position in this case into line with what already applies in the rest of the Republic.

The next amendment relates to the fact that the Community Development Board and a local authority may enter into an agreement whereby the local authority performs the functions and exercises the powers of the Community Development Board in certain areas, subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon. In the Republic there are only a few local authorities which have entered into such delegation agreements with my Department.

In terms of the present provisions of section 22 the Community Development Board may, when such an agreement has been entered into and its powers and functions have been delegated to the local authority in respect of an area, not itself also exercise some of its functions in that area. It is then altogether powerless with regard to that area. The fact that, as the Act now stands, the Community Development Board itself no longer retains any powers when it has delegated its powers to a local authority, has a detrimental effect on the development of that area and also has a restrictive and burdensome effect on persons who have to be settled there. Let me mention an example: The Development Board is thereby prohibited from granting individual building loans for the erection of dwellings in such areas, and the Community Development Board is also prohibited from assisting with the development by itself acquiring and developing land in such areas. It consequently places a heavy burden on the local authority concerned, which makes it more difficult for development to take place there. The proposed amendment only envisages making it possible for the Development Board, after consultation with the local authority, to participate in such areas, for example by granting loans to individuals and itself assisting in the development and erection of dwellings. This is therefore only to make it possible, where delegated powers have been given to the local authority, for the Community Development Board to be given the power to assist, after consultation and agreement with the local authority.

Originally the former Group Areas Development Act provided that a property becomes an affected property either as a result of disqualified ownership or, in the case of qualified ownership, through occupation by a disqualified person. Subsequent amendments to the law altered the position so that a property was not affected purely as a result of disqualified occupation. It can now be affected as a result of disqualified occupation only if the qualified owner applies for it to be affected. In terms of section 29 of the Act a list of affected properties must be drawn up in respect of each area, and the information to be contained in this list is specified in the Act. One of the items of information which the list must contain is the name of the occupant and the group to which he belongs. Because mere occupation is no longer a reason for a property to be affected, it is no longer necessary for the list to contain this information. The socio-economic surveys which are made contain this information in any case should a qualified owner request that this property be regarded as affected as a result of disqualified occupation. At present, however, this information must still be included in the list. This only results in valuable working hours being wasted in my Department, and in fact it serves no purpose. The purpose of clause 4 is to eliminate this unnecessary obligation which rests on my Department.

The purpose of clause 5 ought to be evident. Cases occur where the basic value of land has been determined with due regard to fact that there are, for example, gravel deposits, natural forests or building sand on the land which can be exploited, factors which influence the value of that property. But then the owners sell that gravel, or chop the trees down and sell them, or sell the building sand, after the basic value has been determined. Thereby they adversely affect the value of that property—and the effect can be quite substantial. The result is that the Board is powerless with regard to the depreciation contribution which it subsequently has to pay in terms of the provisions of the Act. The proposed insertion only brings such cases into line with what is already happening in respect of buildings or other improvements on such properties. Last year, in the interest of the development of certain areas, we accepted a provision (section 32 (10)) in terms of which disqualified owners are prohibited from effecting extensions or additions to their buildings or from erecting new buildings on affected land without the prior written approval of the Community Development Board, because section 27 (1) and section 27 (3) of the Group Areas Act provide that upon affected properties being acquired by disqualified persons by testamentary disposition, such properties must be realized within one year, unless the estate is authorized by permit to hold such properties for a longer period. It was not considered necessary at the time to include estates in the new provision. The present position, however, is that if such permits are granted to estates, permits to hold such properties for longer than one year, there is nothing which prohibits those estates from changing or enlarging the affected buildings or even from erecting new buildings in conflict with the provisions of section 32 (10), that is to say, without the permission of the Community Development Board. Naturally it can at present be done within the period of one year. To ensure that the intention of section 32 (10) is carried out as far as possible, we shall not be able to grant any permission to any estate to retain such a property for longer than one year. If we do, there will be many cases where estates will be very adversely affected, but in practice it is often not possible to relinquish a property within one year. The alternative is to treat estates in the same way as disqualified persons. Then it would be easier for me to grant permits for an extension of the period. This then is the object of this amendment.

I now come to clause 6 undoubtedly the most important provision in this Bill. It is altogether a new provision. The object of the Group Areas Act is to resettle the various communities in their own areas, and to build up balanced communities in those areas with their own services, etc.—diversified communities. As a result of such development, new trading potential develops in such a group area, for example, one for Coloureds or for Indians. With regard to the issuing of licences for the exploitation of that new trading potential, neither my Department nor I have any say as regards to whom such licences are granted. The result is that that new trading potential can be exploited by new entrants to trade and that consequently we cannot employ that trading potential in that group area profitably for the resettlement of disqualified dealers; in other words, those persons who are still in other group areas. This is one of the tasks which we must gradually undertake. Another problem is that a disqualified person can apply for such a licence. The authority which must grant that licence cannot have recourse to the race of such a person. All it must decide is whether it is necessary to issue a licence or not. Consequently it often happens that disqualified persons obtain a licence to establish a new undertaking in a group area which is being developed for another race, and thereafter apply for a permit of occupation. In other words, such a person first establishes himself in an unlawful manner and then applies to me for a permit. Then I have to refuse that application. I think that this procedure is wrong. I cannot condone unlawful occupation merely by granting such a person a permit. What I now propose to do is to compel the licensing authority to require a disqualified person applying for a trading licence first to submit a certificate either from myself or from a person authorized by me in which must be indicated whether he is in fact going to obtain a permit for occupation. There are many cases in which we do grant such permits, but then the applicant must first determine whether he can in fact obtain such a permit. Thereafter he can apply for a licence. It is of course the initial issuing of a licence which is affected here.

But now there are, say, in a white group area, disqualified traders who have to renew their licences from time to time. It is our task to settle such dealers in their own areas as possibilities can be created there for them. Therefore I am asking for a twofold power here—firstly, to designate a group area by proclamation in the Gazette, a group area in which a licence cannot be issued to anyone who has not been approved by my Department or by me. The intention is to give preference to disqualified traders in other group areas so that we may allow the trading potential in their own areas to be utilized for their benefit. When such a trader moves from a disqualified area to his own area and obtains a licence to establish his business there. I want the power at the same time to notify the licensing authority that that person’s trading licence will not be renewed in the area in which he is disqualified. In other words, it is a process by which I want to utilize the trading potential which is developing very rapidly in group areas now. to the benefit of the disqualified persons in that community who are in the other areas. It must be remembered that we have many areas in which the disqualified traders in declared group areas are in the position that they simply do not know how long they are still going to remain there. No improvements are made to their buildings. Many of their premises are in an extremely poor condition and should actually be declared slums in terms of the Slums Act. Because they have no rights of ownership in an area where they are disqualified persons, or because they have no certainty as regards future ownership there—they do not know how long they can remain there—they do not improve their premises. I now want to make use of the trading potential which is developing in their own areas in order to provide a better future for these people, who are in fact in a difficult position and without an assured future in the disqualified area. I want to give them preference in the issuing of licences in their own areas, instead of giving the new entrants to the trade an opportunity of snapping up the trading potential in that new group area and obtaining it for their own purposes. In other words, I do not want to allow further large-scale expansion in trade or the development of large monopolistic organizations which simply buy up all the trading premises and then speculate with them. I want to stop them, and to utilize the potential existing there, for the benefit of the disqualified traders who are at present in disqualified group areas.

It is therefore apparent that we are taking a very important step here. I think that this will enable me to eliminate the large-scale uncertainty existing in connection with trading operations as well as the inconvenience and the lack of security suffered by these people, and, without depriving traders of their livelihood, to set in motion a systematic, gradual process of proper resettlement which will prevent the opportunities which exist for resettling them from passing into the hands of other persons so that we can do nothing about the matter.

What would be the alternative if I did not do this? The alternative would be that I myself should buy up all the trading premises in the non-White group areas through the Community Development Board, that I myself should develop them and determine to whom the business undertakings would be let. In doing so, I would not afford the qualified dealer in that area the opportunity of erecting a building of his own, such as he deems fit, with his own capital there. I would have to act in that way in order to maintain control over what persons I send there. But I should not like to do that. I want to give to the disqualified traders who are in the declared group areas an opportunity of themselves taking up business premises and of developing their own interests. But at the same time they must be persons who can be taken there from the areas in which they are disqualified. In other words, I do not want to interfere with the basic right of licensing authorities to grant licences; I am not interfering with that in any way. I am only interfering with the right of a person to trade in an area in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act. I think this is a logical step which flows from the way in which we apply the Group Areas Act.

These are the most important provisions in this connection and I sincerely hope that hon. members will consider them in the light of this approach and not drag in other unrelated matters. I trust that they will examine the matter closely and treat it on its merits, and will view it as an honest step to grant the disqualified dealers, who are passing through an unhappy period, an opportunity in the future. It is to assist them that this measure is being introduced.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Mr. Speaker, I am quite moved by the emotional appeal, if I may call it that, of the hon. the Minister for support for this particular measure, but right at the outset I wish to inform him that I rise to oppose this Bill. Unfortunately, as an Opposition, we have to deal with the facts of the Bill. Whilst I can have quite a lot of sympathy for certain of the opinions the Minister has just given us the benefit of, I am afraid that this Bill is to me just another example of this creeping autocracy that is coming more and more into our lives. Once legislation of this kind has been passed, it has to march forward all the time, and every little snag that is encountered requires more and more legislation of this type which results in more and more inroads into the rights of local authorities and the ordinary lives of ordinary people. It demands inroads into the system which we have obeyed, worked and lived peacefully under for so many years. This system is to be altered because of legislation of this kind.

It is rather interesting that at the end of his speech the hon. the Minister gave us an alternative. What is the difference between the alternative and what is contemplated in clause 6 of the Bill? There is no difference at all. What it means is that this Minister is now going to take over the complete planning, the complete control and the entire issuing of licences.

*Mr. A. L. RAUBENHEIMER:

That is not correct.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Hear that little whisper which says, “Dit is nie so nie.”

*Mr. A. L. RAUBENHAIMER:

But it is not correct.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

This hon. member has probably been misled by the fact that there is an amendment on the Order Paper.

*Mr. A. L. RAUBENHEIMER:

It is very clear.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

The hon. member can make his speech just now but I will reply to his interjection now. There is an amendment on the Order Paper, but what does it mean? It does not mean a thing. We will discuss it when we come to the Committee Stage. It does not alter at this stage what is contained in the Bill before us.

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

It is not a different principle; the amendment is only for clarity’s sake.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Yes. The position is quite simple. I accept that this Bill in its present form contains some clauses which are purely of an administrative nature, and, indeed, this side agrees with some of them because we want to see the measure working. It is law, it has to be carried out. and we on this side feel that where relief can be given we will support the Bill. We will indicate that during the Committee Stage.

The Minister explained clause 2 of this Bill to us, and he makes it sound so simple. But what does one see if one reads the Bill? We see the boards will be exempt from the provisions of any ordinance. It does not say the boards will be exempt from what I think is called endowment fees. It does not say that at all. It says the Minister is now going to be exempt from the provisions of any ordinance. I question whether local health commissions, for instance, are not established by ordinance. Do they not work under a provincial ordinance? In the Transvaal we have the periurban areas health boards which might well operate under a Transvaal ordinance, so that everything they do is by virtue of an ordinance. I do not think those boards have any powers of their own but their powers derive from the provincial council. I want to question here whether this amendment is just the simple thing the hon. the Minister pretended it to be during his second-reading speech.

I want to go on to clause 6 because I think this is the crux of this Bill. We on this side are going to oppose this measure largely because of this clause because it introduces into the application of group areas legislation an entirely new principle. This clause is divided into three parts, and they, roughly speaking, give the Minister three different powers. The first part allows the Minister to control the issue of certain trading licences contemplated in Part I of the Second Schedule to the Licences Act. Another part authorizes him to control the renewal of Licences, and the third part allows him by notice to stop the granting of licences of a particular kind. These are wide, indeed sweeping powers, which the Minister is asking for. That is why we on this side are opposing this clause. There is just no limitation here. As this Bill now reads, it is clear there is no limitation whatsoever on the exercise of the Minister’s powers. The hon. the Minister is not confined to any particular area. Even if one takes into consideration his amendment. which will be considered later, it does not much alter the position, because many group areas have already been proclaimed and the field is therefore almost as wide as ever. It is rather interesting, too, that group areas have largely been proclaimed in the areas of existing local authorities who are responsible for the issue of trade licences.

I want to make another point here before I go any further. The thinking behind this clause worries me.

*Mr. A. L. RAUBENHEIMER:

Everything worries you!

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Whoever drew up this Bill went to the trouble of making certain exemptions.

Mr. A. L. RAUBENHEIMER:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Oh, will you stop mumbling; I am making a speech.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order!

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

The following items have been exempted from the operation of this particular clause: Items 5, 12, 16 and 19 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Licences Act of 1962. It is rather interesting to look up these items to see what they are. I do not know why someone took the trouble to insert this part into the clause. I am going to quote those sections just to illustrate to this House the thinking behind this Bill. The Minister is asking for power to control the issue of all licences to all people, and I think he will agree with me that in most cases it is the issue of licences to non-white people that is affected. However, he exempts bunch buyers, hawkers, ostrich feather buyers, and also pedlars.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

What about rag and bone dealers?

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Yes, the Minister forgot that one. What about bottle buyers? From the whole list of occupations set out in the second Schedule—and it is a long schedule, Sir—these particular four occupations have been picked. What sort of mind selects four occupations of this nature and what can possibly be the reason? I put it to the House that this is the thinking behind this new development in the group areas legislation. I want to say it with emphasis, because listening to the hon. the Minister here this morning I have been convinced that this measure is a substitute for planning of the right kind. It is a substitute for proper coordination of effort and it is also a substitute for co-operation with the local authority concerned.

Let us see how this can be avoided. It cannot be avoided by the alternative put forward by the Minister, namely that he will then have to take all the business stands in the different places and allocate them himself. He is already doing just that under the Act, so it is really no alternative. I can assure hon. members of that. He is now doing that without buying the stands, without taking the trouble, because he is letting somebody else finance the stands. But he is going to issue the licences, so who will have the control of the stands any way? The hon. the Minister, of course. So whether he buys the stands or not does not make any difference at all. Therefore I say what the Minister called an alternative is not an alternative at all.

Let us see what the alternative really is. This, in my opinion, and I thought of this while the Minister was speaking, surely is proper planning at the proper time. If the Minister is looking for an alternative I suggest he investigate my suggestion. When the Minister proclaims a group area surely he knows what he wants to do with it, or does he? He knows what class of person, what race group will he going there. He knows over what period roughly he is going to rebuild and re-equip it and move the people in there. Surely his planning is sufficiently ahead and sufficiently “with it” to know exactly where he wants business stands, because he has passed urban renewal schemes. All these things link together. He has the power to clear up any slums in the group area which he has proclaimed; he has the power to embark upon an urban renewal scheme; he has the power at the moment to do anything. He is exempt from all the provisions of township regulations relating to the subdivision of land, the type of building that must be erected, etc. Everything that local and provincial authorities provide for he is already exempt from. So he has no excuses whatsoever. Over the years how many times have we not dealt with measures when the Minister and his predecessor came here and said, “I am being frustrated by a local authority, I will hammer them into submission, I will make them do this, that and the other”, and he has done it. He did all that until in 1966 he felt they had it all tied up and he consolidated the Act. Thank goodness he did, because it was such a jungle nobody could really understand it anyway. Yet, here we are again. Here we are asked to amend the consolidated Act. Why? We will continue to be asked to amend it if this is the approach to the implementation of group areas. So long as this is the approach to and the mentality behind the legislation, we will continue to have amendments. We cannot avoid them. People are rapidly beginning to think that if troubles are experienced in implementing a scheme, all that is needed is to pass another law. This is not the first time I have said this in connection with Group Areas Amendment Bills. It is not the first time at all, and it will not be the last time either. The remedy for these troubles is not the passing of further legislation but rather to come to grips with the problem and face the facts. What are the facts?

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

We face the facts when we make amendments. Legislation cannot be perfect. We cannot foresee all the snags that crop up.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Well, you have had long enough. This interjection is interesting. The Minister by his interjection confirms all the things I have said about this Bill.

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

You do not want to do anything about the snags; I at least want to do something to improve matters.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

No, that is not true. I believe as I stand here that the Minister has too many powers already. As I said, he is exempt from every ordinance of every local and provincial authority. He is exempted from all the requirements which they enforce. He therefore has a free hand. Although he might not own all the land, when he moves into a group area and proclaims it, he has absolute control of that area. The only thing he does not have control of is the licences. But surely to goodness he has had sufficient co-operation in the past from the local authorities concerned not to have to come to Parliament with legislation of this kind. I believe he can achieve his objective by proper consultation and cooperation. In fact, I am sure he can. If he is going to apply the Slums Act, the urban renewals scheme and the Group Areas Act to an area he has proclaimed, then he can achieve every objective because the Minister can decide where in fact the business sites are going. He does not have to ask anybody else. He replans the area and he can say that business sites will go in a special part of this area and that he will not have them scattered far and wide in this group area.

He had one problem, I admit, such as he has at Paarl, where everybody trades around the perimeter of the group area and they take the cream off the milk before the poor Coloured people can get it. That I accept, but he is not doing anything about that; he is only controlling it inside, and he is controlling it in regard to one person as against another. This is what he is going to do, and he is going to limit the number of licences, and he is not going to make provision for certain types of licences, if I am not mistaken.

But I am getting away from my point. My point is that this Minister can dictate what trading sites there will be and where they will be situated. Sir, I would like to know which local authorities would not like to cooperate in better town planning of that nature. I would like to find out which local authorities, if any, would not co-operate on the issue of licences. And we must remember that the hon. the Minister has the right to object to the issue of licences, the same as anybody else. He can object to the issue of licences; anybody can do that. But the hon. the Minister has not investigated this means of co-operation. He has not thought, apparently, of properly planning an area. He has just thought of passing a law and saying: I will decide that that will be that and this will be for something else, and I will decide how many traders will go into that area. In terms of this Bill the Minister must decide how many of each type of trader will go into the area. Now, what experience does this Minister have to make a decision of that kind? What right has he to do it? In my opinion, he has no right at all, because he has no experience of the needs of communities in regard to trading. He has never planned a Johannesburg to know what trading licences are necessary. Why, all of a sudden now, has this Minister become an authority? He may laugh, but let him answer this.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

It is just another form of concession.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Let him tell me what particular experience equips him to control utterly the issue of all trading licences, except for bunch buyers, etc.? Let him tell me what experience he and his Department have behind them which will put them into a position best to control the issue of those licences, rather than the local authorities. I am utterly against it, because he will come up against certain snags. Take the case of chemists and druggists. There will not be enough qualified persons to go into that area. I accept that people will have to get permits in terms of the Group Areas Act from the Minister to occupy the premises, but to whom is he going to give that right? This Minister now has the right to say: You thought you were going into that area, but I am giving it to somebody else. You see, Sir, this is a monopoly that the Minister is taking, and monopolies are dangerous things. When one man has a right to grant a licence and make it a monopoly, that is against all the accepted principles of trading and of the issue of licences. At the moment one can object to the issue of a licence on the grounds that it will lead to over-trading.

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

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

ESTABLISHMENT OF A VIROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR ANIMALS *Mr. J. M. DE WET:

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name—

That, in view of—
  1. (1) the periodical outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in South Africa and South West Africa;
  2. (2) the threat of foot-and-mouth disease, as well as other virus diseases, from neighbouring territories and the rest of Africa; and
  3. (3) the consequent threat to the country’s economy,
this House requests the Government to consider the advisability of proceeding as soon as possible with the establishment of a virological research institute for animals in order to protect the cattle industry in and the agricultural export trade of South Africa and South West Africa.

In the wake of the latest outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in England, one which is assuming tremendous proportions, one has come to realize anew the danger to which livestock is exposed when threatened by this disease and the consequent danger to the agricultural industry as well as the national economy specifically. In the years 1922, 1923 and 1924 Britain experienced a similar outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and at that time approximately 273,000 head of cattle were destroyed,but this recent outbreak is occurring on a much larger scale. Even at this stage approximately 300,000 animals have been destroyed and the cost thereof to Britain in direct compensation amounts to approximately £20 million or R40 million. This is the amount of direct expenditure only. In fact, indirect expenditure cannot be estimated properly, because it is very difficult to do so, but we know that Britain is a country which exports stud animals. Britain’s annual export of stud animals amounts to approximately R10 million. This side of the business, too, has naturally been affected by the disease, but because foot-and-mouth disease is not endemic in England and because this infection has been imported from abroad, measures have been taken also in respect of all imports of meat from countries where this disease occurs periodically. Consequently also South Africa has fallen a victim to this and the export of our meat to Britain has been discontinued. In this way also this country is being affected when there is an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in other parts of the world. Mindful of this and of the fact that foot-and-mouth disease occurs in South Africa and in South West Africa from time to time as well as in some of our neighbouring territories, one comes to realize the consequent danger of this disease to the livestock of this country and to our economy. As this motion reads, the most important and immediate request is the desired research institute for virus diseases and the solving of the problems of foot-and-mouth disease. But this is not all. Also included in this are the basic principles of virology and immunology which are of vital importance to the protection and development of our entire country’s livestock. In order to motivate this request of mine properly, I should like to divide it into five main points.

Firstly, I should like to outline the background of virus diseases which threaten us and to which also this country is subject. The other points with which I should like to deal are, secondly, the areas in which foot-and-mouth disease usually occurs, how often it occurs and how it is being spread; thirdly, the consequent threat to the agricultural industry in this country and how this disease may affect our exports; fourthly, the direct and indirect costs of foot-and-mouth disease and the existing methods of combating this disease; and fifthly, the success already achieved by the division of veterinary services in the field of vaccine preparation and immunization against those diseases which threaten our country.

The following is the background. Various kinds of virus diseases are found in South Africa. The best-known of these are bluetongue, horsesickness, three-day stiffsickness, Rift Valley fever, Wesselsbron disease as well as foot-and-mouth disease. Diseases such as Rift Valley fever and Wesselsbron disease made their first appearance in Southern Africa only a few years ago. These were unknown diseases, but it proves that we are subject to these known virus diseases and that they may appear here at any time. One of the best-known diseases for which we must be on the alert is rinderpest. At present it is confined to Central Africa. In addition there are other virus diseases, such as lung disease and sheep pox which are found in Central Africa and in several of these African countries these diseases are endemic in their game. Consequently the possibility exists that these diseases may spread to South Africa and South West Africa at any time when conditions are favourable. This also brings me to foot-and-mouth disease, which occurs in South Africa and South West Africa from time to time. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to take you back to a time before the outbreak of rinderpest, but I truly think that it will be relevant to do so to-day. We know that foot-and-mouth disease was found in all four provinces of South Africa, prior to the outbreak of rinderpest in 1896. Subsequent to that it completely disappeared from Southern Africa for several years.

The first time it reappeared was in Rhodesia in 1931 from where it spread to Botswana and from Botswana it spread to South Africa. There are at present several main types of the foot-and-mouth disease virus which have already been typed. The best-known ones are the A, the O and the C types which are known as the European virus types. The S.A.T 1, 2 and 3 types are found in Southern Africa, and then there still is the Asian 1 type. These South African types, the S.A.T. 1, 2 and 3 types, have occurred here on several occasions, but we find that some of the European types, such as the A type, have also occurred in some of our neighbouring territories such as Angola. Foot-and-mouth disease is, of course, spread by animals with cloven hooves. Where does foot-and-mouth disease chiefly occur? As I have already said, foot-and-mouth disease occurred in Rhodesia after 1931, from where it spread to Botswana and from Botswana it spread to South Africa. Numerous outbreaks have subsequently been experienced in South Africa. These outbreaks chiefly occurred on our international borders as well as in neighbouring territories, but they occurred inside South Africa on three occasions. In 1933 an outbreak occurred at Germiston, in 1938 in Natal and in 1957 on the Witwatersrand. The origin of all these outbreaks was in Botswana, in other words, in one of our neighbouring territories. As regards South West Africa, eight outbreaks occurred there as against the said 18 outbreaks which occurred in South Africa after 1931. These outbreaks in South West Africa also occurred chiefly on the borders of the neighbouring territories, but two outbreaks penetrated into the interior of South West Africa. In fact, in our neighbouring territories such as Botswana, Malawi, Rhodesia, Angola and Mozambique there have been numerous outbreaks we know about, but we must accept that in addition to those there have been numerous outbreaks we do not know about. Thus we find that the territories further north, such as Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, are likewise subject to infection.

The problem of foot-and-mouth disease in Southern Africa is being further complicated by the presence in these parts of large numbers of game which carry this disease. How this disease originates amongst game and is being transmitted to domestic animals has not been investigated and determined properly as yet. Consequently this is a basic subject for vigorous research. This disease represents a tremendous threat to the agricultural industry in our country as well as to our exports. It is virtually unnecessary to point out all the consequent dangers for our country and to indicate what a serious threat it is to our livestock, but I should like to do so on the basis of a few figures relating to stock. In South Africa and South West Africa there are approximately 14 million head of cattle, including those of the Bantu, and there are approximately 44 million sheep, six and a half million goats and one and a half million pigs. According to research conducted into agricultural marketing, the gross value of stock production in South Africa, and I am referring to meat, dairy produce, etc., in the first place, was plus-minus R339 million. These are the latest available figures. The gross value of wool, mohair and furs, which are other animal products, was R109 million, a total therefore of approximately R450 million. According to this research into agricultural marketing our stock represents a capital asset of R1,070 million. These figures give us an indication of the threat and of what is being threatened. The controlled areas with the largest consumption of meat are Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, etc., and 50 per cent of the animals slaughtered in these controlled areas come from these neighbouring territories which are periodically threatened by foot-and-mouth disease. If a serious epidemic were to break out and if all these neighbouring territories were to become infected, even if the disease did not spread further to the rest of South Africa or South West Africa, it would mean that the consumer would have to pay much more for meat, because in that case restrictions would be imposed in respect of stock entering the controlled areas.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go into the exports of this country; my colleague who is going to follow me in this debate, will make specific reference to that matter, but I just want to point out that the international fear of foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest and lung disease is such that the presence of any of these diseases in our country can have very adverse effects on our agricultural export trade and, of course, on our national economy. Trade restrictions in respect of foot-and-mouth disease affect not only animals and animal products, but also other agricultural products. All agricultural products exported from South Africa must be certified by the division of veterinary services.

When one thinks in terms of the cost of combating foot-and-mouth disease and in terms of control measures in this regard, the question occurs to one why, in view of the fact that this disease appears in virtually all parts of the world from time to time, all international restrictions are not raised so that, we may export freely. This will have the effect that the financial implications it entails, the inconvenience and all other matters incidental thereto, will disappear immediately. It is unlikely, however, that something like this will be accepted by the rest of the world, because no country will be able to afford the devastation of numerous outbreaks which may occur in large areas at any time or the dangers which will follow if it becomes a local disease in that country. This disease has cost the countries of the world countless millions, not only in money but also in potential revenue and trade losses. It is difficult to determine the exact costs involved in controlling and combating this disease and what it has already cost South Africa and South West Africa, but I should like to mention in brief the direct expenditure in order to illustrate how much has been spent on getting this disease under control and on protecting our livestock. The direct expenditure incurred in South Africa up to now is R4,200,000; R870,000 has been spent on fencing and the annual cost of exercising control is plus-minus R52,000. A considerably larger amount has been spent in South West Africa. The cost of getting the disease under control during the one large outbreak in 1961-’63 which paralysed virtually the entire territory, exceeded R5 million. A vaccination campaign was started there and this took a very long time. More than two million head of cattle, 900,000 goats and 1 million sheep were vaccinated. The direct expenditure incurred in South West Africa in respect of control amounts to R5,600,000; the erection of fences for controlling the disease and trying to keep the disease out, cost approximately R2 million, and the current annual cost of control is R170,000. Hon. members can therefore see that some millions have been spent in combating this disease in South Africa and in South West Africa, and then I am referring to direct costs only. It is difficult to gauge the indirect costs. I cannot describe the inconvenience it causes and the frustration it brings about amongst farmers when this disease goes hand in hand with a drought. Hon. members who represent such districts will probably refer to that after I have spoken.

There are several methods which are being followed at present for controlling and combating foot-and-mouth disease. The one method which is well-known is to throw a cordon round the area and to discontinue the export of stock and to await the disappearance of the disease. A second method is to build up anti-bodies in healthy animals toy infecting them with active viruses. The third is the slaughtering method which is at present being employed in England and which is in fact a very expensive method. If we were to employ this method in South Africa, it would cost the country even many millions more to control the disease. The fourth is the newer idea of vaccination or immunization. Vaccination has been applied with success, particularly in South West Africa, and it is also a much cheaper method of controlling the disease. But at present we are faced with the problem that South Africa cannot manufacture this vaccine. If foot-and-mouth disease were to break out in any area in South Africa or South West Africa, we would be faced with the further problem of being unable to type that virus locally. It would have to be sent to Pirbright in England where virus typing is done and where vaccines are prepared. Mr. Speaker, if this dangerous disease breaks out here and one can neither type the virus here nor prepare the necessary vaccine, one is extremely vulnerable. This brings me to the success which has already been achieved by the South African division of veterinary services in the field of immunization and vaccine preparation. I have no doubt whatsoever, particularly if one has regard to the great things Onderstepoort has already achieved in respect of the typing of various stock diseases and the preparation of vaccines, that our researchers will be capable of producing an effective vaccine and/or oral remedy for immunization against foot-and-mouth disease, provided they have the necessary facilities at their disposal. Where we are proud to-day of what a Dr. Barnard has done for mankind, I think it appropriate for us to be equally proud of what Onderstepoort has already done for the stock farmer in this country. To-day one likes to refer to the vaccine which Onderstepoort prepares and to the research work being conducted there not only in the interests of the South African farmer, but one likes to refer to the fact that some of those vaccines and the results of that research work are being used all over the world and particularly in the rest of Africa. Last year a record was set there as far as the preparation of vaccines was concerned. A record number of 103,375,000 doses of vaccine was manufactured and several million doses of that vaccine were forwarded to other countries in Africa for combating diseases in those countries. As far as the typing of the bluetongue virus is concerned, South Africa is recognized by the world at present as the leading authority. New techniques are being developed for the typing of virus groups and the determination of neutralizing anti-bodies.

To summarize, foot-and-mouth disease is one of the best examples of an international disease against which all countries are on their guard and in respect of which they do not hesitate to take all the necessary restricting, and I almost feel like saying, discriminatory, measures in order to protect themselves against infection. This also applies to South Africa. When any of the neighbouring territories is hit by foot-and-mouth disease, our doors are closed to those people. They may not market their stock here and no movement of stock Whatsoever is allowed. It is very clear to us and we must accept that the agricultural industry of South Africa and South West Africa are being threatened by foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest and lung disease from neighbouring territories in the rest of Africa. Circumstances in Africa and the presence of these diseases in numerous countries in Africa are a constant threat to the livestock of this country. The international trade prestige of infected countries automatically slumps to such a level that it assumes very serious economic proportions and at the same time has other economic implications. Sir, it may rightly be said that every successful attempt at combating foot-and-mouth disease may be regarded as the salvation of the stock farmer. As I have already indicated, the cost of combating these diseases is tremendously high. Several million has been spent on combating these diseases. The safest and the cheapest way, as in the case of all other diseases, is immunization. Prevention is better than cure. Sufficient research has not yet been conducted into the question of how this disease continues to prevail amongst game nor into the way in which it is being transmitted to domestic animals. Research ought to be conducted in order to ascertain which are the most favourable climatic conditions for this virus. It is said that this virus spreads much more easily in cold, wet conditions, but the contrary has also been proved in practice, namely that this virus becomes activated under conditions of drought and spreads at a tremendously rapid rate. It has been proved that either vaccine or an oral remedy can be successfully employed in preventing foot-and-mouth disease and that it is much cheaper to employ this method than it is to slaughter stock or to employ any of the other methods of combating it.

South Africa is the only country in Africa which has the financial means and the scientific ability to undertake the services to which I have referred, also in respect of the other dangerous stock diseases. Apart from providing better protection for our own livestock and economy and bringing about a considerable saving eventually, South Africa can make a vital contribution to the combating and stamping out of these dreaded diseases in our neighbouring states as well as in the rest of Africa.

With this, I think, I have sufficiently motivated the general value to South Africa of such a research institute. Of course, one realizes that the Government is holding certain projects in abeyance for the time being in order to reduce Government expenditure under present circumstances in which anti-inflationary measures are being applied, but I want to plead here to-day for the establishment of the desired virological research institute to be placed high on the list of priorities of projects to be tackled. I have been informed that such a research institute will cost plus-minus R2 million. This is a negligible amount when seen in the light of the millions of rand which such a research institute will save us. The time factor is also a very important one. We realize that we are being threatened but we never know when conditions will become so favourable that the disease will be able to spread at a tremendously rapid rate as is at present happening in England. The establishment of such an institute is going to take time and the necessary research is going to take a few years, and where we are dependent on Pirbright in England at this stage for the typing of virus diseases and for the preparation of vaccine, we cannot afford to lose any more time. At present a great deal of research is being conducted in South Africa into every other sphere, and the industries which benefit from those research projects are prepared to make their contributions to the cost of establishing research institutes. I think it would be in the interests of our stock industry if interest could be aroused on that side and if the different marketing boards, such as the Meat Board and the Wool Board, could each make a contribution from their funds, because the combating of these diseases also forms part of the stabilizing of our meat and wool industries, etc., and consequently I think we may rightly draw money from those stabilization funds for the establishment of such a research institute.

Mr. Speaker, with that I want to conclude and I want to express the hope that everyone will support this idea.

Dr. A. RADFORD:

We owe a debt of appreciation to the hon. member for having introduced this motion and for the service he has rendered to the farming community by stressing the gravity of these virus diseases and what they cost the country. In addition to that he drew attention to the fact that the time for research was now and not 1972—the projected date given by the Minister of Agriculture. As it is, we have lost many years of research because we have not gone about it correctly in that we have greatly neglected basic research. But I shall return to this aspect later on.

In order to widen the scope of the discussion I wish to move the following amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House, while placing on record its appreciation of the outstanding work done by Onderstepoort and the Division of Veterinary Field Services in controlling stock diseases, despite being hampered by staff shortages, feels convinced that periodic outbreaks of foot-and-mouth and other virus diseases necessitate—
  1. (a) the establishment of a virological research institute for animals; and
  2. (b) the immediate expansion of the facilities for training virologists, technical assistants and other veterinary research personnel”.

The hon. member has given a fair picture of the state of foot-and-mouth disease in the country. It is a disease which is, more or less, limited to cattle and wild animals with cloven hooves. It differs a little from the other virus diseases in that it is probably—(a fact which has not yet been proved)—not carried by intermediate hosts. As far as is known at the moment, the tick and the mosquito do not carry this disease. Because the hooves and the mouths of animals are affected it is easy to understand that this disease can easily be spread because of contact of the hooves and mouths of the animals with the grazing. The outlook of the British authorities on this disease is determined to a large extent by this factor and also here because we try to cordon off the disease, as the British have always tried to cordon it off. Britain’s attitude has always been that she is an island and if she could eradicate this disease by stopping its entry she will be safe. It is possible that the immunization affects the quality of the meat and as they have an enormous export market in Europe and America they do not want to risk the loss of that market.

The curious thing about foot-and-mouth disease is that it comprises at least six different viruses, or variants of viruses. It also affects human beings though only mildly. As far as we know at present the virus infecting humans is not the same as the virus infecting cattle. Immunity conferred by injection is, though reliable, limited—only about four months’ immunity. The Botswana government thought four months’ immunity was satisfactory on account of the fact that the disease there is seasonal—it occurs mostly in the winter. In October, 1967, it inoculated 213,160 head of cattle, 120,579 goats and 13,806 sheep. That took them a month and covered an area of 52,400 square miles. There had been seven outbreaks of this disease in Botswana in 10 years which have resulted in a loss of about five-sixths of the revenue derived from exports. The vaccine used in the campaign was developed in a prefabricated laboratory at Makalakiri, a point about 40 miles from the Okavango swamps. Three men, headed by Dr. Townsend, isolated an unstable virus called SAT3. The vaccine gave immunity for about four months, which was considered satisfactory because the disease (as I have said) is usually confined to the winter period. The director of veterinary services ordered mass inoculations in the north every winter, four teams headed by stock inspectors were employed. The vaccine was sent to the four teams daily in ice chests to keep cool. The campaign lasted 24 working days.

The hon. member for Karas mentioned Pirbright and others. I agree with him that we must build a Pirbright here. A feature of Pirbright is that whereas most other laboratories took a long time to identify the particular strain involved Pirbright could give an answer within a few hours. But the world centre for foot-and-mouth disease investigations and treatment is in Lyons in France. It is there that England recently with her grave outbreak went for help. The centre at Lyons is now maintained by the French government. It was started originally by a pupil of Pasteur but after the 1937/’38 outbreak in France, caused by the importation of Algerian sheep, the French government decided to subsidize the institute substantially. It has since become the main supplier of vaccine in Europe. In France since 1962 all cloven hooved animals must be inoculated against foot-and-mouth disease but the vaccine had actually been in use for about 12 years previously. The cost in France to-day is about 4.50 francs. The exchange rate is about 14 francs to the £, which is 7 francs to the Rroughly, so it will be seen that the cost relative to the cost of the disease is minimal.

The cost of the disease is serious enough in a country like England where they have had to burn the animals. It could just as easily be done here, because these cattle lose much weight, indeed, they can lose up to 100 lbs. in a week. The unfortunate part is that they never regain their weight; they never get it back from an economic point of view. In a way what England did was quite right, but unfortunately she was not able to control the spread of disease.

In France they use a trivalent vaccine because they have three particular strains. So serious do they regard foot-and-mouth disease in France that, although they are regarded by the continent and by North Africa as being the centre for research and supply, they will not permit the introduction of a single specimen virus of a different strain to theirs. This aspect was revealed clearly when there was an outbreak of virus and a new strain, namely S.A.T.I. appeared in Syria and Turkey in 1961. The French Government would not permit the importation of the virus into France. but it dispatched a team from Mérieux Institute, which is the foot-and-mouth institute in Lyons, to the area. In six months sufficient vaccine was prepared on the spot, and a cordon much better than a fence, and much better than policemen, was established along the frontiers of Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece. The virus has not reached Europe. The counter-measures were completely successful. Recently, that is within the past three or four months, the Russians found a new virus in Poland, called AMO. They went to Lyons to study the matter and discuss it, just as England did when she had difficulties.

I have gone into detail about the foot-and-mouth disease institute in Lyons because the institute sets the pattern for virological research in this country. It is devoted entirely to the study of virus diseases and it has one great distinguishing feature, namely it has united research into humans and animals for the virus diseases. Knowledge of virus diseases is not by any means, like polio and other diseases which look like being overcome, extensive, and there is a terrible shortage of virological doctors or virologists. The French have rightly combined the two types of research, namely that concerning humans and that concerning animals.

While we have dealt with foot-and-mouth disease and fever for the moment, we have others to deal with and I should like to mention some of them. Of the virus diseases in this country the commonest are rabies and foot-and-mouth disease. Both these diseases are of great concern to the Department of Agriculture. There are also others, and I want to mention them because I feel that at any time one of these viruses could go wild and spread disease throughout the country, both to man and to animal. As the hon. member mentioned, we have the great problem of wild animals which are reservoirs for these diseases very often without themselves suffering seriously. All that is needed is a mosquito or a tick to transfer the disease. Recent studies by Dr. Macintosh have shown that many of the small rodents of this country are highly susceptible to the virus diseases. Rodents live in close proximity to human beings and their animals. Rodents eat man’s food and also the animals’ food. The mosquito is common in many parts of the country. When a virus is first isolated its gravity is very often not appreciated, as I shall show later in some cases here in the Western Province. West Nile virus was first isolated from the blood of a Native woman suffering a febrile illness in north-western Uganda in 1914. For a few years the disease was lost sight of, but a few years later it reappeared in the Belgian Congo and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. It was lost again from the point of view of observation—it was not really lost—until about 14 years later when it turned up thousands of miles away in the Middle East. Subsequently it has been shown that it is prevalent in almost the whole African continent, and it goes as far afield as India. I want to point out to the House how serious can be the spread of these viruses.

Rift Valley Fever, another viral fever which is more common in South Africa—Enzootic Hepatitis—also affects human beings. In 1951, quite unexpectedly, an outbreak occurred near Koffiefontein, followed by a widespread epidemic of sheep and cattle of the Western Free State, Southern and Western Transvaal, and also in the North-Western Cape Province. It caused heavy losses of sheep and cattle. All veterinary surgeons who carried out autopsies became infected and over 50 cases of a similar illness occurred amongst farmers and their Native labourers. The death rate amongst sheep was extremely high. A vaccine was discovered by a worker Smithburn at Onderstepoort. He was a man who came to this country from the Rockefeller Institute to study these viruses. In 1965 the Arbovirus Research Unit of the South African Institute of Medical Research investigated the presence of antibodies in animals and humans.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Dr. A. RADFORD:

Mr. Speaker, in case I have given the impression that diseases of this nature are limited to the more tropical areas, I want to point out that a research team also investigated the Western Cape in this regard.

It tested for practically all the known viruses that are in South Africa. They tested from Worcester, Swellendam, Hermanus to Malmesbury, Piquetberg, Clanwilliam, Van Rhynsdorp and then they went north to Springbok, Pofadder and Upington. In every case, except for Hermanus, they were able to find at least one positive reactor to one of these viruses, the commonest being the West Nile and the Middelburg viruses. This shows that there is a reservoir even as far south as the Western Province. Time does not permit me to go into further details, but I should like to say that there must be a reason for the spread of virus diseases to the south where, as far as can be ascertained, they were unknown in the past. It is above all, this new spread of viruses that forces us to insist more and more on the establishment of a virological institute of sufficient size and capacity. The coastal lowlands of South Africa are the extension of the tropical corridor which extends down both sides of our coast. In the east it is particularly suitable for the breeding of vectors. This area has a temperature which is relatively high. It has a high rainfall and the occurrence of lakes, swamps, rivers, vegetation and various fauna make it a good breeding ground for the ticks and the mosquitoes. In contrast the central high plateau of South Africa has an erratic rainfall. It has bitterly cold winters and relatively sparse vegetation. While these vectors can exist, they need reinforcing from time to time. There is reason to believe that this is as a result of our alteration of the ecology of these districts. During and since the war the advanced prices paid for agricultural produce acted as a stimulus to farmers to increase production. As the stimulus affected the growing of livestock it was probably responsible for increased movements of stock from one district to another. There was also an extension of road building as a result of which fast highways now provide access to all parts of the country. This has made possible the rapid transport of animals from one region to another. Artificial lakes have been created in the Orange Free State, the North-Western Cape and elsewhere as a part of water and soil conservation. Hordes of migratory birds are now coming into regions where they were unknown before. It is possible that other vertebrate and invertebrate hosts which are difficult to check compared with birds, may also have increased their range. They have brought with them diseases previously unknown in these areas. It seems likely that the epidemic and the accompanying infections in man will continue unless measures for their control are developed. At this point I say that if and when such a virological institute is established, it should not be developed in the Transvaal Highveld where the disease is relatively unimportant, but in the coastal regions and particularly the eastern coastal regions where conditions are naturally favourable to these diseases where they are known to exist at present and are becoming increasingly severe and common.

*Mr. A. J. RAUBENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, I want to commence by referring to the amendment moved by the hon. member fur Durban (Central). I think it is necessary to draw the attention of this House to the fact that there has been a tremendous expansion of facilities at Onderstepoort in recent years. In point of fact, it will not be possible to combat the problem more effectively by creating more facilities elsewhere or by bringing about a division of facilities which will include other centres as well. I think the strength and the excellent operation of Onderstepoort may be attributed chiefly to the fact that it has been operating on a concentrated basis which allows of a wide study being made into different stock diseases and in which study knowledge of one disease may supplement knowledge of another. In addition I want to point out that we generally have problems in this country as regards trained and highly specialized and qualified human material. We have a shortage of these people. One of the factors which is involved in this matter is that we have a present population of 19 million people in this country of which only 3½ million are Whites. The highly trained technicians to render this type of service are chiefly drawn from the latter group. It is a major problem to meet from this small white population the need we have for these people. In addition we have to render services in this connection not only for ourselves, but also for the non-white population as well as for the non-white populations of the neighbouring countries in Africa which have not yet reached anything resembling a similar development. These countries cannot make a real contribution in this regard. There is another problem which goes hand in hand with this and that is that there is tremendous competition for the services of people of this kind as a result of the tremendous development in the economic field, and I want to refer to the pirating that is taking place. I think it is necessary to draw attention to this. Many of the people who have been trained in our faculties of agriculture and at Onderstepoort in particular, have been snatched up as a result of the relative economic prosperity of the industrial sector and the commercial sector, and many of these people have received good offers and have left the Public Service as a result. This is a great pity. We hope that as a result of this motion, if the possibility exists that it will be carried into effect, we shall at least get facilities which will provide greater encouragement to the real scientists.

I want to indicate that virology as a study is a particularly interesting and complicated field. We are getting more and more specialization. It may perhaps be necessary to indicate that specialization means the study of less and less about which more and more knowledge has to be gained until we may reach the stage where people know everything about nothing, but I do not think we have reached the stage where there is over-specialization. As regards viruses, we have a wide complex, not only as regards our animal material but also our plant material and man. If we go back in history, we find that the first case of vaccination against a virus occurred when Edward Jenner, the English doctor, introduced into the human body the secretion from cow-pox in 1796 and thereby succeeded in making those people immune to ordinary pox. Since that time there has been tremendous development. It is interesting to note that the word “vaccination” dates back to those times. The Latin name for a cow is “vacca” and because the secretion of cowpox was used for immunization against ordinary pox the word “vaccination” was born. One hundred and two years later another scientist, Beijerinck succeeded, for the first time, to isolate a virus and to establish more or less what it was. Actually he filtered the tobacco mosaic virus through filters and used the secretion and found that it still caused infection in healthy tobacco plants. It was then presumed that this virus or contagium—virus actually means contagium or poison—was a secretion of bacteria. I am referring to this in order to indicate that there were individuals who by dedicating themselves and by making sacrifices made breakthroughs which were extremely important in the development of knowledge about viruses and counter-measures for combating infection. In the same year in which Beijerinck was able to establish that a virus was something different to a bacterium, it was also established that a virus actually was the cause of foot-and-mouth disease. It then took a long time, approximately up to 1930, before further progress could be made at which time the electron microscope enabled the scientists to distinguish viruses, a virus being such a tiny organism. Approximately the same time, in 1928, Max Theiler developed a vaccine against yellow fever and at that time too success was achieved in breeding a virus artificially in eggs. All this work was done by our scientists all over the world in various fields so as to find out more and more about the causes of virus diseases and the operation and composition of a virus. It was only round about 1935 that it could be established analytically that a virus actually consisted of pure protein but that it was a very interesting form of life, namely small cells which could live and reproduce in other cells. Since that time we have had considerable development. There was the development in 1954 of the well-known Salk vaccine against polio, which is caused by a virus. During all these developments and the study of viruses we in South Africa were constantly experiencing problems and were unable to make a real contribution in a more specialized direction. There were, inter alia, the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease which we have been experiencing throughout the years and even up to recent times; the latest outbreak in my constituency in the Eastern Lowveld occurred in December, 1967, and we have been hearing that the virus thrived in cold, wet regions. The foot-and-mouth disease virus is one of the difficult viruses, of which, I think, seven types have already been distinguished. In passing I just want to refer to the fact that there are approximately 100 types of the virus which causes colds in humans, and this makes it very difficult to find vaccines against these viruses of which there is such a variety.

As regards the practical problems of foot-and-mouth disease, I want to refer once again to the Eastern Lowveld. There we have the Kruger National Park with its large numbers of game, and scientists are of the opinion that the foot-and-mouth disease virus is endemic there. The Government has been spending large amounts on erecting fences and on exercising supervision and quarantine and control measures after every outbreak, but the problem is not only that game moves from place to place but a major additional problem is our Bantu population. I have indicated that they cannot make a contribution in the scientific field as a result of their level of development, but they provide this additional problem in that they do not realize their responsibilities when there are outbreaks of these diseases. During the latest outbreak in the Komatipoort vicinity during December, it was ascertained that the outbreak occurred in virtually the identical place in which the previous outbreak occurred. The only conclusion at which one could arrive—the Crocodile River was in flood and no animals could come from the National Park—was that the outbreak was caused by Bantu who had stolen game in the National Park and had brought the meat into that area. This is our big problem and this makes the entire question of foot-and-mouth disease in this country more complicated. I want to indicate that the question of foot-and-mouth disease in areas such as the Eastern Transvaal and the Northern Transvaal and the areas along the Protectorates, represents a tremendous risk for the farmers. In my opinion the fact that we have nevertheless succeeded in exercising such a high degree of control over this disease, speaks volumes to the credit of our scientists of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and Onderstepoort in particular. There are problems, however, which makes this disease very hazardous, so much so that we must go further and take more measures. A year or two ago, for example, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was suspected in the vicinity of Barberton, and those people were immediately placed under quarantine. Each time this happens it causes a tremendous disruption and it entails financial losses. Samples now have to be sent to Pirbright in England in order to determine whether a virus is a foot-and-mouth disease virus, and, if so, what type of virus. In that case the people were under quarantine for more than a month before it was ascertained that the lesions in the mouths of the animals were not caused by the foot-and-mouth disease virus. I am mentioning this specially to indicate that it is necessary for us to do more in this direction locally.

Another factor which enters the picture is the question of the value of our exports of agricultural products. When we look at the statistics we see that over the past ten years the value of our agricultural export products has virtually never been below R300 million per annum, and in quite a few cases it has exceeded R400 million per annum. Animal products are not the only ones which are being endangered by this disease. We have found that the export of maize via Lourenço Marques was hampered during the past year, because the trains had to pass through a foot-and-mouth disease area. Our veterinary surgeons have to issue certificates and in the case of many other agricultural products to be exported, our authorities have to issue the necessary documents to certify that the packing material, etc., has not been in contact with foot-and-mouth disease areas or does not come from such areas. These are all matters which make it a very hazardous business to maintain these exports. It may happen that we may experience an outbreak at some stage as a result of the Bantu factor which I have mentioned but also as a result of our fast transport and that that outbreak may spread to the interior and that we may experience a total disruption of our agricultural exports. This factor is one which I want to emphasize strongly.

I want to go back and refer briefly to Onder-stepoort and the question of staff. I have indicated, and I am convinced that that is correct, that we must not think of dividing our staff amongst various training centres at this stage. We simply do not have a sufficient number of people to do so. We must employ the people at our disposal as judiciously as possible. My information is that we have 11 veterinary surgeons working in the virus division at Onderstepoort. In addition there is a chief as well as additional technical staff; all these posts are filled and these people are rendering a special service. If we look at other subdivisions of virology, we find that we also have the same number of virologists doing plant research. Here I want to mention that the citrus industry, for example, suffered heavily under the threat of a complex of viruses, which included, for instance, the greening virus which did tremendous damage in the Eastern Lowveld of the Transvaal and subsequently in the central areas of the Transvaal. One man was made available at the research station and Nelspruit to work on this problem. I think there are two of them at the moment, but the University of Pretoria established a few years ago that this disease of greening was being spread and probably being caused by a virus. The Department has succeeded in obtaining the necessary equipment and in appointing a man at Nelspruit, and last year he established that this virus was particularly sensitive to heat. with the result that there is a possibility of exercising control over it. I am merely indicating that in many cases we simply have to make the necessary equipment available whereupon we shall in fact find the necessary people. We need not have large numbers of people. It will be sufficient to make the equipment available and to try to put one or two or three of these very highly specialized people to work. We have the example of Onderstepoort in the early days of Sir Arnold Theiler up to the present time, that if these people are given the slightest chance they will regard that as a challenge and set about their task zealously.

Consequently my plea is, while I am very conscious of the fact that we do not have any money to waste and that the establishment of an institution like this requires very expensive equipment and very expensive buildings, that the State must accept this duty; but I want to support the hon. member for Karas in what he said, namely that bodies such as the Meat Board and other bodies which are concerned in this matter, should also try to make a contribution to the establishment of this important undertaking. Once we have reached the stage where we have the equipment and the small number of highly specialized people required, the work can proceed. The hon. member for Durban (Central) indicated that there was a special institute at Lyons in France. I think if we, for the time being, can make use of people who have also received further training in this specialized direction there, it will reduce the hazard of foot-and-mouth disease and the consequent threat to our agricultural industry as a whole and will go a long way in enabling our own people to face and solve this problem.

I want to content myself with these few ideas. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that I think that our researchers and Onderstepoort in particular, deserve to have an opportunity like this to throw some light on this very critical and highly problematic stock disease which represents a constant threat. I may just mention too that the annual report for the year ended 30th June, 1966. indicates how much work it requires simply to maintain fences. For instance, there were 7,000 breaks in one year; 37,000 single wires and 50,000 posts were repaired. It requires a tremendous amount of labour simply to add all these things up and to keep a record of them. With these few ideas, Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in supporting this motion.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Sir, this motion might be construed as being very much akin to the one in respect of which last Friday we had that very brilliant address by my colleague, the hon. member for Hillbrow. In this motion we are dealing with another question of scientific research and the facilities for it. I am supporting the amendment merely because it makes the issue a little wider. I do not think that actually so far as the principle is concerned there is any quarrel either with the original motion or with what the mover of the motion had to say. I think we agree with him; he put his case very well and I am glad that the Rules of the House and the time allotted for debate have permitted him to bring this motion before us. I only hope that the hon. the Minister has not made up his mind in advance. That unfortunately is so often the case with motions when they come from private members. I see a faraway look in his eye … [Interjections.] All that worries me is whether the Minister wrote out the speech for the hon. member who moved the motion so that he will be in a position, with the speech that he has on his desk, already written out, to reply to him. Be that as it may, it is for us to put the case as best we can for the extension of scientific research facilities through the establishment of a virological research station. I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Central) that if possible it should not be associated with Onderstepoort, in direct contact with them, but that it should be a separate institution. Let the two institutions, as is so often the case, sharpen each other by having the closest contact through their scientific staff and so forth, but let them sharpen each other’s wits. The one plays on the other and discoveries made in one institution are of benefit to the other and vice versa.

An HON. MEMBER:

It is good competition.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Yes, it is in the scientific field as my hon. friend says. Sir, with the research station, of course, goes the question of staff, which the hon. member for Nelspruit has just referred to. We must have the staff. That is one of our difficulties in South Africa. Often we lose our best men, men who could be of great value to us in establishing an institution of this kind. The continuous training of the staff so that as time goes on we are continually bringing in new young men with new ideas for further training to take part in the work of the institute, is something which to my mind is absolutely essential. Sir, much mention has been made of foot-and-mouth disease. It has been stated that there are seven strains which have been isolated here in South Africa, and reference has been made to the difficulty that we are in because we have to rely on Pirbright in Britain when we want to have the various strains identified. Sir, I want to come back to that in a moment because there is another disease which was mentioned by my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Central), namely rabies. Recently I had the opportunity and the privilege of listening to an address by a professor of veterinary science, and I was amazed to hear the number of virus diseases which are transmissible to human beings, some of them with very severe consequences and some not so dangerous. Where we may have seven strains to-day, we have to bear in mind, as the hon. member for Durban (Central) has said, that one or other of those may run wild. There is more in it than the danger that one strain may run wild. New strains are appearing and when you get an outbreak such as the Russians had in Poland recently which they could not handle—they had to go to France to find out how to deal with it—they were merely meeting one of the almost normal developments in connection with virus diseases throughout the world. Sir, nobody knows why a particular virus runs wild. Nobody knows why a new strain appears. Nobody knows why one which was relatively harmless suddenly takes on a new character and becomes a malady of the greatest importance, capable of creating a death roll out of all proportion to its danger when it first started. I say that nobody knows what makes these new strains appear. I would like to mention a scientific magazine that I received just recently from the United States. I see that in that country they are expending at the present time no less than R8 million on an institute for virological research that they are establishing way out in the desert for no other purpose than to try to identify the strains of viruses which are coming back as the result of man’s adventures in the stratosphere. They are spending R8 million so that when they come back to earth every particle of every one of the capsules which are sent into outer space can be tested for viruses, to see whether they are bringing back to earth viruses which can spread here, completely unknown to mankind and which can have the most fatal consequences for us. America believes that it is worth R8 million to establish an institute like that. You see, Sir, not all viruses are harmful; they are beneficial, and here we have one of those curious things. So often there is an interlinking between what you might call the animal world and mankind, which was referred to earlier on, because we are part of the animal world if we would only recognize it—some more so than others, if I may be permitted to say so. But, Sir, there is a link also with the inanimate world— plant life and so forth. You get lower forms of life, reptiles and so forth. Only the other day I read an article which pointed out that the host for a virus disease that has been known a long time, has just recently been identified. It was various types of snakes, and the virus is carried in their mouths. That is the host, and if you just get the vector, that disease is spread to mankind, and in fact that is what is happening. Sir, not only are there new strains of viruses appearing from time to time but there are new vectors being discovered as well as new hosts. Our knowledge in regard to this matter is extremely limited, particularly here on the continent of Africa where you have such vast areas and where research into virus diseases is not being carried out on anything like the appropriate scale. The danger is manifest. But I want to go further. America is putting up this big virological research station to deal with the testing of all these materials which are coming back from outer space, but with that goes the possibility—almost the certainty—that the influence of radio-active materials on certain forms of life here amongst us will be an influence the result of which cannot be foreseen. You see, Sir, we are using certain rays at the present time to disturb the genetic succession of certain plants; we are growing new strains of wheat and so forth, as the result of a deliberate attempt to change the genes and produce a new type of wheat with new characteristics. Gone are the old days of the long, tedious business of slow evolutionary process. Here now is a quick change, not always a beneficial one, admittedly. The proportion of beneficial changes is very small indeed.

But, Sir, what can be done deliberately in regard to wheat is also being done in regard to human beings inadvertently. Sir, when we read in the newspapers that there is this amount of nuclear fall-out in the air or in the atmosphere or in this or that part of the world and the scientists tell us that it is still below danger point, what value can we attach to those statements? They do not know. What they mean is that it will not harm you at the present time so far as they are able to tell. What the longterm result is going to be on humanity, let alone other forms of life, we cannot tell.

When we look back into the past ages and we see the distribution of animals, birds, plants, reptiles and so forth, and we think of the tens of thousands of forms which life has assumed, we are sometimes told by some scientist that this was due to such and such a radiation at that time; that that is what started the new forms. Sir, mankind is tempting Providence at the present time by the use of nuclear power, by producing and bringing into the world, into our atmosphere, to work on our bodies, certain influences the end of which we cannot foresee. Some viruses do not work by a direct operation on the tissues or anything of that sort. They themselves produce a chemical; they produce a new hormone, they produce a new protein, they produce something which is what actually changes the body or affects you, not just the virus itself but the product of the virus. With this play on all life on the earth because of the tendency in various parts of our atmosphere to get this heavy concentration of radio-active fall-out, we do not know where we are going to. But, Sir, we know what we should do. We know that we should take the first opportunity to get our own scientists on to the job of dealing with these matters here in our own country. At the first sign that something is going wrong we should have the staff and the facilities and the opportunity to deal with it at once, and not rely on somebody in Great Britain, in France or somewhere else. They may have their own problems to deal with. We should be able to deal with these matters here, and if there are beneficial sides to it we should be prepared to take advantage of the beneficial sides. Sir, long ago it was known that in regard to plantations, certain types of timber trees, for example, if you inoculate those trees with a certain substance you produce a virus beneficial to the tree. That has been known for a long time. Viruses are used to-day for beneficial purposes as well as for harmful purposes. The link between the vegetable and the animal world is a very close link, and there is room here for the widest kind of research in an institution such as is contemplated in the motion before us and the amendment. Sir, we have produced good scientists and we are producing good scientists; I do not doubt the calibre of the scientists that we can produce. Here is a field in which the best brains and the best scientists that we can possibly produce can be put to the fullest possible use for the benefit of the people of South Africa. But, Sir, we must not wait. With every year that passes, with every explosion of nuclear power, there is a greater and a greater danger so far as the world is concerned and so far as we in South Africa are concerned. We ought not to be caught on the wrong foot if one of these things suddenly went wild, as the hon. member put it; if a new strain develops and before we can do anything about it, we have to rely on another’s goodwill to come and tell us what is wrong and how we should set about to deal with the new threat. It is a chance we cannot take, and I hope the Minister realizes it. High priority should be accorded to the project asked for in the motion and the amendment thereto. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will say that it is in the interests of South Africa that the money required therefor must be found and the work done. It is an opportunity for our young men, and in the interests of South Africa and I trust he will put his driving force behind it to see that that is achieved.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Karas, has, with the introduction of his motion, performed a service by once again bringing up this subject for discussion in the House. Once again attention is being focussed on the serious nature of the threat of foot-and-mouth disease to our country, our stock, as well as our export trade.

The threat of foot-and-mouth disease is a problem which we have of course had for many years in South Africa. The hon. member for Karas mentioned that since the rinderpest, or immediately afterwards, there was for a long period of time no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. That proved once again the importance of the role played by wild life in the carrying of foot-and-mouth disease. We in South Africa were in the fortunate position that although our country borders on other countries which also have this problem and although we have large concentrations of wild life on our borders, such as the Kruger National Park and other reserves, we had consistently been able to localize or rather to keep the outbreaks localized on our borders. Since the 30’s there have only been three outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the interior, away from our borders. In 1933 there was an outbreak in Germiston, in 1938 there was one in Natal, and in 1957 we had trouble on the Witwatersrand.

The hon. member also referred to the costs which had been incurred in combating this disease. He pointed out that R10 million had already been spent for this purpose, apart from the effects which the disease had had on the marketing figures of our producers and other interested parties, and the losses of stock which had been suffered. If it had not been for our veterinary services, with their control schemes, which brought the foot-and-mouth danger under control to such a large extent, we would have had a far wider spread of the disease in South Africa than was in fact the case. That is why I think it is fitting to-day that we pay tribute to these people who have to apply the quarantine measures. I am not only thinking of the veterinary surgeons of the Department here, but also of our stock inspectors who have over the years done exceptionally important work and who are in fact still doing so to-day in keeping this disease under control. I am also thinking of the important work which they are at present doing, not only in respect of foot-and-mouth disease, but also here in the Western Cape where we have recently had an outbreak of Newcastle disease amongst the poultry. Those people have had to cancel their holidays and they were on duty at all times in order to apply the quarantine measures. It redounds to their credit that they were prepared to make so many sacrifices. I really think it is fitting that we should on this occasion pay tribute to those officials for the capable way in which they have consistently in the past helped to apply these control measures.

The motion now before the House reads that a virological research institute should be established for foot-and-mouth disease. If one considers the amounts which have been spent in combating this disease, then one would think the establishment of an institute where the research work may be undertaken and the vaccines prepared would save a great deal of the costs. I just want to point out that, taking into consideration the geography of our country and the large concentration of wild life which is being conserved within our borders, the establishment of such an institute would not mean that we will not always have to take steps to counteract the spread of this disease both from outside and within our borders. We shall always have to do so. Hon. members also referred to the large amounts of money which are being spent on game-proof fencing. In the case of the Republic R870,000 has been spent, and in the case of South West Africa, the amount is R2 million. This year the maintenance costs for the Republic’s fences alone amounts to R52,000. The fact remains, even though we were to have such an institute, we would always have to make provision for fencing on our borders and on the borders of our game reserves in order to ensure the necessary control. These vaccines cannot be used on wild life, but only on tame animals. This means therefore that we will always have to spend large sums of money in order to have game-proof fencing along our more extensive boundaries, the boundaries along Botswana, Swaziland and the other States, and also around our game reserves. We shall still have to incur those costs. I am mentioning this fact simply because it is easy for one to gain the impression that with the establishment of a research institute and the preparation of a vaccine in order to combat the disease, the costs will be considerably decreased. I wonder whether we, except for the temporary control, will in fact be able to do so.

As hon. members know, England already has such an institute. Most of the vaccines which are being used against the viruses are already being manufactured there. Britain has this advantage that it is surrounded by sea. She does not have to cope with game reserves and other states on her borders, as we do. Nevertheless she recently suffered a serious outbreak, and that simply goes to prove what a dangerous threat one has to deal with here.

The outbreak to which the hon. member for Nelspruit referred, was soon confined within reasonable limits, and the reason for that was the fact that we had the fencing around those game reserves. If it had not been for that, the disease would have spread much further, and the costs would have been much higher. It is calculated that the saving on counter-measures in those areas already justifies the erection costs of that fencing.

The need which is being felt for the establishment of a foot-and-mouth laboratory is nothing new. The need has been felt for many years. All agree that such an institute has become indispensable for South Africa. In this regard I want to refer particularly to the role played by wild life in the incidence of the disease. In South Africa we have to cope with a unique situation. The situation here is completely different to that in other parts of the world where this disease also occurs because we have so much wild life on and within our borders. It has now been alleged here that no research in this respect is taking place in South Africa. But the fact of the matter is that Onderstepoort already has a virus section. Owing to the danger of the spread of foot-and-mouth viruses, a great deal of research work had to be done in order to equip the institute in such a way that the viruses could not disperse from a point round it. That would have made the danger greater than it is at present.

For many years of course we were obliged to make use of the English institute at Pirbright, as hon. members were quite right in stating here. If we had an institute for manufacturing our own vaccines we would be able to make great savings owing to the fact that the vaccine has in the past not always been available when we wanted it most, and also because importing the vaccine entails considerable costs for us. For these important reasons and in view of the fact that everyone is under the impression that we need such a virological research institute, the Cabinet decided in principle in 1961 to establish such an institution. But because tremendously strict and watertight security measures have to be taken, and because this is a prerequisite for the establishment of such a laboratory Dr. Weiss of Onderstepoort was sent overseas as long ago as 1962 to make a general study of the establishment of such an institute, with which would also be associated the control measures and supervision which would have to be applied. If these viruses should escape from such a laboratory you can understand what the possibilities would be in regard to its distribution around the centre where that institute was situated. In 1964 Dr. Howell, also of Onderstepoort was sent to Pirbright for further specialized training in regard to foot-and-mouth research. Unfortunately Dr. Howell has, in the meantime, left the Department and taken up other employment.

Planning a research building is a particularly difficult task and requires a great deal of study. I just want to say that the planning of this research building has already progressed so far that we think that the planning will be completed within three months. Adequate grounds for the establishment of such an institute, have also been found at Onderstepoort. Hon. members referred to that and stated that such an institute ought not to be established at Onderstepoort, since research into other kinds of viruses has also to be undertaken by such an institute. But, Mr. Speaker, many of the other viruses are not as dangerous to our economy when an outbreak occurs as foot-and-mouth disease, because this disease can spread so easily. If it spreads, it not only presents the danger of the disease spreading even further, it also presents the danger of a tremendous economic setback for the country.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

It is the most dangerous disease for the moment.

*The MINISTER:

That is why one must take care that such an institute is so situated that it is under full control, and that the spread of those viruses is also under full control.

I just want to inform hon. members that the Government is fully aware of this problem and of the dangers it presents, because it can prejudice our economy, and particularly our export trade, very seriously. That is why the Government is also convinced that priority should be given to the establishment of such a virological research institute and priority has in fact been given to it. As soon as it is practicable, and as soon as funds are available— we hope that this will soon be the case—the establishment of such an institute will be proceeded with.

I just want to point out to hon. members that the calculation of the costs for the establishment of such an institute are between R1 million and R2 million. It is estimated that it will take between two and three years to complete such an institute.

Hon. members referred to the fact that the provision of staff will create problems. The hon. member for Nelspruit also pointed out that we have on many occasions lost a few of our trained people because they went to other countries, and also to other undertakings in South Africa. But we are sometimes fortunate in being able to attract people from other countries. At Stellenbosch, for example, there is a foreigner, Dr. Degenwortel, who was recently appointed and is to-day regarded as one of the world’s greatest virologists. We are for tunate therefore in being able to attract people from other places as well. The problem is of course that of human material, of people who can proceed with this research. But we believe, as is generally the case, that when the facilities exist, our people will be more prepared to offer their services. I need not enumerate the advantages of such an institute, particularly since we form part of Africa and are in fact the leading State on the Continent. The role which Onderstepoort is playing in its research in various other fields in the progress of South Africa, in the counteracting of diseases within our boundaries and with the services which it is rendering to other parts of African, can, particularly in regard to the combating of foot-and-mouth disease when such an institute has been established, also be of importance in regard to the question of relations with the rest of Africa. In the light of our policy to grant assistance to the underdeveloped parts of Africa, such an institute could be of great value, particularly as regards the combating of foot-and-mouth disease.

Virological research as such is already being undertaken at various places. It is being undertaken at Onderstepoort on various levels. It is being done in respect of fruit, as has already been said, as well as in respect of mankind. But, because foot-and-mouth disease is so different from the other virus disease phenomena, and because it is so dangerous, not only from a health point of view, but also from an economic point of view, research must concentrate on, and be done in such a way that there will not, eventually, be a spread instead of a combating of the disease. In order to keep this spread within limits it is essential that the planning be done as well as possible, that that institute shall be controlled in such a way that any spread of the virus from there will be impossible. Of course carrying out that research and training the people for that purpose has taken time. It takes time to plan the institute in such a way that it can operate under such strict control measures, but I think I can say that the time has come when we can expect that the establishment of such an institute will be proceeded with within the foreseeable future.

Mr. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, we have had a very amiable discussion this afternoon, and the hon. the Minister has at least given us a ray of hope that in the foreseeable future— I think that was the phrase he used—the Government may possibly proceed with the erection of a virological research institute. The hon. the Minister, though, has skirted round one of the very important aspects of this, an aspect raised by the hon. member for South Coast, i.e. the question of the staffing of such an institute. I do hope that the hon. the Minister—he has not been long in this particular portfolio—is going to realize how very serious the present position is. I hope the Department will give priority to this question of the establishment of a virological institute and that he is going to give priority to the whole question of the staffing of such an institute and, indeed, of the existing research institute at Onderstepoort, as well as the rest of the veterinary division which comes under him. The question of stock diseases is one of the gravest problems which the farmers in this country must face. I am glad that the hon. member for Christiana is here this afternoon, because on a number of occasions last year I made an estimate of an amount of over R20 million which I said stock diseases had cost this country as a result of the death of cattle, sheep and goats every year. But the hon. member seemed to doubt my figures. If, however, he looks at the Statistical Yearbook for 1966, which is the latest edition we have, and he looks at the stock losses for 1962-’63, namely deaths due to disease, he will find that in that year we lost some 295,000 head of cattle and 1,172,000 sheep and goats. If he then does some simple arithmetic and values the cattle at the low figure of R40, he will find that total losses amounted to approximately R11,800,000. If he values the sheep and goats at a mere R7 per head, he will find that total losses in this regard came to over R8 million. These figures were not merely high for that particular year. This is a consistent loss. I repeat that the figure of R20 million per year for losses of cattle, sheep and goats is most conservative. It excludes of course losses of pigs, poultry, horses and other farm animals. It also excludes losses in regard to animals which have become sick and have subsequently recovered. Unfortunately we do not have any figures available for financial losses due to animals contracting virus diseases as opposed to other diseases. They must, however, be exceedingly high. When the hon. member for Karas introduced this motion this afternoon he gave us some indication of the scope of those losses. They must be high, because authorities such as Mönnig and Veldman in their handbook on stock diseases list no less than 30 virus diseases amongst stock in this country. If we add to that the diseases due to rickettsias which are first cousins of the virus—in fact Mönnig and Veldman referred to rickettsia sometimes as being a virus—then there are an extra four diseases due to rickettsias, including that very important disease of heartwater.

The Minister has praised the officials of the Division of Veterinary Field Services for their work in containing foot-and-mouth disease and other virus diseases. I want to associate myself with his remarks, because I think that they have done a wonderful job of work. It has, of course, at times been necessary to move a very large number of staff from the districts where they are normally situated to undertake this control work, whether it happens to be in South West Africa or on the borders of the Kruger National Park or even, as is at present the case, in the Western Cape as a result of the outbreak of Newcastle disease. I do not know how many of these officials are still in the Western Cape but at one time, and I quote from the January/February issue of a small newspaper called Merino which is issued by one of the meat companies, there were about 100 veterinary inspectors in this area. Assuming that the majority of them are stock inspectors, then what has happened is that owing to the necessity to combat the virus of Newcastle disease in the Western Cape, other areas have had to be denuded of their stock inspectors. This has of course placed a great burden on the shoulders of those veterinary officials who had to remain in the other areas and carry on their normal work. I should also like to pay tribute to those people who, during severe staff shortages, are carrying on their work. In many cases they also have to cope with outbreaks of other virus diseases in other areas. We have, for example, had consistent outbreaks of rabies. Such outbreaks have in fact virtually become an annual occurrence in the Eastern Cape. These outbreaks of rabies necessitate large-scale vaccination campaigns. These veterinarians are doing a magnificent job of work. There is at the moment in my area, for example, only one veterinarian, namely the Senior State Veterinarian, due to the fact that some of the officials are away for training and others are helping to counter outbreaks of virus diseases. He therefore only has one assistant (and I am not sure whether he is a technical assistant or a stock inspector). These officials have an ever-increasing amount of paper work. Tney may also have vaccination campaigns on their hands when other virus diseases break out, while they still have to cope with the control of scheduled diseases, involving work such as tuberculosis tests. They may also have to produce vaccines, in this particular instance it being heartwater blood. They have to run a diagnostic laboratory and undertake extension services such as lectures to farmers’ associations. At the same time, any field veterinarian worth his salt will try to do a little research work in the course of his normal duties. One particular veterinarian has discovered something which was hitherto unknown about a particular virus, namely that the domestic cat, contrary to what has been thought previously, can be a carrier of the rabies virus. I do not think that it is amazing that veterinarians and other personnel leave the service of the Department. I think it is amazing that they do not all leave the service of the Department for private practice, or for employment with private firms. That they do not, says much for their loyalty and devotion to duty.

The hon. member for Nelspruit seemed to be a little at odds with the mover of this motion, in that he felt that the facilities at Onderstepoort for research into these virus diseases should not be divided and that work in this regard should be done there alone. The hon. the Minister mentioned that they have a separate section at Onderstepoort to cope with work of this kind. The Minister put his finger on a very important point when he described how one of the research workers there—and I think that the Minister said that his name was Dr. Howell—had gone overseas on a study tour and then left the service. This is the kernel of the whole matter. It is no good having facilities if you do not have the men to staff them, and if you do not train sufficient men to do the work. It is also to little avail if, when you have trained these men, you do not pay them a sufficiently large salary and give them sufficiently attractive conditions of service in order to keep them in the Department. During the Part Appropriation debate I pointed out —unfortunately the hon. the Minister was not present at the time—that a large number of veterinarians who are our senior research workers are leaving Onderstepoort. The hon. member for Nelspruit seems to be rather optimistic that Onderstepoort will be able to continue to do the work it has done in the past. I want to say that there is very grave doubt in this regard because its officials have been leaving in such great numbers. I do not wish to cover again the ground I covered during the Part Appropriation debate. I should, however, like to recapitulate what I said then. Over the two-year period from 1966 to 1967, 17 veterinarians left the staff of Onderstepoort. In the past year, namely from January, 1967 to February, 1968, another 12 have left. These 29 people who have left Onderstepoort are mostly members of the experienced research staff. It is not difficult to find replacements for these people. We can obtain the services of the newly qualified men but they need training.

The question of controlling the spread of virus diseases is a complex one. We know how easily these diseases spread. They can be spread by contact, and some even by birds. Under those circumstances, the approach of controlling them by vaccination is most important indeed. I agree with the hon. member for Karas who said that in this country we should indeed be capable of producing our own vaccines. I agree that our research workers do have the ability to do that. We would be able to produce our own vaccines. But I just want to illustrate what damage can be done by these resignations by pointing out that one of the 29 veterinarians who has left Onderstepoort, is a man who has produced a vaccine fairly recently. He produced a new tetanus vaccine and although tetanus is not caused by a virus, but a bacterium, the principle is nevertheless the same. Here we have a research worker who has left Onderstepoort who could, having produced the tetanus vaccine, well have been a suitable person to assist with the development of a new virus vaccine.

I want to recapitulate again that the reasons given by those veterinarians who left Onderstepoort were inadequate salaries, and lack of trained or qualified technical assistants. The latter lends point to that portion of our amendment which calls for more technical assistants to be trained. A third reason was the penal nature of contracts which they had to sign with the Department where they accept grants or bursaries for overseas or other further study, as might have been the case with the particular research worker mentioned by the hon. the Minister. I think this is an indication of something being very seriously wrong when an ex-Onderstepoort veterinarian can write to me in the following way:

Onderstepoort is rapidly becoming a diagnostic centre and vaccine production unit and nothing more. Very little research work of significance has emerged over the last five or six years. The man of experience is not catered for. It is easy to get a number of junior staff but they have to be trained. There is no policy of trying to attract people from overseas, particularly senior scientists.

The hon. the Minister may feel that that is an exaggeration. I think that it is an even more serious charge that these veterinarians from Onderstepoort when they submitted a memorandum to the head of the department through their Chief at Onderstepoort should make the following statement in the memorandum:

Onderstepoort is probably the only research institute of international renown which cannot attract trained research scientists.

This is what 43 veterinarians on the staff of Onderstepoort say. I think that is an indictment of neglect on the part of this Government that the signatories to this petition should refer to Onderstepoort, which we have always regarded, and which is in fact regarded throughout the world, as a famous institute for research because of the magnificent work that has been done there, should refer to it, not as a famous institute, but as “this once famous institute”. In the interests of the livestock industry of this country, this kind of thing simply cannot be allowed to go on. I hope that the hon. the Minister who is new to this Department, is going to take a hard look at the conditions of service, the salaries and the various other complaints of the research workers there. I hope that he is not going to be deterred by too much talk about inflation in this regard. I hope that he is going to take his lead from the hon. member for Gordonia, who, when he introduced a motion earlier this session, used these words in Hansard of 13th February, 1968, column 463:

That is why I am glad that … no mention whatsoever was made of the present inflation because research, I believe, must continue. It is a kind of spending which, in my opinion, is not really inflationary, but which helps us to ensure greater productivity for the future.

I think that this is the way in which we must approach this, whether it is research in virology or any other branch of veterinary science I hope that we will not hear too much of the inflationary situation because this might hold up this very necessary research for agricultural and other purposes. I say this because we have already this session heard the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development say in regard to his Department that, when it comes to the implementation of Government policy as far as the development of Bantustans is concerned, “dan maak dit nie saak wat dit kos nie”.

I have very little time left. I just want to say, further, that, even when one has the research staff, one still needs the field staff, the veterinarians, the technical assistants in the field, the technical assistants in the diagnostic laboratories and the stock inspectors to put into practice the discoveries and the results of the research undertaken at the Institute, whether it is the existing institute at Onderstepoort or a new institute. I appeal to the Minister to give the utmost priority to the training of people who are engaged in these duties so that we can overcome this chronic shortage of veterinarians in our country, of research workers in this particular line and of people like technical assistants who are absolutely essential to the research workers if the latter are to do their work in the way they should and the way they would like to.

*Mr. A. S. D. ERASMUS:

The hon. member for Albany has distorted the purpose of this motion somewhat. I do not believe there is any argument between this side and that side of the House in regard to the purpose of the establishment of a virological institute, but he used his speech more for the purpose of describing the staff difficulties at Onderstepoort than the importance of the establishment of such an institution. After having listened to the hon. member for South Coast I no longer believe that man has to go to the moon. I think we have enough viruses of our own and that there is no need for him to bring us any more from there. I am very pleased that the Minister told us here that the Cabinet has already decided in 1961 to establish such an institute and that the plans will be completed in three month’s time. We realize that there are problems in regard to this matter, but we believe that, in time, these will be ironed out.

In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to sketch the problems we are experiencing in the far Northern Transvaal, and especially in the North-Western Transvaal, in regard to foot-and-mouth disease. The hon. member for Karas explained what the costs were, namely R10 million, and I do not want to repeat that. But there are also certain incalculable costs which affect the farmer and which we cannot convert to financial terms.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) said that Botswana had experienced seven outbreaks in 10 years. In the North-Western Transvaal we have, in the seven years between 1933 and 1961, also had seven outbreaks, and the last outbreak lasted continuously for three years from 1959 to 1960. Our problem is to a large extent the fact that we border on Botswana, and partly also on Rhodesia, and of course the greatest transference of virus occurs from those areas. Most of this boundary consists of a river, and as we know a river boundary is one of the most difficult to control. A game-proof fence has in fact been built on the Transvaal side of the river, but we cannot state precisely to what extent this helps. The Minister has said that the authorities believe that the fencing has in fact contributed to a reduction in the spread of the virus, but some of the farmers there do not believe that this is the case. Nobody can say precisely how the virus is transferred, and that is to a large extent our problem. We have always been groping in the dark to find the most effective method of controlling such an outbreak, but what is happening now? As soon as an outbreak takes place, a red line is drawn and all the stock, or any other contagious article such as meat, within that area may not be moved across that line. The entire area is placed under quarantine. Can hon. members imagine the inconvenience to and frustration of the people living in that area experience?

We are all aware of the fact that physical control is absolutely essential in order to control the spread of the virus, but the problem is that nobody can state with certainty, after contamination has taken place, the precise length of time that elapses before those cattle are no longer contaminated. An animal is contaminated, but does not show it, and if you remove it from that area, the disease breaks out again. It is therefore essential to apply that control, but one then experiences problems in regard to the people within that area. One finds a man who perhaps has a herd of cattle which are ready for the market, and he is placed under quarantine and his animals are not to leave that area, with the result that they lose condition. This is an incalculable expense which we cannot prove. Consequently the man is forced to overstock his farm owing to the fact that he cannot send the animals away, and then one also finds a drought such as the last one, which aggravates the problem even further. I am very grateful that the abattoir legislation which was passed last year is now making provision for a movable abattoir which can go into that area to slaughter cattle which are ready for the market, but I do not know whether it is in operation yet.

The main thing is that the people in the area do not always accept these circumstances with equanimity. Many of the older farmers in particular are extremely dissatisfied with it. They do not always agree with the scientists. There is one old farmer whom I know very well who was a transport rideg before the rinderpest and who used oxen. He did not believe in veterinary surgeons, but believed firmly that lard and sulphur was the best remedy for an animal suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. He states that he had cured numerous oxen in this way. With the outbreak in 1933 they experienced a great deal of difficulty with the old farmer. He threatened that any veterinary surgeon or inspector who came within range of his .303 rifle, would never inspect another animal. I must say that he subsequently calmed down when his children came to talk to him about the matter. Another difficulty is this. The cattle of people living there have to be inspected regularly. Anybody who is well acquainted with the bushveld knows how difficult it is to round up those animals every week or so, and then they have to wait for an inspector who never turns up because his motor broke down on the bad roads. You can think for yourselves what happens to the poor member of Parliament who represents those farmers.

I do not want to waste any more time. This motion of the hon. member for Karas has my very strong support. We are all pleased that it has been brought before the House. If all the costs increase, the actual costs which are incurred by the State in combating foot-and-mouth disease, plus those costs which cannot be calculated, and if we bear in mind that according to the hon. member it would only cost R2 million to establish such a virological institute, I want to say that the ultimate benefits to the country and the industry as a whole will be much greater than we may expect. Combating by means of innoculation will be the cheapest and most efficient way.

*Mr. J. M. DE WET:

With reference to the gratifying announcement of the hon. the Minister, firstly, that they realize the need for such a virological research institute; secondly, that the plans have almost been completed; thirdly, that the building is on the list of priorities; and fourthly, that we already have at our disposal the necessary trained staff to undertake this research, I want to ask leave to withdraw my motion.

Dr. A. RADFORD:

With the permission of the House, I wish to withdraw my amendment.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.

MATRIMONIAL AFFAIRS AMENDMENT BILL (Second Reading) Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I hope that in introducing this Bill we can agree to have a free vote of the House on what should be a matter of general interest to both sides. I am quite certain that I am a lonely voice speaking on these issues in this House, although the public interest in these matters is very great indeed. I wish to make it quite clear at the start that there are no political implications whatsoever attached to these discussions. The extent of the general interest in the legal position of married women in South Africa can perhaps best be gauged by the fact that two hon. Senators on the Government side in the Other Place set down motions very similar to the contents of this Bill, which were discussed this session. They concern the question of the two systems of marriage and the question of a woman being able to stand surety under certain conditions.

Another proof of the public interest in having the remaining legal disabilities of married women in South Africa tidied up once and for all is the number of letters and telegrams of approval I have received in connection with this Bill. Most of them come from individual women whose lives are deeply affected by the existing position. Four leading women’s organizations in South Africa, the Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs, the National Council of Women, the Union of Jewish Women and the National Union of Distributive Workers, which as you know is affiliated to Tucsa, have given me their unequivocal and enthusiastic support, and I suggest that they represent a considerable cross-section of the South African electorate. I want to quote very briefly from the letters I have received from these organizations. The President of the National Council of Women wrote to me early in February and said—

On behalf of the National Council of Women of South Africa, I wish to offer you our congratulations and our best wishes on your Private Member’s Bill to amend the Matrimonial Affairs Act of 1953.

The letter then went on to say—

My Council has always been in the forefront in persistent and active participation in the amelioration of those legal disabilities to which the women in our country remain subjected.

Then the national secretary of the National Union of Distributive Workers wrote to me on 1st March and said—

I have pleasure in confirming my statement to you over the telephone to the effect that the National Union of Distributive Workers fully supports you in your aim to achieve yet another step in the emancipation of women.

The Union of Jewish Women wrote to me on 22nd February through their national secretary, who said—

My National President and Executive Council have asked me to extend to you their congratulations on the success of the Matrimonial Affairs Bill and wish you the best of luck in the wonderful fight you are waging for the rights of women.

Hon. members, I think, would do well to realize that women voters far outnumber men voters in South Africa to-day. We now have a situation in which requests for changes in these matters have come both from the Government side and from the Opposition in our present Parliament. I would say that most of our difficulties in South Africa stem originally from the dual system of marriage and the exercise of the marital power by the husband, which is in itself an entirely antiquated concept. The ridiculous thing is that a woman in South Africa to-day can do practically anything she likes provided she is single. Then she has all the luck in the world. She can have sole guardianship rights over an illegitimate child, but she does not have the same rights over a legitimate child. If she is single, she has equal status in law with men, and so do widows and divorcees. A married woman’s rights to contract are not but should be identical with those of her husband. It is true of course in South African law at present that in a marriage out of community of property the wife’s possessions cannot be sold or spent by her husband, but in return for this so-called concession to her independent control over what, after all, is her own property, he is not obliged to leave her any money or property on his death, nor in the case of a divorce, unless ordered to do so by a court. Married in community of property, of course, as hon. members know, she can claim half of the estate. If we were to have one system of marriage, i.e. out of community of property, I make so bold as to say that the laws of succession could profitably be amended to make it obligatory on both parties to leave half or at least a portion of their estate to the other party at death. The present inequitable arrangement of joint but not equal guardianship of children in our marriage laws should also go. Under the existing dispensation, in the event of any dispute, the father’s will must prevail, and he has this right in spite of the fact that the married mother is by law equally liable for the support of her children. This seems to me to be grossly unfair. It is ironical that, where European women the world over are concerned, they have to struggle for their rights in this field, whereas Moslem women, in terms of ritual laid down in the Koran, have for 1500 years enjoyed all the rights of equal pay and opportunities of work and promotion, the right to inherit and dispose of property at will and the right to the custody of minor children in the event of any dispute or a separation or a divorce. Sir, I wonder sometimes how long it will take the South African public—and by that I mean our male colleagues of course—to realize that the demand for equality and recognition, in a legal sense, in no way detracts from our awareness as women of the greatest responsibility in the world that we have as married women. I refer, of course, to the intelligent and the enlightened rearing of our children through their years of growth. We do not have to be reminded of this responsibility in this day and age.

Sir, since the passing of Mrs. Bertha Solomons’ Matrimonial Affairs Act of 1953, which was based on the findings of the 1949 Women’s Legal Disabilities Commission’s report, 15 long years have passed. During that time South Africa has experienced a phenomenal industrial expansion, in the course of which thousands of South African women have been drawn into employment in the professional, technical and clerical fields and they are earning very good money to-day. Thousands more have passed through our technical colleges and universities with the result that to-day by far the majority of them possess sufficient knowledge and know-how to handle their own financial affairs. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member over there can grunt as much as he likes. The old paternal idea, although I know it dies very hard, that the poor little woman does not understand anything about these things, is to-day just so much rubbish. Sir, one clear indication of South Africa’s increasing prosperity and of women’s awareness of the disabilities connected with marriage in community of property, is the rapidly closing gap in the numbers of those married in community of property and those with antenuptial contracts, since the days when the Women’s Legal Disabilities Commission reported in 1949.

Sir, an examination of the records shows that of the 510,227 marriages contracted in the Union between 1937 and 1946, only 76,174, i.e. 15.7 per cent, were contracted out of community of property. At the same time 424,053, approximately 80 per cent, in those days, were contracted in community of property. The situation has changed radically since then —a sure indication of the lines along which women are thinking in this country to-day. According to the figures supplied to me by the Director of Census and Statistics in December last year, during the period 1947 to 1966 a total of 559,829 marriages were contracted in South Africa. Of these 352,577 were contracted in community of property and 207,252 were contracted out of community. In other words, 38 per cent of all marriages during this period were contracted out of community of property, i.e. with antenuptial contracts, notwithstanding the fact that it costs anything up to R20 in attorneys fees to obtain such a document. Thus we have an increase of from 15.7 per cent in 1946 to 38 per cent in 1966 of women who opted to be married out of community of property. Sir, why were they willing to go to such expense? For the very simple reason that with an antenuptial contract a married woman has at least limited control over her own property and she has certain contractual rights, even if she runs the risk of being disinherited. To 207,252 South African women this risk was worth taking during the period I have just reviewed. I think these facts are very significant indeed. They seem to prove that more and more South African women are earning money and are determined to improve their position and to gain whatever degree of independence our Roman-Dutch law, with so many antiquated concepts, will allow them. All this, Sir, in spite of the sacrifice that they may be called upon to make under an antenuptial contract,namely that they may be disinherited. The figures are going up steadily.

Let me quote from two recent Press reports which argue in support of the financial integrity of women in this field and give one quotation from the report of the Women’s Legal Disability Commission, all three of which, I think, are relevant to my argument. The first is a quotation from The Cape Argus of 9th June of last year—

Women’s Aid Wanted: An appeal went out to the women investors of Cape Town yesterday from Mr. H. H. Edis, Chairman of the Shareholders’ Association of South Africa. He said at the annual general meeting that he would like more of them to become members of the association.

“According to figures released by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange,” he said, “women represent about 35 per cent of shareholders. That is a very large percentage and must run very close to the percentage of women stockholders in the United States”.

The second report was also published in The Argus on 3rd May of last year. It is headed “Financially Muddled Women—Myth is Exploded”. The article reads as follows—

Women are not the irresponsible scatterbrains about finance that most men think they are. For women rarely bounce cheques or let their bank balances run into the red. This is one of many long-held theories exploded by a survey on women’s banking habits and attitudes, carried out in recent months by the National Provincial Bank in Great Britain. The survey reveals that women seek more guidance on financial affairs than men, and bank managers find women “more precise in keeping to an agreed overdraft”.

Nearly three out of five women keep their own separate account after marriage, and less than five per cent seek regular overdrafts.

Mr. Ronald Smith, the bank’s chief general manager, said:“I think it could be said that women are better customers taken all round. They rarely give any trouble. In fact, we are aiming to attract more of them.”

The last quotation that I want to make in regard to community of property comes from the report of the Women’s Legal Disability Commission of 1949 (page 11, para. 89). I should like hon. members to listen very carefully to this—

But the evidence has shown us that amongst a large and increasing section of the population there has been an undue exercise—we might almost say abuse—of the marital power (in community of property) … and to meet this state of affairs we have recommended certain modifications in the law.

Sir, I say that what applied in terms of abuse of the marital power, as conceded by the commission in 1949, applies equally to-day. The whole object of this Bill is to modify this power still further in two specific ways, without tampering with the framework of community itself, unless, of course, the Minister is prepared to consider a change of system.

With regard to the background to the present Bill, for the sake of those legal pundits in this House—I know there are many and I treat them with great respect—who may have grave misgivings about my ability or right to introduce draft legislation about so complicated a matter as this—and it is very complicated indeed—since it is common knowledge that I have no legal training myself, let me inform the House first of all that the original text was drafted by an advocate; secondly, that the Bill was then submitted by me for comment to a number of legal authorities in this field— male advocates—and that it was submitted to the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, who appointed a special legal sub-committee to examine it. I would like to inform the House that the Stock Exchange suggestions have now been incorporated and they have informed me of their approval of the principles of the Bill. Furthermore, a copy of the original text was sent towards the end of last year to the law societies of all four provinces. The Bill was also submitted by me to the General Council of the Bar. They suggested three amendments, two of which have been incorporated in the text.

Sir, dealing with the Bill in general I would say, firstly, that, notwithstanding some improvements introduced by the Matrimonial Affairs Act, 1953, and later amending Acts, the "legal position of a woman married in community of property and of profit and loss, and subject to the marital powers of her husband, is still essentially that of a minor. And, secondly, that even a woman married out of community of property and of profit and loss and without the husband’s marital power, does not enjoy complete equality with her husband, more particularly in regard to the right to contract and in regard to minor children born of the marriage.

To deal briefly with the contents of the Bill, clause 1 enables a woman married in community of property to make use of her own income and assets either for the purpose of investing them or for the purpose of entering into agreements of purchase and sale. Additional provisions bring the clause into line with the existing law under the Matrimonial Affairs Act, as amended. The Stock Exchange committee referred me to Sections 4 and 5 of the Securities Transfer Act of 1965 (Act No. 69 of 1965), and after consultation with a leading male Cape Town advocate, I am satisfied that clause 1 does not fall foul of the sections of the Act I have referred to. In fact, I fail to see any connection with this Bill at all. In any case, for the general purposes of the Bill, a “security” is expressly defined in terms of the Securities Transfer Act.

Clause 2 implements the principle of the equality of the sexes in regard to the guardianship and custody of minor children born of a marriage. The cases, and I refer particularly to Fletcher v. Fletcher, 1948 (1) S.A. 130 (A.D.), and the Legislature (see for example section 5 of the Matrimonial Affairs Act, 1953) have long recognized that where minor children are concerned their interest is the paramount consideration. I think it is therefore only a corollary that in questions of guardianship and custody of minor children, there should be no scope for any discrimination whatsoever between father and mother. May I say, Sir, that there are ample precedents in modern legal systems for this situation. Let me give a few examples. In Sweden, for instance, husband and wife enjoy complete equality as regards the person of a minor child. Article 3 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of West Germany of 23rd May, 1949, as amended, pronounces the principle of the equality of the sexes. Sir, it is interesting to note here that the further provision that, in the event of disagreement, the father’s wish should prevail, although he had to give due attention to the mother’s view, was declared to be inconsistent with the constitution and was declared null and void by the Federal Constitution Court in Germany in 1959.

As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the Guardianship and Custody Act of 1925 reads as follows—

Whereas Parliament by the Sex Disqualifications (Removal) Act, 1919, and various other enactments, has sought to establish equality in law between the sexes, and it is expedient that this principle should obtain with respect to the guardianship of infants and the rights and responsibilities conferred thereby:“Be it Enacted“1. Where in any proceeding before any court … the custody or upbringing of an infant, or the administration of any property belonging to or held on trust for an infant, or the application of the income thereof, is in question, the court, in deciding that question, shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration, and shall not take into consideration whether from any other point of view, the claim of the father or any right at common law possessed by the father, in respect of such custody, upbringing, administration or application is superior to that of the mother, or the claim of the mother is superior to that of the father.”

Sir, I suggest that that is the kind of situation that we should like to see here in South Africa, if only we were not so old-fashioned in our approach.

Clause 3 of the Bill brings the wording of section 5 of the Matrimonial Affairs Act into line with the principle contained in the second clause, which I have already discussed in brief. In addition, it expressly includes in the orders which the court or judge may make in the interests of the minor child, an order awarding the custody or guardianship of such minor to a person other than the parent. Without going beyond the common law, it also empowers the court or judge seized with the matter under section 5 of the Matrimonial Affairs Act to make the necessary maintenance and contribution orders. Clause 4 deals simply with the title of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want for a moment to return to the argument on the right to contract. Where the marital power continues to exist the wife has no general power to enter into contracts, except that she can make contracts and appear in the courts in relation to any business which she carries on as a public trader, only with her husband’s consent. Assets which accrue from such trading form part of the joint estate. She has also, of course, the right to incur debts for household necessities, but by law the husband is the guardian of his wife and the curator of her property. If he is a reasonable man, we may say that things will go smoothly, but if not, life could be very difficult indeed. This means that in a community of property marriage wherever the marital power exists the only limitation on the husband’s power of disposal of the assets, except for those specific instances set out in the Matrimonial Affairs Act of 1953, is his wife’s right to obtain relief from the courts if he has become prodigal, or if he attempts to defraud her. In such cases she may obtain an interdict and, if they are married in community of property, the judge may order a separation of the joint estate. One may well ask how much of the estate is likely to be left by the time that stage is reached.

The origins of the system of marriage in community of property go back to the 16th century, and are attributed by legal historians to the customs of the nomadic German tribes. Whatever their origin, it remains a fact that we in South Africa have been wedded to them literally and metaphorically ever since. The fact of the system having been in practice in South Africa for over 300 years does not necessarily make it sound in law under present-day conditions. However, I and many with me, are aware of the deep-seated male prejudice that exists in regard to the retention of the system of community of property. All that I am concerned to do is to amend existing legislation so as to give the wife a fairer deal in relation to her husband and his powers, a deal which I think is consistent with developments in the modern world.

Clause 1 of the Bill deals with a married woman’s right to enter into purchase agreements and deal in shares without the consent or assistance of her husband. The clause states clearly that she may do these things “out of means derived by her from earnings, inheritances or gifts from any other source” in her own name and right. The clause makes it equally clear that she will also be considered “liable to all the obligations attaching to such agreements …. It will be noted that there is no question here of her using the husband’s money nor of pledging his credit. I would say here that to the extent that both are liable, jointly and severally, in terms of section 3 of the Matrimonail Affairs Act of 1953, and when married in community of property also, “for all debts incurred by either spouse in respect of necessaries for the joint household”, the wife should surely under those circumstances be given as much freedom as her husband when it comes to a right to contract where her own assets are concerned.

I think it should be made clear to the House, in case there are hon. members who are not aware of it, that in any marriage under the system of community of property the wife is subject to the risk that the husband may dissipate the joint estate, either through incompetence or design. [Interjection.] Many husbands, I may say, are thoroughly incompetent. If he accomplishes this before she is able to obtain relief from the courts she cannot recover what he has already dissipated. In other words, the position to-day is that the husband has sufficient power to manipulate everything they jointly are supposed to possess, with certain exceptions as are set out in the 1953 Act.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

Have you ever seen a wife manipulate her husband round her little finger?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR:

Apart from these specific instances, he retains unfettered control.

For the purposes of this Bill it should be obvious that no firm or individual would lightly enter into a purchase agreement with anyone who could not provide proof of adequate financial backing or creditworthiness, as the ex pression goes, in their own right. The husband, in fact, would have a valid claim at law against his wife if she used assets for the payment of purchase agreements or shares from any source other than those specified in the Bill. As I said, it should, moreover, be remembered that in community of property they are jointly responsible for all household debts, so that a wife can be held responsible for her husband’s indiscretions, by means of purchase agreements or anything else, unless they specifically concern the supply of intoxicating liquor.

I want to make the point that if there are to be disabilities or freedoms, whichever you like, attached to the right to contract, let these be reciprocal as between the husband and the wife. Then, at least, it can be argued that they are fair. I think it is further necessary to point out that it is extremely tedious for women married out of community of property to have to produce their antenuptial contracts as evidence of their right to contract. The necessity to do so entails a number of difficulties, delays and, at times, consequential loss. In any event, let me say, intelligent women in the world to-day consider it an unnecessary humiliation to be asked to produce these documents.

Business men and attorneys, building societies, banks, insurance companies, as well as stockbrokers, with considerable experience of the difficulties involved, have for a very long time urged the need to change this system. To this should be added the argument that the majority of our European women live in or around our urban areas to-day, where the type of transaction referred to in this Bill has become a daily commonplace.

I just want to say a few words about the common estate. In dealing with the wife’s inherent right in terms of clause 1 of the Bill, to deal in securities, there is surely no valid reason why a wife married in community should not be free to control, without her husband’s interference, the administration of certain assets acquired by her during the marriage, while retaining those assets as part of the common estate. I am not asking here that when a marriage is in community the wife should be in a position to create an estate separate from the common estate. That is not the intention of this Bill. To accord the wife the right to acquire a separate estate would create an inequality against the husband, unless he were accorded a similar right. That, however, is not the intention of the Bill.

As far as clause 1 (2) is concerned, it has been suggested to me that this would prevent the husband from furnishing proper income tax returns. I think that is nonsense. If a married couple are not prepared to co-operate over a matter of this kind, there is nothing to prevent the husband or the wife from asking for a separate assessment for income tax purposes.

In case certain hon. members may think I am going too far in my plea for greater contractual freedom for women, let me remind them of the rights a married man has in law as it stands at present. As administrator of his wife’s property the husband may without his wife’s knowledge or consent, enter into contracts which are binding on her, not only during the subsistence of the marriage but also after its dissolution. The husband may. without his wife’s knowledge or consent, alienate or encumber property, movable or immovable, which forms part of the joint estate or of her separate estate. If he grants a mortgage bond or a servitude over land forming part of the joint estate, the land remains subject to this burden even after dissolution of the marriage. If an inheritance is offered to the wife the husband decides whether she should accept or repudiate it. The wife could of course have redress by going to court if it could be proved that the inheritance was likely to increase the assets of the joint estate.

The fact remains, and we cannot get away from it, that in the absence of an antenuptial contract expressly excluding the husband’s marital power, a married woman in South Africa to-day is reduced to a legal position analogous to that of a minor under guardianship This is a ridiculous situation, and South African women are no longer prepared to tolerate it. She has no locus standi in judicio. People, particularly our menfolk, and attorneys most of all, refer to the marital power as a kind of guardianship. They say to women, “It is only for your own good; it is meant to protect you.” I want to quote what Professor Hahlo, who is perhaps the leading expert in this field, wrote in his book The South African Law of Husband and Wife (1963). We find the following on page 147—

Whereas the guardianship of minors serves the interests of the minors, the marital power serves primarily the interests of the husband. None of the safeguards for minors under guardianship applies in the case of a woman who is subject to the marital power of her husband. The husband may deal with assets forming part of the joint estate or his wife’s separate estate as he pleases, and may even make donations to third parties to her prejudice. His contracts, however foolish or frivolous, bind the wife without the possibility of restitution. Unlike a guardian, a husband is not liable to give security or to render account of his administration … He is not liable in damages to his wife if he diminishes the joint estate by flagrant maladministration. Even if he deliberately destroys property forming part of the joint estate she has no right of recourse against him.

Those are not my views but they are the assessment of South Africa’s leading authority on these matters. Professor Hahlo says further that it does not normally fall within the authority of the wife to rent a flat or a house. A judicial decision exists on this. Neither has she the authority to book holiday accommodation, for which another judicial decision also exists. For these contracts she requires her husband’s consent. Did you ever hear of anything quite so ridiculous, Mr. Speaker? So much for the existing common law decisions on the subject.

In pledging her husband’s credit for household necessities, Hahlo states quite clearly at page 160 of his book: “It is submitted that no hard and fast rule can be laid down, but that each case must be dealt with on its own merits.” In other words, my point is this. The husband can do precisely what he likes with her estate and his own, whereas she is subject to judicial decisions in terms of which there exists no clarity whatsoever.

Since I have relied upon Professor Hahlo for a good deal of my information, let me add that he also states specifically at page 169—

Nor can she, without her husband’s consent, purchase land or shares with her earnings, for the investment of the profits of her business is not a transaction in connection with her business.

In conclusion let me say that Hahlo then raises the point as to whether she is free to dispose of her wages as she pleases, an aspect which is dealt with in this Bill. He suggests that this proposition finds what he describes as “some support” in the judgment of Mr. Justice James in Jermyn v. Jermyn, but says finally: “However, all these problems will have to await final clarification by the courts.”

It is the express intention in this Bill to clarify the position at least with regard to purchase agreements and stocks and shares by statute. I really must ask why we must wait until some unfortunate litigant has to pay costs in court for a decision to be made on issues which could be quite straightforward in our law.

One final word on guardianship before I sit down. In normal cases, subject to the power of the court as upper guardian of all minors to intervene in their interests, the father is the natural guardian of the children until they attain majority. He alone has the right to manage and administer their earnings and property, except what is bequeathed to them by others. He alone has control over their education, secular and religious, and has the right to bring and defend actions on their behalf in the courts. As things stand to-day, he shares with the mother the control of the persons of the children and the consent of both parents is required for the minor’s marriage, but, as we know, in the event of a difference of opinion, the father’s will must prevail.

When the mother, or anyone else, is given the custody of a child without limitation or further definition, the father’s natural right to control the person and education of the child is displaced without being extinguished. In other words, the father’s other rights of guardianship remain in him unless a specific application has been made to court at the time of the divorce or judicial separation, or where the parents are living apart for the court to “grant either parent the sole guardianship … or sole custody of the minor”, if it is proved that it would be in the interests of the minor to do so. This is set out quite clearly in section 5 of the 1953 Act.

The courts do not appear to have defined completely the circumstances in which a father can be removed from his guardianship, again according to Professor Hahlo, but that he can be so removed is clear. It would surely be fairer, and this is my argument, as set out in this Bill, to accept the principle of equal guardianship, with the right of both parents of recourse to court, preferably to a judge in chambers, in order to avoid publicity on the subject.

Section 5 (1) of the 1953 Act dealing with guardianship and custody of minors is permissive only; in other words, the court may grant sole custody or guardianship on the application of either parent. But since it has always been the legal custom in South Africa to leave guardianship with the father, even where the mother is granted custody or sole custody, I think it is necessary now to clarify the position from the mother’s point of view.

Unlike the law relating to the maintenance of a divorced spouse, which is based entirely on statute and is clear, the law relating to the custody and guardianship of minor children on divorce or separation is based partly on statute and partly on common law. Where custody and guardianship are separated, the custodian parent has the care and control of the minor’s person; the guardian parent has the control and administration of his property and business affairs. And this is most unsatisfactory. It has been my experience in dealing with dozens of cases, that couples continue their disputes, unfortunately, after the dissolution of a marriage and that the father has all the scope that he wants to make a confounded nuisance of himself.

An HON. MEMBER:

[Inaudible.]

Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR:

Yes, he does, frequently for reasons of sheer malice and the wife’s so-called powers of custody become nothing but a farce. I know lots of cases where this has happened. Like the term sole custody, the term sole guardianship is a creation of the 1953 Act. There is no definition anywhere of either expression as to what is really meant. And as long as guardianship and custody are not both specifically allocated by an order of court, all the rights of natural guardianship rest with the father. It is as Professor Harlow stated that in practice the courts are reluctant to appoint the mother as the guardian of the minor unless there is some good reason for doing so. My comment on that is that only too often good reasons for depriving a father of his guardianship do not become apparent until long after the legal proceedings are over and done with. I am familiar with a number of cases—I have them in my own constituency—where the wife has to employ an attorney, permanently, and at great cost, to watch her interests and those of her children. This has to be done all the time. If she did not do so, her maintenance would lapse and she would have to go to court for redress. The father’s powers of guardianship very often lead to intimidation and interference of a most obnoxious kind.

An HON. MEMBER:

Do you not like men?

Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR:

I like them very much. It is true that an order as to custody and guardianship or access is always liable to variation for good cause shown, by the courts. A number of legal proceedings exist to prove this, even where the order was originally made in terms of a consent paper by both parties. My point is, that with our system of joint guardianship but not equal guardianship, in 90 per cent of cases the onus is upon the mother to go to the court for redress with all the attendant anxiety and expense. And if one looks back over the last 50 years one finds that the general trend both in case law and of legislation has been to lay emphasis on what is best in the interests of the minor rather than to further the concept of parental rights whatever they may happen to be. And that is what I am concerned with here in this Bill. I maintain, with the greatest conviction, that the interests of any minor are best served where the rights of guardianship in law are vested equally in both parents. I maintain that all these matters in fact require very serious consideration.

*Mr. T. LANGLEY:

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member who introduced this motion knows, I do not support this Bill. Unfortunately I am subject to a time restriction and will not be able to devote much time to the elucidation which the hon. member has now given us. I shall confine myself to a large extent to the Bill. But because it is very clear to me from the hon. member’s elucidation where she gets her idea from, I would just like to read to her briefly a few sentences out of the book, A Social History of English Law, by Alan Harding. On page 403 I read the following—

The principle of distinguishing the husband’s and the wife’s estates which underlies the Married Women’s Property Acts was recognized in Allen vs. Allen (1961 A.E.R.) to be not entirely adequate to a joint venture like marriage.

I am opposed to this Bill because in my opinion it is unnecessary in toto. It is unnecessary in so far as the hon. member’s proposals are applicable. I am not even mentioning some of them which are so irreconcilable with the present principles that it is impossible even to introduce them. It is unnecessary in this sense that everything which is being envisaged in the Bill is already possible at the moment. I would just like to mention one example. The effect of section 1 of the Bill can be obtained simply by entering into an antenuptial contract, with the exclusion of the marital power of the man. We must guard against making too many statutory encroachments on our common law. What the Roman-Dutch legal system is pre-eminently known for is that it is so subtle and flexible. When we tamper with it too much by means of legislation, we are prejudicing that subtlety and flexibility. But I am also opposed to it because this Bill is vague and confusing. If it were to be placed on the Statute Book in its present form, I foresee unprecedented chaos in our family and in our marriage law. There are a few examples I want to mention. In the first instance the Bill does not distinguish between marriages in and marriages out of community of property. Clause 1 deals with the means acquired by a married woman, but it does not mention whether, or not the woman in question was married in community of property. It is essential that the Bill should state which women it has in mind, because the nature of the things it deals with must be judged on that basis. I maintain that this omission is confusing, because according to our common law all assets which are acquired in the case of a marriage in community of property, by either of the two parties, are joint assets. They become the joint owners of those assets. Nowhere does this Bill state that it is doing away with community of property. These goods or values which clause 1 deals with, are in the case of a marriage in community of property immediately included in the joint estate when the woman acquires it. But those goods which the man acquires are also included in that joint will immediately. And then both parties to that marriage are immediately owners thereof for an undivided half. But what is the effect of this section now?

Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR:

You missed the point.

*Mr. T. LANGLEY:

No, I am coming to that now. The effect of this motion is that the woman alone and without the assistance and consent of her husband should be able to dispose of assets in the joint will of which the husband has also become owner. We cannot allow it. This motion is in conflict with the basic principle in our marriage law, namely the principle of joint responsibility. And I want to tell the hon. member that this principle of joint responsibility is accepted by every sensible person as the basis of a marriage, and not only of marriage law. But now it is being eliminated by these irresolute provisions. In its place the principle of what I want to call the principle of everyone for himself is being substituted. I maintain that this motion is aimed at disrupting our marriage laws for no good reason whatsoever. This rejection of the principle of joint responsibility and the substitution therefor of the principle of everyone for himself—and in addition to that as I shall demonstrate in a moment, every-one for himself in secret—contains, to my mind, the seeds of the dissolution of the marriage. I have said that this Bill does not distinguish between marriages in or marriages out of community of property. As far as the marriage out of community of property is concerned there are two courses open to prospective married couples. On the one hand the antenuptial contract can be entered into in which the marital power of the man is excluded. To-day—and I want to concede this point to the hon. member—this is a fairly general occurrence. That is what the hon. member envisages with section 1. As I have said, the means already exist. And that is why it is unnecessary. It need not be laid down by law. But we also have the antenuptial contract where the marital power of the man is retained. The effect of that, in brief, is that the assets in the estate are in fact kept separate—each party has a separate estate—but the man controls the goods and his assistance to the wife is still required in respect of certain legal actions. As the name indicates an antenuptial contract is a contract. Before the marriage is concluded, the parties decide first upon what form of marriage they would prefer. And in most of these cases I believe they take this decision after they have consulted with, and in conjunction with their parents, who advise them. In this way they decide whether the marriage will be in or out of community of property and if it is out of community of property, whether the marital power of the man is going to be retained or not. The parties have freedom of contract. This freedom of contract is one of the characteristics of a democratic state. It is a privilege of every man and every woman who is a citizen or citizens of a democratic state. Now the parties conclude a contract to the effect that after solemnization of the marriage the estates will be separated. But, the marital power of the man is retained. And it is precisely in this regard that we now find in this Bill one of its most far-reaching provisions. What it amounts to is that despite the fact that the parties have contracted that the marital power be retained, that marital power may now be nullified. I want to tell the hon. member that this is a terrible thing. It means that the hon. member is asking, by means of this legislation, that the basic principle of freedom of contract should be violated. That is governmental compulsion at its worst. This is fascism.

But let us go a step further. Suppose the wife was married in community of property and that she has now with money and means —as the Bill puts it—which were brought into the joint estate by her, purchased something or registered shares in her name. Then we must remember that these goods still go into the joint estate. These goods are therefore jointly owned. It belongs to the woman as much as to the man. Now the Bill does not state that joint responsibility is excluded. In other words, our common law is being applied. The proposed section 4 (2) provides that no person may furnish that husband with details in regard to those things. It must be kept secret from the husband. But it is a fundamental principle of our law that every owner or joint owner of property is entitled to full information in regard thereto. But the intention of this proposed section is now to exclude it. The effect of this subsection is irreconcilable with that principle. It is also irreconcilable with certain other principles of our statute law. Let us look at the case in which a creditor has obtained a judgment against a man married in community of property. Now he wants to send the bailiff or the messenger of the court to seize the goods in order to redeem the debts in terms of the judgment. It is now the duty of that man, when the bailiff turns up, to point out to him any movable goods which he can seize. But this man cannot point out all those movable goods because he does not know which goods are included in the joint estate. Surely that hamstrings the application and implementation of existing rights. Let us take the Insolvency Act as an example. A person who wants to surrender an estate voluntarily is obliged to inform the Supreme Court under oath in full in respect of the assets which are included in his estate. He must enumerate them fully. If he does not do so, he is committing a felony. Then he is liable to criminal punishment. It is not only the man who willingly surrenders his estate, it also applies to the man who is sequestrated by another person. After the sequestration he must furnish the curator of the insolvent estate with a full enumeration of all the assets in that estate. If he does not do so he is also punishable by law and guilty of an offence. Now this Bill wants to make things impossible for that man. This law-drafter is now asking that the Legislature of the country should introduce a measure which would make every person whose estate could possibly be sequestrated—and not one of us sitting here is altogether free of that possibility—guilty in advance of a criminal offence. Such a measure is not only confusing, it is not consistent with the good order for which every legislator must take steps to assure through his laws. Apart from what the hon. member has said in regard to possible solutions, this Bill is also in conflict with the Income Tax Act. All of us must in our returns each year furnish not only the details of our own assets, but also the details of the assets and liabilities of our wives, whether we are married in community of property or not. This Bill does not take that into account. The hon. member has suggested a solution which I do not think can be accepted. This Bill is in conflict with the existing statute law, and must therefore be legally rejected.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to leave the legal aspects of this matter at that. I want to tell the hon. member that I do not like her Bill. I do not like the undertones of this Bill. The entire purport of this Bill is to prejudice and disrupt our existing family and marriage law and by so doing to discredit it amongst our young people, the young prospective married couples. I cannot escape from the feeling, and in her elucidation the hon. member confirmed me in this, that the actual point of departure here is that no man is to be trusted, that it is necessary to do away with the principle of community of property, and that it is necessary to do away with the retention of the marital power of the man in the antenuptial contract. Surely that is not so. Surely this principle is not as archaic and bad as the hon. member wants to suggest. In our marriage and family law there are existing principles which have been tested and carried into effect over the centuries. All the marriages in South Africa are woven around these principles. They contain elements of the Roman, the German and Canonical law, which is our Roman-Dutch Law to-day. It is not archaic, as the hon. member has suggested.

I have already discussed one of these principles, i.e. the principle of joint responsibility. Surely it is a good principle, and it is basic to our marriage and our marriage law. When two young people marry, they begin a new relationship, a new family and a new estate. Most of them begin together with equally little. Is that not a fine thing? Is that not ideal? How well does this principle not compare with what I have called the principle of the Bill, which is everyone for himself?

Mr. Speaker, there is another principle of our marriage and our family law, namely the principle of unitary control. In fact our law requires unitary control for the sake of good order. Only one party governs a country at a time. This unitary control must be control by that person who, according to human experience in general, has the most experience and is the best equipped to exercise control. Surely there is nothing wrong with that.

Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR:

You must be careful.

*Mr. T. LANGLEY:

It is not necessary for me to be careful. I am not mentioning any names. I am merely stating that there is nothing wrong with this principle. In this regard the Legislature allows itself to be led by what it knows works best in the vast majority of cases. But in cases where it does not work best, the Legislature concedes that where a marriage contract is impracticable, it can be changed.

In regard to the opposite of unitary control, namely undivided control, I do not want to say anything. I only want to ask: Can you imagine a company with two managing directors who always have equal status? Can you imagine a South Africa being simultaneously governed by the National Party and the United Party? [Interjections.] Can one contain the policies of these two simultaneously in law? Can you imagine that?

Mr. Speaker, there is a third principle in our marriage law which I want to mention, namely that our marriages are principally a relationship uberrimae fide, a relationship of the utmost good faith. The man and the wife stand in a relationship of trust in regard to each other. There ought to be no concealments or secrets, as envisaged in subsection (2), nor secret assets and properties. I cannot imagine a greater threat to marriage than such secrets, such concealments in married life.

Mr. Speaker, I want to plead for the retention of the well tried principles of our marriage law. I want to concede that it does not work in 100 per cent of the cases; but I do want to tell the hon. member that 99 per cent of our marriages are lasting, and that they are lasting as a result of those principles which I have mentioned. I want to plead that we should guard against breaking down and undermining the status and prestige of the head of our family. But I want to add to that that heads of families must act in such a way that they are at all times worthy of their prestige and status.

Lastly I want to plead that, instead of wanting to introduce new principles, we should be such an example in mind and spirit to our young people that we will educate them so that their approach to marriage will be in accordance with the principles of joint responsibility, patriarchal control and the greatest good faith.

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterkloof has opposed the Bill, and he has presented to the House certain arguments to justify his opposition. It is a pity that the hon. member has not disclosed to the House what Bill he is opposing, because he cannot possibly be opposing the Bill before the House because his arguments have nothing to do—at any rate, most of his arguments—with the Bill which is before the House. He has suggested that the Bill is likely to make certain drastic changes to the existing laws of marriage and so on. This is not the case. The Bill Is not intended to make these changes, nor does it do so in practice. But I would suggest that, whilst the hon. member for Waterkloof has expressed wonderful sounding phrases which may impress the voters in his “verkrampte” constituency, they have very little to do with the Bill which is before the House.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! What does the hon. member mean by “verkrampte”?

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I would define “verkrampte” in this context as extremely narrow-minded.

Mr. S. FRANK:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Perhaps the hon. member will give me a little time to speak. Then I might answer his question. Time is getting on and I must get on with my speech. I want at the outset to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Wynberg for her efforts throughout the years to attempt to improve the lot of married women and I might add also, Mr. Speaker, to improve the lot of the …

An HON. MEMBER:

Bachelors !

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

… all parts of the population group in this country. In view of the attitude of the hon. member for Waterkloof and the allegations that he made as to the effects of this Bill, it seems to me that at this stage of the debate it is essential to look at the Bill in its proper context.

An HON. MEMBER:

As a bachelor.

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

At the outset I want to emphasize that the Bill does not seek to bring about any radical changes in the system of marriage or in the rights of married women. Therefore this is not a great debate in which the women of South Africa through the hon. member for Wynberg are attempting to make far-reaching changes in the marriage laws and in the laws of custody in their interests and against the interests of the menfolk in South Africa, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Waterkloof. The Bill does no such thing.

What does the Bill seek to do? It introduces two changes only. Both these changes are of a limited nature. The first change seeks merely to allow a wife more scope in dealing with her own money and assets. I would ask the hon. member for Waterkloof: Does he see anything wrong in that?

*An HON. MEMBER:

Have you ever been married?

*Mr. T. LANGLEY:

But that is already possible to do.

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

The second change is an extension of the guardianship and custody of minor children. As the hon. member for Wynberg has pointed out, our courts in South Africa have always emphasized that in matters of guardianship and custody, what is of paramount importance, are not the rights of either parent, but what is in the best interest of the child. Therefore, any extension which is sought to be made in respect of the rights of custody and guardianship must not be looked at as an extension ot the rights of the mother, but an extension of the protection of the minor children of the marriage.

I want to deal with the first issue in this Bill. The Bill seeks to amend the Matrimonial Affairs Act of 1953, so as to allow a married woman to enter into purchase agreements and to deal in securities without the consent or assistance of her husband. I will submit and I will show that this is a logical, a reasonable and a necessary extension of the law as it exists to-day. In order to explain this to the hon. members in this House, and particularly to the hon. member for Waterkloof, it may be wise for me to go back to the basic concept of our law of marriage, and trace briefly the developments that have taken place.

Our common law in South Africa stems from two basic concepts, namely community of property and the exercise of the marital power by the husband. This concept originated many centuries ago as a development of the attitude which prevailed many centuries ago, namely that upon marriage, a wife became more or less a slave or chattel of her husband for him to do with as he wished. [Interjections.]

From the interjections we have had from time to time in this debate, it is quite clear that there are many hon. members in this House who would like to see the old system being reverted to. I should imagine, however, that there are few women who would be willing to do so. I would therefore suggest to them that they are perhaps living in a fool’s paradise and that they must accept the inevitable. This attitude became antiquated centuries ago, and in its place came the attitude that the wife was little above the status of a minor. Following from that the attitude was that she required to be given security and to be protected and above all that she required to be disciplined, controlled and that the husband should manage the joint affairs. Unfortunately for some of the hon. members here to-day, this also became largely antiquated through the years. But despite these changes which have been made from time to time, in terms of our law to-day a woman married in community of property and subject to the marital power, has in some respects still the status of a minor. Although we in South Africa retain this basic system, we have through the years made radical changes in the contractual rights of the wife and in her right to deal with her own funds. The most radical change came about in 1953 when the Matrimonial Affairs Act was passed. In terms of that Act several amendments were made relating to the property rights of the spouses so that property which came to the wife through her own earnings, through inheritance and so on, would not be subject to the control of the husband, except with her consent. It also entitles the wife to alienate and pledge shares and to invest money in savings accounts as a depositor in banks. Subsequently, in 1966, there was further amendments designed also to extend the rights of a woman married in community of property to deal with properties which came to her either through her efforts, through work or through succession. The amendments introduced in 1966 allow the wife to withdraw any deposit standing in her name in the Post Office Savings Bank. Because the law which was passed in 1953, whilst it allowed her to deposit, did not provide for her to make withdrawals, this was necessary. There was therefore this extension of rights. What the Bill, which is before the House, proposes to do is to extend these rights somewhat further so as to allow a wife to use her own moneys, and not the funds of the joint estate, to enter into purchase agreements and to invest in securities. For the purposes of this Bill the term “security” is defined as securities under the Securities’ Transfer Act, No. 69 of 1965, which briefly means stocks and shares. I want to point out, particularly in view of the allegation made by the hon. member for Waterkloof, that if the proposed amendment were passed, it would not affect the community estate. Although the wife would have the right to enter into purchase agreements, provided she does so with her own moneys, and to invest in securities, those moneys and investments would remain part of the joint estate. On the death of either, and particularly on the death of the wife, the husband would become entitled to half those funds in the same way as he would be in terms of the law as it exists today. I suggest therefore that the proposed amendment is a logical and necessary extension of the law as it was passed by this Government in 1953 and extended in 1966. I would, therefore, be interested to hear from hon. members opposite, if they continue to oppose this principle, precisely why they do so since they were the ones responsible for originally introducing the principle of which this is merely a small extension.

An HON. MEMBER:

Your own Government refused this in 1944.

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

The second issue which is being introduced by this Bill relates to joint custody and guardianship. The hon. member for Wynberg spent some time dealing with this aspect of the matter and dealing with the legal principles relating to guardianship and custody. I do not propose to go into this matter in any detail. What the Bill proposes to do, is to give to the parents equal rights to guardianship and custody of the minor child. This provision in the Bill was referred to the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope. They in turn referred it to a committee to consider and report. This is what they have to say:

The committee has in general every sympathy for what is sought to be achieved by the proposed section 4 (a) and feels that it is only fair that the mother should have an equal voice with the father in regard to all matters pertaining to the child. The committee, however, is very doubtful on the question of the desirability of permitting parents who are neither divorced nor living apart, to go to court to settle domestic disputes in regard to the children.

They then elaborate on this point. I may say that I agree with this second proposition. I think it is undesirable that if there is no divorce pending and the parties are still living together that differences of opinion or disputes between them as to the children, should be aired in the courts at that stage. But it was never the intention, and I understand from the hon. member for Wynberg, that the amendments should go as far as this. They were intended to relate to the situation once the marriage broke up for some reason or another. I therefore wish to make it clear that at the Committee Stage of this Bill, we shall move an amendment to restrict the provisions to make the position quite clear in this regard. [Interjection.] Mr. Speaker, it is suggested to me that perhaps the Bill may not reach the Committee Stage. I am certain that the hon. the Minister will give the Bill his blessing, that he will in fact be eager to pilot it through the other stages.

Reverting to clause 2, I want to say that the Law Society in the comments which they have made went on to make clear what their real objection is. This is what they said:

Our objection to this section, therefore, is to the portion which allows the court to arbitrate in disputes between the spouses and not to the portion which allows the court to award sole guardianship to one spouse as a distinct and substantive right.

The question I want to ask hon. members on both sides of the House who oppose this Bill, is this: Do they accept the principle which has been enunciated by our courts and has been supported throughout the years, namely that in regard to guardianship and custody the rights of one or other parent are immaterial? What is material is the best interests of the children. I suggest that they must accept this. Even the hon. member for Waterkloof accepts this. We are at last at eye level on one point; so we must be making a little progress. The hon. member for Waterkloof tells me that he accepts the fact that the interests of the children are paramount. If he accepts this, surely he must also accept an extension of the present position, which ensures greater protection for the children. This is the effect of this amendment. It is merely to ensure greater protection to the children by giving more discretion to the courts in dealing with matters of custody and guardianship.

At this stage I think I must change the course of the debate a little because it is perfectly clear that many hon. members are concerned that the effects of the proposed amendments may be far-reaching and more extensive than they would like to support. Whilst I am of the opinion that the proposed amendments are reasonable, I can see that there may be room for argument and some differences of opinion. I therefore propose to move the following amendment:

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “the Order for the Second Reading of the Matrimonial Affairs Amendment Bill be discharged and that the subject of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, the Committee to have power to take evidence and to call for papers and to have leave to bring up an amended Bill.”.

I want to deal briefly with this amendment of mine. First of all, I think it is perfectly clear that there is room for improvement in our laws of marriage in this country. All social workers who are concerned with this problem and who deal with it from day to day, and legal practitioners who deal with these matters in the courts from day to day, know that there is room for considerable improvement. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he ought to give serious consideration to the amendment I have moved. It is not satisfactory to refer this to the Law Revision Committee. That committee is comprised mainly of judges and officials of the Department. They are perfectly competent to deal with a matter which is one purely of law. This is not a matter purely of law. It is a matter which has far-reaching social consequences and it is time that all persons who are interested in these matters should have the opportunity of giving evidence and expressing their points of view, and this they cannot do if this matter is referred to the Law Revision Committee. It is not only the women of the country who are concerned with some of these changes. The Stock Exchange would like to see changes, because they have to go to a lot of unnecessary trouble getting hold of antenuptial contracts whenever a woman for the first time wishes to buy or sell shares, and the same applies to banks, building societies, etc. All these bodies want to see certain changes. Others also may wish to express their points of view. I suggest that it is time that the general public have this opportunity to express themselves on a matter which is of great importance to the whole structure of the family in South Africa.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

I first want to dispose of the latest proposal made by the hon. member for Musgrave, namely that the entire matter be referred to a select committee. I disagree with that, and I disagree with the Bill as well. As far as the select committee is concerned, in principle this matter has already been investigated by a commission of inquiry, i.e. the commission which tabled its report in 1949. The same aspects as are now being debated, the disabilities of women, were submitted to a law revision committee in 1964 and were rejected.

Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR:

Fifteen years ago.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

The principle remains exactly the same. Thereafter the matter was submitted to the Bar Council and also to all the law societies. Last week it was debated in principle in the Other Place and rejected there.

Then I want to point out that it is in fact a juridical matter and not one on which it is necessary to call for evidence. It is a purely legal matter. It is a matter which can be investigated by the Government’s legal advisers, and if there is any merit in the case, amendments can be made to the Act of 1953.

I do, however, want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Wynberg for introducing this Bill, because it does afford us an opportunity in this House to reflect on various important aspects of the position of women in our society. Let me emphasize at once that as far as this side of the House is concerned, there is no doubt that we hold the status and the position of women in very high esteem in our country and in our society. To those of us on this side of the House who have a national, Christian outlook on life, the wife in South Africa is the one round whom the whole family centres. She is the mother of the nation. She is the one to whom the Almightly has allotted the task of giving life, and for that we respect her and would like to afford her the status and the rightful place in our society which she deserves. She has also entered the business world and has pulled her weight in every respect, and in every facet of our national life. I want to take this opportunity to thank those women of our people for the splendid contribution which they have made. We regard the South African woman as the crowning glory of our Republic and we want to retain her as such.

Now, it is said that we have a very high divorce rate in South Africa, and it is true. Our divorce rate is approximately 10 per cent, but if we accept that another 10 per cent of our family life is in the process of crumbling, then it still only comes to 20 per cent, and then we may safely assume that at least 80 per cent of our married people are living together quite happily, and under the present system at that, which is being criticized so severely by the hon. member for Wynberg. Let me just tell her this about the marital power. The marital power is not so much an exercising of power; it forms part of a marriage partnership. If people enter into marriage without any property, it is much better for them to be married in community of property. You all know the facts of the case of Edelstein vs. Edelstein, where the persons were married out of community of property. For many years the wife toiled in the kitchen, and after about 30 years, after the man had made a fortune from his business, he fell in love with a typist and left almost all his money to her in his will. If they had been married in community of property, with the marital power and all, that wife would have received at least half of that estate, which she had in fact earned in the kitchen of her home. This is one of the fine aspects of this system, which has come to us through Roman-Dutch law. There are many things in this system which have particularly attractive facets, and we must not simply adopt the attitude which was adopted by the hon. member for Wynberg, i.e. all husbands are bad and ought not even to poke their noses into the affairs of wives. Surely that is not the case.

My objections to this Bill are based on two grounds. There is an undertone of cynicism throughout this Bill, and I will prove this. Secondly, there is a tremendous measure of duplication of other laws which already set out the existing position, and also as regards our common law position. Let us just look at clause 1 (2) and (3) of her Bill. In clause 1 the hon. member says that a wife must have the right to be able to purchase certain articles with money which she has obtained from any source whatever, for example, money which she has earned or has obtained by way of a gift. She must be able to use that money for her own purposes. Here the cynicism enters into the matter, because that transaction must not be revealed to her husband; it must be a secret transaction. In fact, the hon. member for Wynberg feels so strongly about it that she even says that if anyone tells the husband that the wife entered into such a transaction, a fine not exceeding R100 must be imposed upon him. If that is not cynical, then I really do not know. It undermines our whole marriage system. Can one really imagine what would happen if such a transaction took place, and this secrecy was also in evidence? It must surely prove to be destructive of the relationship between the husband and the wife when it comes to light.

*Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR:

But he may do what he likes, and she need not know about it.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Then I just want to dispose of the other clauses very briefly. My time is very limited and I do not want to take up the time of my colleagues. I want to refer to clause 3. The existing Act provides that a wife may in certain circumstances go to court and ask to be granted sole guardianship. These circumstances are set out in the Act: (a) where there is an application for divorce or (b) where there is an application for judicial separation, or where the parties are already divorced, or where they are living apart. Now the hon. member asks in (c) that she may also go to court on the application of either parent in the event of a dispute between the parents of a minor on any matter affecting such minor. Now I must take it that she means here that if, while the parties are still living together, a dispute arises between them concerning a minor, through certain consent or refusal or withholding of consent to a minor, they should then be able to go to court and ask that the guardianship be granted to her. Can the hon. member imagine what would happen under those circumstances? It would mean that that marriage would be broken down completely. It is a fact that small disputes occur in every marriage, but those disputes are settled, and the moment those disputes are of a serious nature they will fall under paragraph (b); in other words, the point is this: What she is proposing here is unnecessary, because if she should embody it in an Act, the marriage would in fact begin to break up, and the existing Act already grants her sufficient rights to obtain guardianship of her child.

The hon. member also asks that the mother should have the right to give a child away for adoption on her own. These aspects are fully covered by our Children’s Act. I may just refer her to section 60 of the Children’s Act, which permits exactly what she is asking for in this bill, and to section 71 (2) (b) (iv) of the Children’s Act, which permits her exactly what she is asking for here. If I had the time, I could have taken her through the Bill line for line to prove that there is an existing law for the parents either in the Children’s Act or in terms of our common law or in our rules of court. She must just look at court rule No. 43, which permits precisely what she is asking for in subsection (8). One can go through the entire Bill in this way, and in these circumstances this Bill is surely not necessary.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Prinshof start off with an accolade to the women of South Africa, and I am very glad he did that because later on I shall be making many of the same complimentary remarks that he did, but it was nice to have this coming from the male side of the House. I want to say at once that I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave that this Bill be referred to a select committee before second reading. There is a great deal—in fact almost all of it—in this Bill with which I wholeheartedly agree. I believe there are, however, improvements which could be introduced at a select commitee. I think there is some ambiguity in clauses 1 and 2, and I think there are some omissions which should be inserted if the position of women in South Africa is to be made well-nigh perfect as far as the removal of disabilities is concerned. I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting on major grounds, the hon. member for Wynberg this afternoon. I am particularly pleased because it so happens that 15 years ago in this House, 15 long and weary years, I made my maiden speech on the Matrimonial Affairs Amendment Bill, the Bill introduced by the Government after many years of hard struggle by the then hon. member for Jeppes, Mrs. Bertha Solomon to remove the major disabilities suffered by South African married women. There was a long history attached to the introduction of that Bill and I want to pay tribute to the women who have made it so much easier for women of my generation to enjoy certain privileges and I hope, if the hon. member for Wynberg will accept the amendment, that further privileges will ensue.

Sir, I wish to pay tribute to the women who, long before women got the franchise in South Africa, battled hard for that particular right, and to the women who from 1930 onwards when we did get the franchise, began a concerted campaign to remove the disabilities of married women in particular in South Africa. I wish to pay tribute also to organizations such as the National Council for Women, Die Vrouefederasie and other organizations which spent many hours in attempting to have resolutions brought to this House and to get the law changed. It was World War II that really gave impetus to the movement for the emancipation of women in this country, because through the contribution that women made to the war effort in South Africa and also, I might add, through the numerous difficulties that arose because men were up north and women were not in a position legally to take decisions, it became obvious that certain changes were utterly essential in the law affecting women in South Africa. And thus we had the appointment of commissions; we had the work of Mrs. Spilhaus, who through the National Council of Women, attempted to get commissions appointed, and finally we had the Legal Disabilities of Women Commission under Mr. Twentyman-Jones appointed in 1944 or 1945, the recommendations of which were finally translated to some extent into law in 1953 after the Bill of the then member for Jeppes. Mrs. Solomon, was taken over by the Government and introduced.

Sir, the hon. member for Prinshof has made a great deal of fuss and bother about what he considers to be a cynical inclusion in this Bill introduced by the hon. member for Wynberg to-day—subsection (2) of section 4, in clause 1 in terms of which certain investments or certain financial dealings which the wife can undertake shall not be disclosed to the husband. He considers this to be a very cynical thing indeed. Well, the hon. member is ignorant of the law.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

I know about the other provision.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

If the hon. member did know it, he did not say so, and I am going to say so now. Sir, in 1966 just as cynical an amendment was introduced, to the Matrimonial Affairs Act, an amendment which enabled the wife to put money into a building society and so on. The husband could not have such information disclosed to him except with his wife’s written consent. That is all that this clause is asking for as well. It provides that save with the wife’s written consent particulars concerning various purchase agreements into which the wife will now be entitled to enter, shall not be disclosed to the husband. There is nothing cynical about it. It is being done for a very good reason. The husband’s creditors are still entitled to claim against certain of the wife’s possessions. Even though the amending Bill of 1966 helped to some extent, it did not do away with some of the disabilities that still remained after the 1953 Act. I want to say at once that the 1953 Act was an enormous improvement as far as married women were concerned. They were given certain additional rights, and they were given a certain amount of protection. They were protected in regard to their earnings and in regard to any inheritance received by them after their marriage when they were married in community of property. Such possessions were protected from the husband. He could not alienate or dispose of her earnings or of her inheritances in any way, but there were certain shortcomings with which I shall deal in a moment. Equally under the 1953 Act, although the woman’s rights of guardianship were considerably extended, there were certain shortcomings in that Act. Under the 1953 Act, as we know, in the case of a divorce, it was left to the court not only to grant custody to the woman but, in the best interests of the child, to decide whether or not the sole guardianship of the child should go to the divorced wife. Of course, in the case of a marriage which still obtains this is not the case and the guardianship remains with the husband, except that in the case of permission to a minor child to marry, there are equal rights of guardianship. For the rest the husband has the sole right to make a decision as far as the minor child is concerned. The hon. member for Prinshof and I think the hon. member for Waterkloof were both rather concerned that this sole right of guardianship should remain, but I would like to point out to them that 15 years ago the Twentyman-Jones commission actually recommended joint guardianship by husband and wife, and the commission said that it was only in the case of a dispute where there was a difference of opinion between the parents, that a judge in chambers should have the right to make the decision. This is not really such a new proposal therefore, and indeed it was the intention of the commission that such a provision should be inscribed in the 1953 Act but it was thrown out. The hon. member for Wynberg is now attempting to have that re-instituted and I support her 100 per cent in that regard.

As far as the property clause is concerned, the 1953 Act gave the woman certain additional rights to dispose of her earnings and to invest her savings in a building society and to open a banking account without being assisted by her husband. At the same time it gave her certain protection in that the husband could not alienate those savings or take her money out of the building society or realise an insurance policy which she had taken out for the education of her children. That was a great improvement. But, strangely enough, when a woman withdraws her savings out of a building society or out of a bank, she does not today enjoy the right to do what she likes with that money. She may not buy property without the husband’s written consent and she may not buy shares. Hence all this difficulty about the production of A.N.C. certificates by women who are married under A.N.C. in order to prove their right to act individually and without the husband’s consent. It seems to me that this is an anomaly. It is an anachronism because, after all, what is to prevent a woman married in community of property from buying shares and not taking transfer thereof? There is nothing to stop her. She can withdraw her savings and buy shares. Provided she has paid for them, she can take possession of those shares. There is nothing mandatory in our law to make it essential for her to take transfer of those shares. It is true that she has to pay a penalty after a year because the certificate is valid only for a year if ownership is changed. Thereafter she has to pay penalties but they are very low. I think they are ¼ per cent per R100, so it is not a very great penalty. She does not even have to forego the beneficial results of such share dealings because she simply has to present the owner with proof that she has bought these shares and then she can claim the dividend from that person. I do not see therefore why we maintain this ridiculous restriction on women as far as their own money is concerned and why we do not allow them to withdraw that money and use it as they see fit.

The hon. member for Waterkloof need not be nervous about the question of women using the husband’s share. That is not intended in this Bill. All that is contemplated in clause 1 of the Bill is to allow her to do what she likes with what she herself has acquired either by inheritance or gift or by way of earnings. There is no question of the woman taking over the husband’s half of the joint estate. I hope that that explanation will set the hon. member’s fears at rest. Sir, the whole of this system presupposes either that a women is dishonest and that she is going to try to use money which does not rightly belong to her or that she is a fool and I must, of course, emphatically deny either of those suppositions. There is no reason at all to imagine that a women is any more dishonest than a man. Indeed it was found necessary to introduce the 1953 Act simply because husbands in many cases had squandered their wive’s earnings, had demanded their wive’s wages at factory doors, and generally speaking taken dishonest advantage of their position. That is why the 1953 Act was passed. But there is absolutely no reason to suppose that it is necessary to protect men against the dishonesty of their wives, nor is it necessary to protect women against their own foolishness. And here I return to the opening words of the hon. member for Prinshof, with which I heartily agree, and that is that women have shown themselves absolutely capable in every facet of life of competing, fair and square, in what is euphemistically known as a man’s world. We have no difficulty in holding our own, if I may say so. In public life, women city councillors, women M.P.C.’s and, if I may in modesty says so, women M.P.’s have shown themselves more than able to hold their own against men in this House. They certainly work a good deal harder and they very often talk a great deal more sense, so we require no protection in that regard.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

They talk a great deal more anyway.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Yes, they talk more because they very often have a lot more to say that is intelligent. Finally, Sir, they have taken their part in the professional and business life of South Africa, and they have made a very material contribution indeed to the national income of this country. The very fact that only the other day the hon. the Minister of Finance told me that the net gain to the national exchequer was some R34 million per annum as a result of the joint taxation of husband and wife, demonstrates how very materially indeed South African women have played their part in the development of this country. For all those reasons, Sir, I wish to record my support of this Bill in principle, although as I say, I think it should go to a select committee. The one main omission that I see in this Bill is that it does not change the law as regards donations. I do think that it would be very important to insert in any new Bill which a select committee might return to this House, a clause enabling husbands legally to make donations to their wives. Again this was recommended by the Twentyman-Jones commission. It was actually provided for in the 1953 Bill but this provision was dropped in the Committee Stage because there were objections that this might lead to fraud and might penalize the husband’s creditors.

Sir, I would like to end with a quotation, also from Mr. Hahlo’s book, where he pointed out that the rule against donations was designed in Roman-Dutch Law not for the protection of creditors but to keep mercenary motives out of married life and, as he put it, to prevent connubial affections from becoming the subject matter of bargaining and I suppose, to protect the loving male, the weaker spouse, against any from of pressure being put upon him by his wife to give her gifts in order to secure domestic felicity. Sir, I am quite sure that in this day and age this is no longer necessary. Women receive gifts and donations from their husbands not in order that they may maintain domestic felicity, but in the spirit in which such gifts are made. It is obviously an anachronism that a married man may give another woman a donation or a gift which is legal—and I have no doubt that many married men do just that—but a married man may not, as a token of his love and affection, give his wife a donation which is recognized in law.

*Mr. A. N. STEYN:

There is an old English proverb which says, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”, but when I listened to the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Houghton to-day, it seemed to me that they no longer believed that adage. I just want to say to them that my wife still firmly believes it, and leaves me in no doubt that she does.

In the time in which we are living to-day wives are to an ever-increasing extent compelled to leave their housework and perform office duties. These days the wife takes off her apron to enter the professions, and as a result of her entry into the business world we to-day have the cry throughout the country for the further emancipation of women. This is understandable, because it is a result of the change which the activities of women have undergone. Because our country is always seeking the best for all groups and persons, we cannot adopt a cold and unsympathetic attitude towards proposed measures aimed at improving the circumstances of women. But endorsement and support of any measures contemplated in this connection are subject to two conditions. The first condition is that there must in fact be a real and serious deficiency which can only be remedied by the steps envisaged. The second requirement is that the steps envisaged will not be destructive of the fundamental principles on which our legal, social and family relationships are based. This, then, is also the background against which I shall approach and judge the Bill now before the House.

I cannot and may not pour cold water on the effort made by the hon. member for Wynberg, nor can I summarily reject it. But if I test the measure against the background of the conditions which I have mentioned, I unfortunately cannot support it as it now stands. I cannot support it because, in the first place, no necessity exists for everything which is requested in the legislation. In the second place, the provisions of the Bill are drastically in conflict with and deviate from the accepted principles upon which our administration of justice is based, as far as contractual, marital and family matters are concerned.

In saying this, I do not want to suggest that there are not a few provisions that justify further attention and consideration. Certain provisions will probably facilitate and simplify the fulfilment and execution of certain legal requirements to the benefit of all parties concerned. But in my opinion it is not necessary to pass such a drastic measure to ensure this relief. Also, I feel that we are shooting a sparrow with an elephant gun here. But because the vast majority of the provisions of this measure will, in my estimation, only confuse matters more, and will create far more problems than they will solve, I cannot support it.

The hon. member for Wynberg had a good deal to say about the disadvantages of a marriage in community of property. But to those who want to make out that such a marriage only holds disadvantages for the wife, I say that they are quite wrong. As the hon. member for Prinshof indicated, thousands upon thousands of women in our country are benefited by this form of marriage. Our legislation provides for the protection of the assets and income of the married woman in that she can conclude an antenuptial contract. The wife has a free choice, and she and the husband can decide together what conditions they want to have set down in writing. The hon. member for Houghton said that the women of to-day are perfectly capable of arranging their own affairs, and accordingly they are probably capable of deciding what kind of marriage they want to conclude, and on what conditions they wish to do so.

Mr. Speaker, to me this Bill represents a tremendous interference with existing common law principles, an interference which cuts, and may in the future cut, far deeper than may be contemplated in any clause of the measure to-day. It also interferes drastically with the existing order of our society, an order which has been formed through the centuries and has been shaped over hundreds of years.

What I find the most important is the fact that this measure conflicts with the marital structure, with the relationship between husband and wife as set out in the marriage formulary. This view of marriage is not a manmade one. The fundamental point of departure is that the Creator created man and woman to be different, to fulfil different roles in married life. Therefore I feel that we must have very sound reasons before we tamper with this institution.

Previous hon. speakers have already referred to the complications and the implications of this Bill. In the short time at my disposal, I should also like to refer to a few points.

Although it is not specifically mentioned in the measure, the proposed section 4 (1), which is introduced by clause 1 of the Bill, deals exclusively with the legal personality and legal ability of the wife. It places the legal ability of the wife much higher than that of the husband. In this connection I refer to the proposed new section 4 (2), which deals with the confidentiality of the wife’s investments. The proposed subsection (3) deals with the penalty which the courts may impose. However, I want to say to the hon. member for Wynberg that the protection afforded by the confidentiality of the investment serves no purpose. It affords no protection to the wife because that information will have to be furnished in the income-tax forms and the husband will have to have that information. The wife will therefore have no protection in that respect. The provision is therefore worthless. Another objection which I have to this proposed section 4, is that it affords the husband and wife an opportunity of colluding. For example, if a husband has many creditors, he can donate his money to his wife and she can put it away without anyone having to disclose where it is or where it is invested. The creditor who wants to take action will then be unable to determine where the assets are, and in that way his claim will be frustrated. The world will be a much more difficult place if we have a marriage in community of property, one out of community of property, and yet another marriage regime the nature of which I cannot put a name to. Such a sui generis marriage will make dealings with third parties much more difficult and can only promote irregularities.

I now come to clause 2, which deals with guardianship. The present position in our legal system is that the father is the primary guardian. I want to admit that problems are sometimes experienced in this connection. But I simply cannot see how the granting of equal rights to the parents will solve the problems. Adequate provision exists in terms of the Children’s Act to solve problems of this nature in court. Besides, the court, as hon. members probably know, is the upper guardian of all minors, and a mother has the right to approach the court and call in its assistance if the life, health or general wellbeing of the child is threatened. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in this respect was very clearly set out in the case of Calitz vs. Calitz, in which Mr. Justice Tindall said—

In my judgment the Court has no jurisdiction where no divorce or separation has been granted, to deprive the father of his custody, except under the Court’s powers as upper guardian of all minors to interfere with the father’s custody on special grounds—such, for examples, as danger to the child’s life, health and morals.

I am convinced that this measure ought not to be accepted. It is my considered opinion that marriage should not be too normatively determined and regimented by way of legislation. For all these reasons I cannot support this Bill.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, I rise really so as to give the hon. the Minister of Justice the opportunity of traditionally following someone on this side of the House. I, however, do wish to make certain animadversions on this Bill before the House.

I think it is fair to say that everyone who has spoken so far has expressed the desire that any disabilities women still suffer from should, if possible, be removed in as much as they are not consistent with modem times. To that extent I feel our Roman-Dutch Law, about which much has been said, must have grafted onto it the necessities of our time, and whether the remedies come from the English law or from the Syrian law, does not I think really make much difference.

Clause 1 of this Bill is perhaps the most important one. I do not like parts of it. I find it rather distressing that if my wife, if this measure were passed in its present form, were to buy a radio wholesale and someone were to tell me he had in fact given her 30 per cent discount, that man would then be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of R100 or six months’ imprisonment. I find that provision a little medieaval, to put it mildly.

I do not like clause 2 at all. The idea of joint guardianship in marriage is something which in practice could not possibly work.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

It works in England.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

The hon. member for Houghton supports this and mentions that it works in England. She says the Twentyman-Jones Commission suggested it and this House rejected it. I say very wisely. Imagine the situation that would arise if, for example, I wanted to send my son to school A and my wife wanted to send him to school B. We would have to go to court to have the issue decided as to which school the child has to go to. If I want to give my son a jolly good hiding, which frequently I do, and my wife disagrees, I may well have to approach a judge in chambers to get his decision.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Why should you men want to make all the decisions?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Well, someone has to make the decisions.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Not necessarily you.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Yes, necessarily me. Let us get this right. As far as I am concerned, I am the man who should make those decisions. Someone has to, and, let us face it, the women are used to the fact that we men do make the decisions.

Quite apart from that, I think one must bear in mind that any situation which makes spouses go to court must be avoided. I am sure that any hon. member in this House who practises law will agree with me that whenever there is a matrimonial dispute, as long as you can keep the parties out of court, you still have a chance of settling the matter. But once they get into court and they join issue and make their case, the one against the other, and say all sorts of things they do not really mean and regret later, the chances of getting them together again afterwards are very slim.

The principle of women’s rights is something which I am sure we all feel should be looked at to see what can be done.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

And put away.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

No. They should be brought into line. Proper attention should be given thereto. That is why I support the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave that this Bill should go to a Select Committee of this House, and not, as the hon. member suggested the Minister might say, to the Law Revision Committee.

This is particularly the place where a cause can properly be pursued. The Law Revision Committee is a committee which is not following a cause but has problems referred to it. It looks at them in the cold light of the law as it sees it. The hon. member for Wynberg has come here to-day with a cause and this House, this great institution of Parliament, is equipped to deal with causes. That is its function and its purpose. It is the right of a private member who has a cause to come here and have this House decide through a Select Committee how that cause could properly be put on the Statute Book. That is our function; we are the legislators, no matter what the Law Revision Committee may recommend. For instance, what the Twentyman-Jones Committee recommended, was rejected in the end by this House. Our machinery is particularly adapted and suitable for that, much more suitable, I do submit, than a general discussion on all the rights of women. The hon. member for Wynberg has come with one and I think we should look at it and deal with it in our own way through our own special procedure.

I particularly would like that to happen because there is another disability under which some women suffer for which there is no remedy at all. Only legislation can provide the remedy.

In Durban over the last two years I have come across three cases of women who married American sailors who later left on their ships and their wives, who remained behind in Durban, have not seen them since. They have been unable to trace them. And in their situation, of course, there is nothing that can be done. They cannot even get divorced. They cannot get married again. They have been deserted and our courts do not have jurisdiction. And there are a growing number of these cases. That is the sort of thing a Select Committee could look into and, if this Bill were referred before Second Reading, it could bring up the necessary legislation. It is a matter of great importance that these persons should have some sort of remedy. There are remedies in certain cases. The other remedy is that ypu go to court and commit perjury by saying: “Yes, of course, when I married him he said he was going to buy this house and made negotiations to buy the house.” If the judge believes that he would grant her a divorce. But in order to get it, in most cases one has to commit perjury. These are a number of distressed women who I think should also be catered for by this Select Committee. If this Bill were referred to a Select Committee, it could deal with that aspect. My time has now expired, and as I have indicated, I rose mainly to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to reply.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Mr. Speaker right at the outset I want to congratulate the hon. member for Wynberg on her attempt to get something done for her own sex. She endeavoured in the first place to obtain greater legal capacity in certain cases and in the second place to obtain equal guardianship of children in cases where the parents are still living together. Having congratulated her on that—and I also want to congratulate her on the large audience she has drawn for herself in the gallery this afternoon—I can go no further. I honestly cannot congratulate her on the two main provisions of this measure. The hon. member gave me the assurance that this measure had been referred to a lawyer, a senior lawyer. But when I look at section 1, I think the lawyer who placed this provision there did not give very careful consideration to all the consequences involved. I shall refer to a few of the provisions in passing. In the first place the proposed section 4 (1) provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law or the common law contained, a married woman, whether subject to the marital power or not, may do certain things. She may for instance enter into purchase agreements and so forth. Now I cannot follow, if the wife is not subject to the marital power of the husband—that is to say, if the marital power is excluded—what prevents her from entering into purchase agreements. I just cannot follow this. What is the necessity of that? It is just the marital power which prevents the wife. Consequently, where the marital power is excluded, there is nothing to stand in her way. But I go further. She may enter into purchase agreements, and I think also purchase agreements in respect of fixed property if this is the intention. But if we look at the wording of the proposed section 4 (1) (b), we find that the power granted to execute all the documents, etc., applies only to section 1 (b). It does not apply to section 1 (a). As regards purchase agreements the position is that the agreement is concluded when the price and the transaction have been agreed upon. Then the purchase agreement is final and reciprocal rights come into being—the right to claim the article and the right to claim the purchase price. Now it is provided that the married woman may do these things “from her earnings, inheritances, or gifts or from any other source whatsoever …. Now I ask the hon. member what precisely “from any other source whatsoever” means. Does it mean inter alia that she may do these things with moneys her husband has entrusted to her to buy household necessities with? Does it mean the moneys he has entrusted to her to pay the children’s hostel fees? I just mention these things to prove that the provision is very ill-considered. It is extremely ill-considered. It is very clear in the Afrikaans version in particular that the wording of the proposed subsection 1 (b) should only have gone as far as the word “sekuriteite” in line 16, and that all the other qualifications should have been made applicable to subsection 1 (a) as well as 1 (b). It is a fact that once the purchase agreement has been entered into or after the transaction has been concluded, the property is included in the joint estate. Seeing that it is included in the joint estate, one must infer from clause 1 that the joint estate will also be responsible for the agreements entered into in this way. If an agreement is entered into by a wife and she has agreed on the price and the transaction, she is bound in terms of this section. Suppose she cannot fulfil the agreement she has entered into. She cannot fulfil it out of her own earnings or out of inheritances. Then she places the joint estate in jeopardy. In other words, now we have two people riding on one horse. The hon. member wants those two people to sit next to each other on the horse. What I am saying now, applies to clause 2 as well. It is a known fact that when two people ride on one horse, one of necessity has to sit in front and the other behind. Time will not permit me to go into all the questions that arise. I shall mention only a few of them. There is the question of dealing with securities. Various members pointed out that these dealings have to take place in secret. The husband must not be aware of them. From the nature of the case it will be possible for the joint estate to be held responsible for the purchase agreements and transactions entered into by the wife. The hon. member specifically mentions the question of securities and shares. And if there is anything in respect of which it is dangerous to enter into purchase agreements and to deal in—to buy and sell—it is in fact shares.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

But she can do that anyway.

*The MINISTER:

I am referring to the case where the wife was married in community of property. Then she is not legally capable of doing this. In such a marriage her position is so much weaker. She is not legally capable of doing this and she cannot bind the joint estate. In addition I want to ask this: When purchase agreements are entered into, who will be responsible for determining whether the transactions are entered into out of the wife’s own earnings or inheritances and so forth. Is this responsibility going to rest on the seller? Will the seller have to determine every time where the lady obtained the money to fulfil the purchase agreement with?

Mrs. C. D. TAYLOR:

Who does that in the case of a man?

*The MINISTER:

The hon. member must remember that she made a point of it that for a lady who is married out of community of property and who has reserved to herself the marital right, it is infra dig. to produce her antenuptial contract every time. Here she is being placed in the position where the dealer will say to her: “You must prove to me that this money with which you are entering into a transaction with me, is derived from an inheritance, your own earnings, or the other source mentioned.” The trouble with women is that they like the advantages of community of property, but not its disadvantages. That is the trouble. I readily concede that women have made economic progress in our world. Women have a share in the economy of our country and form an important part of it. But my contention is that basically a marriage in community of property is to the advantage of the woman. It is only in exceptional cases that she is penalized as a result of the fact that she married a bad husband in community of property and that she may have to look after the family. This happens in a few cases. My experience is that—and I have been an attorney for a long time—where the woman possesses something and enters into a marriage, her father will see to it that an antenuptial contract is entered into. My experience is that where no antenuptial contract is entered into, it is the ordinary couple that starts off nothing, the couple that starts off with love alone. This is the right place to start as a basis for marriage. This matter also encompasses the question of equal guardianship. The fact of the matter is that in the same household one cannot have two persons with an equal say. It simply does not work. As I said a moment ago, if two people want to ride on one horse, one has to sit behind and one in front. Great relief has been introduced in this respect. Certain hon. members have pointed out that under the Matrimonial Affairs Act, 1953, certain serious anomalies were eliminated. My contention is that the ladies have the solution in their own hands. They may enter into an antenuptial contract and marry out of community of property. They may also exclude the husband’s marital right if they want to enter into the transactions pleaded for by the hon. members. The questions that arose in connection with certain flaws in our law were properly dealt with in the Matrimonial Affairs Act, 1953. I need not go into the various provisions of that Act now, because the hon. member knows it as well as I do. My contention is that every matter she wants to provide for here, has already been provided for.

I now want to deal with the question of equal guardianship. At present we have provisions in our law which provide for sole guardianship to be granted to either the one or the other parent when a divorce or a judical separation takes place or when the parents are living apart. The position simply is that as long as a marriage is a happy one, as we all hope and want a marriage to be, it does not really matter who has the major say. As a rule it is always the mother who has this say. However, when matters take a turn for the worse and the parents start fighting over their children, to the extent that they have to go to court, then that marriage is already on the rocks. I really cannot see why provision has to be made for equal guardianship. It is true that the court gives preference to the father in certain respects and that the care of the children is left to the mother. But why it must be specifically provided now that they must have equal rights of guardianship is beyond me. My contention is that once a couple has reached this stage, the marriage is already on the rocks. And then we have sufficient provisions in our law to deal with the matter.

I just want to refer to another aspect of the matter. The Children’s Act has been mentioned here and I just want to refer to one provision of the Children’s Act. Mention has been made of a cheap procedure. I am now going to mention a very cheap procedure, and that is that where a children’s court is satisfied that a minor should live with his mother and away from his father because the father has deserted or regularly ill-treated the child or its mother or because he has refused to maintain anyone of them, or that the child must live with his father, then the court may deprive the guilty parent of the right to exercise any parental powers over the minor concerned and the court may grant the sole right to exercise those powers to the other parent. This is the type of case particularly complained about by the hon. member for Wynberg. She said that she regularly receives such complaints from her constituency. Provision exists for cases where the father has left and cannot be traced. Sufficient provision for that has been made under the Children’s Act.

I just want to refer again to the matter of equal guardianship. It has been said here that the Twentyman-Jones Commission of 1948 recommended equal guardianship. This is not correct. My information differs from this. My information is that a great deal of evidence was submitted by women’s organizations that equal guardianship would have to be introduced. The evidence of those organizations was to this effect. My information is that the Commission was only in favour of joint guardianship. That is how the law stands at present. Because the Commission was in favour of joint guardianship, those provisions were included in the Matrimonial Affairs Act, 1953, but as far as I know it is not correct that it was done on a recommendation of the Commission. The Department of Justice again received representations on the matter of equal guardianship in 1963, and the matter was investigated by the Department in the same year. In 1964 it was referred to the Law Revision Committee, the Bench, the Bar, and the Side Bar, and they were all overwhelmingly opposed to equal guardianship. If these bodies are against equal guardianship, I think it is risky to propose a measure of such a nature and then to expect the Government to take it further.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

All male lawyers.

*The MINISTER:

The hon. member says “all male lawyers”; it is extraordinary that, although the ladies are as able as was said here, they are not members of these bodies too.

I want to refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet that if there is a deficiency in our law, we are now taking steps to set up machinery which is completely out of proportion to what we really want to achieve. I said in the Other Place that I was prepared, in view of recent court decisions, to refer the matter of the two exceptions to the Law Revision Committee. They can then be properly considered from a legal point of view, and the necessary recommendations can then be made.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Do you think they will give you a report before four years?

*The MINISTER:

Yes, I have already referred to that. An hon. member asked who the members of the Law Revision Committee were. The members include the Chief Justice, judges of appeal, professors and representatives of the Side Bar and the Bar, to which the hon. member belongs. This body is properly constituted and is in a better position to make legal proposals than the hon. member for Wynberg is.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

My point is, do you think they will reach agreement?

*The MINISTER:

Yes it is possible. I cannot say at the moment, however, when they will submit the report. I fear that what we have heard here this afternoon, has in my opinion not yet been properly formulated. We may just as well forget about the matter of equal guardianship. While the marriage lasts, it is impossible for both parents to have an equal say over the children. In the case of a normal marriage, while everything is still going well, the wife has the say. But when the parents are quarrelling to the extent that they go to court, the time for a divorce has come. The existing laws then prescribe to which parent the children are to be given.

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

The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.

MONDAY, 11TH MARCH, 1968 Prayers—2.20 p.m. RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION BILL (Introduction) The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

I move—

That leave be granted to introduce a Bill to provide for the construction and equipment of a line of railway between Empangeni and Richard’s Bay in the Province of Natal, and for matters incidental thereto.
Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, I am not raising any objection to this motion. On the contrary, we support it. But I take this opportunity, which is the first presented to me in connection with this project, to ask the Minister whether he will bear in mind the negotiations that have taken place in the past in regard to the construction of this railway and the development of harbour facilities at Richard’s Bay, which affect an area which is at the present time a proclaimed nature reserve. The position is that the railway and the development there must inevitably interfere with the protection afforded the nature reserve under the ordinance. We know that this development must come and we welcome it. We realize that there will be interference. Sir, the Minister in the past has been sympathetic to our request that those portions which are needed for development shall be excised piecemeal from the proclaimed nature reserve and that as for the rest they shall remain under our protection so that there is the necessary opportunity for conservation. I bring this to the Minister’s notice and I should be glad if he could perhaps give us a word of assurance that in fact that procedure will be adhered to.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Did the hon. member say “nature reserve” or “native reserve”?

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Nature reserve.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

I give the hon. member the assurance that as far as I am personally concerned I shall do everything in my power to conserve nature.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

WAR GRAVES AMENDMENT BILL

Bill read a Third Time.

PROMOTION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF BANTU HOMELANDS BILL (Second Reading resumed) Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “the Order for the second reading of the Promotion of the Economic Development of Bantu Homelands Bill be discharged and the subject of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to have leave to bring up an amended Bill”.

This Bill combines the objects, operations and powers of the Bantu Investment Corporation Act of 1959, and the Bantu Homelands Development Corporation Act of 1965. The Minister has previously stated that he did not like the structure of these Corporations and therefore he was going to make amendments, and as the result of that we now have this Bill before us. I would like to remind the House that when the original Bantu Investment Corporation Bill was introduced in 1959, we moved that it go to a Select Committee for the reason that we did not like the structure.

We did not think that it was the answer to the problem of how to develop the reserves expeditiously and at the same time on a sound basis. Not only we, but economists and bodies interested in politics and in the economic development of the reserves, had previously expressed their misgivings as to the prospects of developing South Africa as a whole because of the backwardness of the reserves. You will remember, Sir, that prominent economists spoke of the drag on the economy of South Africa, and it was obvious that energetic steps were necessary especially as the policy of separate development, although it was not known by that name at the time, was to be applied. Because of our early criticism, the Tomlinson Commission was appointed by the Government to go into the question of the socioeconomic development of the reserves. This Commission conducted an exhaustive inquiry and produced a very useful report, but unfortunately it was spoilt by two of the members, civil servants, who dissociated themselves from the majority report on a most important recommendation, which dissociation was made after a unanimous recommendation had in fact been accepted. The report stressed the urgency of the matter and it was laid before us in 1955. The Government did not accept the major recommendation, namely that white entrepreneurs be allowed, and in fact be encouraged, to go into the reserves. The then Prime Minister had ideas of his own. Well, nothing much happened and economists and others became more and more critical, and eventually, as a sign of the Government’s earnestness, the Investment Corporation was formed five years after it had been recommended by the Tomlinson Commission. We saw weaknesses in that Act and, as I have said, we proposed then that it should go to a select committee where both sides could discuss the matter impartially and also have the benefit of getting expert witnesses to appear before the select committee to offer their advice. We did not believe that civil servants were the proper people to handle such a gigantic task which required practical experience in economics and business generally. Furthermore, we did not think that the provisions of the Bill disclosed a plan for the economic development of the reserves, nor did we think the board of directors would be able to fulfil its duties adequately or carry out its functions. And we have been proved right again.

We were also concerned with the fact that there was to be no Parliamentary control of the expenditure of the funds. We were not able to scrutinize the accounts to ensure that the money which the public was going to contribute to these funds through taxation would not be wasted. I am not criticizing the personnel. They are, I believe, honourable gentlemen imbued with the highest sense of duty and dedicated to the welfare of the Bantu. It is a noticeable fact that people who visit the reserves and meet the personnel are impressed with their dedication to their duty.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

Then why make these remarks?

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Because I say we do not consider them to be the proper people to carry out this type of development. Their dedication is not sufficient; there must also be the know-how and initiative and also the urge. We foresaw trouble because of the very nature of the problem and knew the Investment Corporation was not the answer. Just as Acts of Parliament will not stop immorality, in the same way Acts of Parliament on their own cannot bring about development.

What was required was enthusiastic cooperation and active participation of men with experience in building up industries, men with vision, and at the same time practical appreciation of all the difficulties involved in establishing industries in undeveloped countries with a raw and completely unskilled labour force, and in most cases operating in areas where there is no raw material. The United Party faced the same difficulty when it was in power, but we tackled it by employing the services of the I.D.C. which had had experience in establishing industries in South Africa, and also by obtaining the assistance of an overseas company which had had experience in establishing industries in other undeveloped countries. We got the two together, and as hon. members know, the result was the Good Hope Textile Industry, an industry of which the country is so proud to-day. In fact, it is a showpiece. Because we had had experience of that sort of thing we on this side had mis-givings about the modus operandi proposed by the Government, and we sought to improve the Government proposition to make it a more effective organ with teeth to tackle its task.

We failed in our efforts, but our prognosis proved true. Little was accomplished, as we had predicted. I do not deny that something was accomplished, but not nearly enough to meet the challenge thrown out by the Tomlinson Commission. Proof of the fact that the Investment Corporation was not fulfilling its task was the introduction in 1965 of the Homelands Development Corporation Bill, which was again an attempt to solve the problem by means of legislation. We were critical of that Bill, but this side gave it our support in the hope that it would improve the efforts of the Investment Corporation which we felt had become bogged down and impotent because of its structure and its restricted powers. Three years after the passing of that Bill, we have only had, as far as I know, one Corporation established, and that is the Xhosa Development Corporation. That the present system is not effective is proved by the growing criticism of economists, including people connected with the implementation of the policy. We have Dr. Olivier, the Commissioner-General. Then there is Mr. Hans Abraham who made a speech at Port Elizabeth in which he suggested that a commission be appointed to go into the work of the previous commission to see what was being done to carry out its recommendations. Then we have Dr. Adendorff who is the Managing Director of the Investment Corporation. I do not know Dr. Olivier, but I do know Dr. Adendorff. I want to say now that I am most impressed with his earnestness and dedication but I fear that he is hamstrung under the existing circumstances. The Prime Minister said, and this is what worries me, that the development must keep pace with the capabilities of the Bantu. He said that the criterion was whether the Bantu could keep up. During a debate in this House during this year he said—

I would say that we are maintaining a good, reasonable pace, as rapid a pace as the Bantu can keep up with.

That apparently is the standard to be set, namely the pace at which the Bantu are to develop. If the ability of the Bantu to keep pace is to be their criterion, there will be very little development indeed. Just recently Mr. Hans Abraham while addressing a party of industrialists in Umtata said that where nothing happens, it is a happening when you start an industry. He went on to give reasons as to why he did not think that there would be any great development in the reserves. He told them what he thought of the Bantu, namely that they had no initiative, no organization ability, no judgment and no responsibility. In fact, all that they did have was an obsession for sex. I do not accept the definition given by the Commissioner-General as to the ability of the Bantu in regard to the establishment of industries. We know that Bantu have established themselves in many industries of their own accord and without assistance from the Government.

But the development which is now taking place has been in keeping with the Prime Minister’s thinking. He has said so. He dictates the policy of the Government. We and everybody else say that the pace is not fast enough and we shall have to leave the Prime Minister behind. Our difficulty is of course to find a way of doing it. We are the Opposition and however much we would like to, we cannot take the lead. All that we can do is to urge on and encourage and by continual nagging hope that the Government will wake up and do something. We had hoped to get something from the Bill. The terms did not give us much encouragement, but we had hoped to hear a dynamic plan from the Minister. But did we get it? What did the Minister offer that is new? He said that provision is made for an advisory body of Bantu to train the Bantu. I submit that it is not sufficient to train the Bantu by merely putting them on an advisory body. I submit that there are some Bantu who could go on to the board itself. Surely that is the best place for them to learn how to run these industries. What else did the hon. the Minister offer? He said that there was provision for the establishment of specialized corporations to deal with mining etc. He mentioned mining especially. But in the same breath he went on to tell us that this is already being done. He was very proud of the fact that under the “ou beleid”, as he called it, they already had 90 agreements with mining institutions for doing the very thing which he now proposes. Another provision was that the corporation would pay licence fees. This is a new provision. I am glad that the hon. the Minister is taking our advice. We were critical previously because the corporations were relieved of the necessities to pay these licence fees.

Clause 23 contains a very interesting provision. The corporation if the trustee approves, and the trustee is of course the State President, can operate outside the Bantu areas and the specified urban areas. The Minister gave as an example that they could deal with wholesalers in white areas. But they are doing that at the moment. This is therefore nothing new and the amendment is unnecessary. I am sure that the Minister must have something else in mind. I see that the Minister shakes his head. It is apparently only the intention that they should deal with wholesalers. They are already doing that and I do not see how that is something new which will bring about further development of the Bantu.

Clause 24 hamstrings the corporation. As I have said before, the trustee is the President who delegates his authority to the Minister. The Minister therefore controls the activities of these corporations. He can tell them how to operate and where to operate. We will there fore have a politician taking his instructions from the Prime Minister and telling them what to do. The Prime Minister, as he himself indicated, believes that the reserves are developing fast enough as the position is to-day. He fears too rapid progress. He has set the standards and the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will have to carry out that policy.

What is also new, is the provision to allow the trustee to pay expenses in building up an infrastructure. That is something that was necessary. I would be glad if the Minister would look at the English and Afrikaans texts of that clause to see if they both mean the same. That is a matter we can discuss in the. Committee Stage.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Which clause?

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Clause 30. We will deal with that in the Committee Stage.

The Minister tells us of the accomplishments of the corporation to-day. They have a textile industry at Umtata, a deboning factory at Umtata, five wholesalers, three bakeries, two mineral water factories, grinding mills and workshops, but no industries giving very much employment. In support of his measure the Minister tells us of the sums of money expended by the corporation as proof of the fact that development is taking place. I want to deal with the question of the funds and the expenditure. The Minister when he introduced the measure, told us that the object was to bring the two corporations in closer contact with the Bantu Trust. As far as the funds of this Bantu Investment Corporation are concerned, their accounts are laid on the Table and we, as members of Parliament, can see the accounts. But what do we have in the accounts? There is a statement as to their profits, their loss and their assets, but that does not give us any detail of how these different undertakings are run. Reference is made to different undertakings. Reference is made, for instance, to a furniture factory at Oshakati. It employs 32 Ovambos; but we do not know whether this is a profitable concern or not. We do not know how the money is being invested there. We know that there are bakeries with a turnover of R175,000 a year. They cover a total area of some 10,500 square miles in service, and they employ 82 Bantu! Again I say this is a negligible amount of employment. Then there is the Transkei meat industry. This industry came into being in 1966. The last report we had is, of course, the report for the year 1966, so we cannot get much detail from these accounts as to how that business is prospering.

There is also talk in the Transkei about the meat industry. There are wild stories of colossal losses. Now, they may be true or they may not be true; probably they are not true. But, Sir, the public does not know what is happening there. There are rumours about it and if Parliament was able to get a copy of that industry’s accounts, if the Auditor-General was able to scrutinize the accounts, then we would certainly know what is happening there. All we know from these accounts which we have here, is that the loss of the Investment Corporation for 1966 was three times the loss in 1965 and five times the loss in 1964. That is all we get. It is a small account. It takes no time to go through it. [Interjection.] My Leader points out that it does not conform with the Companies Act, but the Companies Act, of course does not apply to these corporations. That is another criticism we have of the constitution of these corporations.

We know that the Minister, as I said, wants these corporations closely attached to the Trust. We do know how the Trust is run, because the accounts of the Trust are audited by the Auditor-General. What has happened to the Trust’s business? We have the Auditor-General’s report for 1967—and what a shocking report! I am not going to read the whole of the report but only a few paragraphs of criticism from it. He talks about the accounts having to be submitted to him and suggests that the proper accounts have not been submitted to him. He proceeds to say (Part 3 of his Report, page 682)—

These statements have in my opinion not been drawn up to reflect a true and fair view of the affairs of the Trust. For instance, in addition to omitting the value of land (including acquired improvements thereon; referred to in the footnote to the Statement of Assets and Liabilities by the Accounting Officer, the income and expenditure of the Trust as well as the assets and liabilities are, for example, in the following places either not reflected in the statement or not fully and properly shown …

Then there follows a whole column of instances. Then, on page 683, he says—

On 29th March, 1967, and again on 21st June, 1967. I requested the Accounting Officer to furnish me with schedules of the powers and functions of the Minister, delegated by him, inter alia, in terms of regulation 39 of the Trust Act, No. 18 of 1936, and section 4 (4) of the Act. At the time of writing this report a reply had not been received and consequently I could not satisfy myself as required by section 12 (b) of the Exchequer and Audit Act that all expenditure from the South African Bantu Trust Fund had been properly authorized.

Further on he says—

On 26th October, 1967, I directed the attention of the Accounting Officer to the fact that the administration of certain affairs of the Trust, has, in my opinion contrary to the provisions of the Act, been

entrusted to other bodies, and requested that if he was not in agreement with my view, the matter be referred to the Law Advisers for an opinion.

By the time of writing this report no reply to this had been received. He then proceeds to deal with the development of Bantu townships under the Trust about which he has the following to say on page 684—

With reference to paragraph 4, page 603 of the 1964-’65 report in which mention was made of severe criticism disclosed in an efficiency report by departmental work study officers on the development, planning and management of Bantu townships, and pursuant to the evidence given by the Accounting Officer before the Select Committee on Public Accounts on 19th September, 1966, (Qs. 333-346), inter alia, regarding the validity of the above-mentioned criticism, it appears from a number of recent inspection reports by my inspectors that at 21 townships there were serious weaknesses in planning and management as well as in internal control. These shortcomings, at technical as well as administrative level, involved almost without exception, adverse financial implications for the South African Bantu Trust.

Then he gives us two columns of the most important shortcomings. On page 686 he has the following to say under the heading “Management and administration”—

Ineffective control of the collection of one or more of the following moneys was found at 11 townships, viz. rentals, purchase instalments, service charges, electricity extension and meter installation costs. Buildings at one township were occupied by private institutions and businesses, including one belonging to a member of the personnel, without rentals or service charges being collected.

Further on he says—

At eight townships overpayments to building contractors occurred as a result of inefficient control of payments and contract documents not being properly completed.
Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

What has that got to do with this Bill? [Interjections.]

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

I quote this in order to demonstrate the importance and the advantage of having accounts of this nature audited by the Controller and Auditor-General, because had the Controller and Auditor-General not inspected these accounts we would have known nothing about these irregularities. I submit that the same can happen with these corporations. We will not know how they will invest their monies; we will not know whether or not that money will be wasted through maladministration, inefficiency, and all these other things which the Auditor-General finds is happening to the Bantu Trust. Furthermore, the Minister himself said that he wanted these corporations more closely connected with the Trust. Therefore we ask that the Auditor-General be brought into this matter and that provision be made for him to audit the accounts of these corporations so that we, the watchdogs on behalf of the taxpayer, can see what is happening to his money. What is happening to the Trust should act as a guide to us. That is why we are not impressed by the Minister’s statement about millions being spent on this and millions being spent on that. We do not look upon the spending of large sums of money as proof that large scale development is taking place. We look for results and what we want to see particularly is large employment figures. But this we are not getting. I want to give an example of this. In reply to a question put to him by me the other day the hon. the Minister said that large amounts of money had been paid for trading stations and that the Government had taken over 175 trading stations in the Transkei. This is not necessarily part of the Government’s development plans but as a result of a promise which was made to compensate traders in that area. However, of the 175 trading stations taken over only 71 are managed by Bantu—the others by Whites and Coloureds.

Dr. Adendorff, the managing director of the Bantu Investment Corporation and the man who can speak with most authority, addressed Sabra last year on this question of the development of the reserves. It must be remembered that the late Prime Minister had also been opposed to too fast a development of the reserves. Now, Dr. Adendorff in his speech to Sabra quoted from a speech made by the present Prime Minister last year and also from a speech made by the present Minister of Bantu Administration in which they indicated that this development should not be too fast. Dr. Adendorff in his address said—

Terwyl ons volksleiers des te meer bewus is van die gevaar van oormatige hulp van buite en graag sou wil sien dat die Bantoe uit eie krag ontwikkel, verkeer die Regering in ietwat van ’n dilemma aangesien die ontwikkeling van die Bantoetuislande te stadig vorder. Teen die huidige tempo sal die Bantoetuislande nooit in staat wees om die toename in ’n bevolking to absorbeer en van ’n menswaardige bestaan te verseker nie en wat nog van die miljoene Bantoe wat geleidelik gerepatrieer moet word vanuit ons blanke gebiede na die Bantoetuislande?

He goes on to point out that over a period of 15 years we would have to find jobs for 585,000 Bantu—in other words, an average of 39,000 per annum. But three years have already gone by without us coming anywhere near that figure. He goes on—

Teen die tempo waarteen ontwikkeling tans geskied. sal die Bantoetuislande eenvoudig nooit daardie aantal Bantoemans wat

jaarliks ekonomies bedrywig word van werk kan voorsien nie … Dit is myns insiens absoluut noodsaaklik dat met in agneming van die gevare verbonde aan ’n te snelle ontwikkeling, die ontwikkeling van die tuislande versnel moet word. Ook is ek nie oortuig dat indian versnelde ontwikkeling in die Bantoetuislande aan die gang gesit word dit die Bantoe sal ontwrig nie. As ons dit dan op sosiale gebied gedoen en nie verkeerdelik gedoen het nie, hoekom dan nie op ekonomiese gebied nie? Hoekom kan ons nie vir hulle fabrieke, myne, ens., vestig nie en hulle in daardie bedrywe oplei om hulle self te help nie? As ons dit nie doen nie hoe gaan hulle ooit in staat wees om die take self te verrig?

He also referred to the fact that the Bantu themselves were worried and he said—

Hierdie feite het die hoofminister van die Transkei, Keizer Matanzima, op 20 April 1967 genoop om voor die Wetgewende Vergadering te sê dat die Republiek se Volksraadslede nie moet praat van repatriasie van Xhosas uit Wes-Kaapland totdat nywerhede om werk te verskaf daargestel is nie.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

They did get employment.

An HON. MEMBER:

Where?

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

He also said this—

Wat die fabriekswese betref was die vordering nie noemenswaardig nie …

That is in connection with the Trust—

… en bestaan daar tans slegs sowat 400 klein ondernemings in die Bantoetuislande waarvan die oorgrote meerderheid klein bakkerye en hamermeule is. Van die 400 klein fabrieksondernemings is sowat 150 nog in die hande van Blankes.

Sir, if we ever had an indictment against the Government’s policy of development and its achievements, then we had it here from the man who is responsible for carrying out the policy.

Sir, I have quoted from what Chief Kaizer Matanzima said. I would like hon. members on the Government side to read the report of the debates which took place in the Transkeian Parliament last year. In debate after debate this question of the development of the reserves was raised by those members. This is the forum where they can discuss this matter and hon. members will find if they read the debates that the members of the Transkeian Parliament repeatedly expressed their concern. I asked the hon. the Minister the other day what industries had been established by the Bantu in the Transkei, and his reply was that one Bantu beer brewery had been established at Butterworth. I do not think that answer was correct. As far as I know that brewery was established by the Xhosa Development Corporation. I have raised this question with the Department and they are going into the matter again. But, Sir, what an achievement when one Bantu beer brewery is established!

I want to make it quite clear that we have not been and are not opposed to the development of the reserves. An attempt is made—I admit sometimes successfully—to accuse the United Party of being opposed to the economic development of the reserves because we are critical of the methods adopted by this Government, and they link our criticism of the granting of ultimate independence to the reserves with opposition to economic development. That, of course, is absolute nonsense. Our policy is to let the Bantu govern themselves to the fullest extent but always under the umbrella of the central Parliament because we regard the reserves as being part of South Africa. But not only do we say that they must govern themselves, we go further: We say that they must endeavour to maintain themselves and their offspring, not on a living standard below the bread-line but on a standard which will give them self-respect and a genuine desire to improve their lot from year to year in the same way that we want the standard of living of all other groups to rise every year. Our policy is to maintain as many of the Bantu as possible in the reserves or the homelands, as General Smuts once christened them, but in order to do that we have to provide the wherewithal to accommodate and feed them there. The reserves must be made sufficiently attractive to entice the Africans back to them. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration wishes to entice them back by making the urban townships less attractive by offering them fewer amenities. Sir, that is not the way. I do not wish to discuss that now; we will have an opportunity to do so later on. The point I want to make is that the Bantu reserves must be made more attractive. After all, they are the natural homelands, so they should start off with a big advantage over foreign urban areas.

Sir, how do you make them more attractive? In the first place, by giving employment to the people who live there. Without employment the inhabitants cannot get food for themselves or their families; without employment they cannot do all the things that we like to do besides feed ourselves. They want decent homes; they want a family life, enjoyment of the normal amenities, an opportunity to give their children a proper education so that they can provide adequately for themselves, security against illness and a happy old age free from worry about a roof over their heads or starvation. In fact, all the things we want they want, but under present conditions they cannot get it. Suitable employment must be given to them. What is the position to-day in the reserves? The majority of the people there live on small uneconomic agricultural plots. They cannot eke out an existence there so they have to go out as migrant workers. Sir, they do not wish to do that. That is quite clear from the discussions in the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. They do not wish to go out to work as migrant labourers but they are forced to do so. Those who want to become farmers cannot become farmers because of the system of land tenure. Sir, we are opposed to the present system. The Bantu are there on small uneconomic holdings.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is very far away from the Bill now. He is offering general criticism of the administration.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

I submit, with respect, Sir, that part of the development of the reserves is agricultural development as well. The Tomlinson Commission, which I am going to quote in a moment, dealt especially with agricultural development. It is not only industrial development.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is drifting far away from the provisions and the objects of the Bill.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Sir, economic development does not only mean industrial development; it also includes agricultural development. May I just give an example. In dealing with the question of the socio-economic development of the reserves the Tomlinson Commission dealt at length with the question of agricultural development, to make the farmers there self-sufficient.

*Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

There we have the Kalahari of the supporters of the United Party.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

I have said that those who want to become farmers cannot do so because of the system of land tenure and the small uneconomic holdings. Some of them with a lot of stock and fertile land may be able to exist but that is not enough; they want to do more than that. The Tomlinson Commission recognized the difficulties and found that it would be necessary to change the present system of land tenure to create a stable and productive system of agriculture under which the Bantu would endeavour to become farmers, because they said that it had been shown conclusively that the Bantu areas cannot carry their present population as full-time farmers. The commission recommended granting freehold title to full-time farmers, with holdings of a sufficient size to enable them to farm properly. Sir, we support that recommendation and we supported this idea long before the Tomlinson Commission reported. However, there is one big snag before it can be applied. The people at present living on the land will have to be taken off, and they cannot be taken off the land until suitable employment is found for them in other industries. Unless there is large-scale development in the reserves to take these people off the land, they will have to remain on the land and they will never become self-sufficient farmers. If land is to be found in the reserves to provide a living for the Bantu there, it will have to be a better standard of living than they are now enjoying in order to attract them away from the land to other industries, and to get them to live in the towns in the reserves, and the way to do that is by establishing industries inside their own areas. They cannot do it; we have to help them, and I suggest that these corporations are not the bodies to do it. They have failed. As we have so often said, the only way to achieve our object and the object of the Government is to encourage white capital and white initiative, not ad lib. as the hon. member suggests we want to do, but under control, control mainly exercised by prohibiting the acquisition of land in the reserves.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

Will you tell us more about that control?

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

During this debate we will tell you a lot about it. I have said that it would be mainly controlled through the prohibition of the acquisition of land in the Native areas. That is as the law stands at present. [Interjections.] How often must we tell that hon. Deputy Minister that what we mean by free capital is not Government capital; it is private capital. I will call it free white capital now, to make it quite clear. The late Prime Minister said that if we allowed in white capital, white bosses would go in to manage that private white capital, and they would take with them staff. With the staff would go their families, and with the families would be the children, and you would have to have schools with white teachers to teach the children, and you would need churches with white ministers to minister to the needs of those people. You would have to have white storekeepers to attend to them, and white professional men to assist them. That is what Dr. Verwoerd foresaw. In fact, he foresaw the application of Parkinson’s law, and that was one of the reasons why he was opposed to white capital going into the reserves. But there is no doubt that with Dr. Verwoerd’s passing, new thoughts are being expressed, departing from the Verwoerd line. I want to quote what Mr. Dirk Richard had to say.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order ! What has that to do with the Bill?

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

The Bill controls the admission of white capital into the reserves. That is the whole object of the Bill, to bring about development but not by allowing free white capital to enter the reserves; it must all be done through the Government agencies. I am attacking that principle, and I am supporting the line taken by the Tomlinson Commission, which went into this very question of the economic development of the reserves, and that is after all what we are discussing here now.

Mr. Dirk Richard, in an article “Na My Mening”, said this—

’n Dekade gelede was dit politieke taboe om prof. F. R. Tomlinson se voorskrif vir die ontwikkeling van tuislande met beheerde blanke kapitaal en inisiatief te propageer. Dit is ’n vèrsiendheid wat nou bevestig is, maar hoeveel verlore jare IX nie tussen-in nie?

And an article in Volkshandel of February this year says this—

Wyle dr. Hendrik Verwoerd was gekant teen blanke kapitaal in die Bantoetuislande, onder andere omdat die beskuldiging van kolonialisme en uitbuiting daarteen gemaak kan word. Filosofies is dit ook korrek dat die blanke as voog die swartman help om self te ontwikkel en sy eie kapitaal op te bou—in plaas van dat blanke kapitaal ’n wurggreep op die swart ekonomie van die tuislande kry. Die ontwikkelingstempo, indien die Bantoe op eie stoom ontwikkel, nieteenstaande alle advise en hulp van die blanke voogde, sal in die praktyk so stadig wees dat dit maar vir ’n kleinere gedeelte van die moontlike 30 miljoen Bantoebevolking aan die end van die end ’n heenkome sal kan bied. Die beleid van selfstandige ontwikkeling van die Bantoe in sy eie gebied kan dus skipbreuk ly omrede dit te stadig geskied om aan die stygende Bantoebevolking ’n bestaan te bied.

They go on further to say—

Met die nodige voorsorg dat die Bantoe ook daarby baat, is blanke inisiatief en kapitaal die enigste praktiese manier om die ontwikkeling van die Bantoegebiede te versnel. As daar vroegtydig hiermee begin word, kan dit teen die end van die end ’n belangrike rol speel om die verswarting van ons blanke stede te verhoed.

I hope that all the hon. members opposite have read the publication by Stellenbosch University. Mercator. In the last edition there is an article by Professor Sadie, one of our most prominent economists, who says the following—

Waarskynlik die mees fantastiese aanklag teen blanke sakemanne is dat huile nie na die Bantoegebiede sou wou gaan om die Bantoe nie, maar om hulle selfsugtige belange te dien. Gelukkig dat ondernemers hierdie geaardheid het, anders was ons lewenstandaard vandag nog baie laag. Die klein aantal wat jare gelede voorgehou het dat hulle nie hulleself wou verryk nie, maar slegs die „volk wou dien”, het sonder uitsondering geskitter deur hulle gebrek aan sukses. Die winsmotief en aanverwante prikkels waarin die eiebelang uitdrukking mag vind, was verantwoordelik vir die ekonomiese groei wat daar in Suid-Afrika, soos in ander ontwikkelde lande, plaasgevind het. Dit is die afwesigheid van hierdie motief wat van die Bantoegebiede ’n ekonomiese agterlike gebied maak.

[Interjection.] The hon. member asks why I read this. It is because the Minister says the profit motive is not the main motive, and they appeal to the white men to go in there as an act of charity to help the Bantu. I am quoting this to show what Professor Sadie said of that idea. We agree with Professor Sadie. This will not attract white capital. He says, further—

Dus, verre daarvan dat blanke ondernemers toegelaat word op voorwaarde dat hulle die ultrustiese nastrewe van die Bantoe se belange as leidende motief aanvaar, moet hulle aangespoor word om daarheen te gaan deur die moontlikhede van finansiële sukses vir hul ondernemings voor te hou. Hoe groter hierdie sukses, hoe meer Bantoes sal in diens geneem kan word, hoe groter lone sal uitbetaal word, en hoe meer winste sal herinvesteer kan word om verdere werkgeleenthede te skep.
*Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

If you read a little further, you will agree with us in a moment.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

I think we should take the advice of Professor Sadie. He answers the point raised by the Minister that we must go there through altruism, as an act of charity, and that the white man must invest his money in the reserves. The Government’s policy will not work. You will not get development that way. Whether the Government is genuine in its attempts to develop the reserves or not, we do not know. If it is in earnest, surely it will admit that by all standards, except the Prime Minister’s, it has failed. More and more Bantu are leaving the reserves every month to look for work. They have to do so, especially in this year of drought. I have quoted from their own forum to prove that they themselves are worried and concerned. We, the Opposition, are just as concerned, and that is why I have moved this amendment, that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading, in the hope that the Government will accept it as a gesture of our desire to co-operate in this most important project, so that we can get together with experts in the different fields, with financiers, with industrialists and economists and all the other people involved in industrial development, and with the officials themselves. We should all get together in a Select Committee which is not bound by the principles contained in this Bill. Those principles have already been embodied in two other Acts, and they have failed. The very necessity for this Bill is proof of the failure of those other two corporations. We say now is the time for us to get together, because whether the Government’s policy of separate development is applied, or whether our policy of race federation is applied, it is essential and a matter of urgency that the reserves be developed. Unless they are developed they will be a drag on the rest of the economy and on the country. I do hope the Government will take notice of what we on this side have to say on this occasion and not merely brush us aside as they did on previous occasions. I trust they will accept our offer of assistance in this matter.

*Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Transkei moved as an amendment that this Bill should be referred to a select committee. He advanced various arguments in support of his motion, and he elaborated exhaustively, very exhaustively, on this matter. We had to endure his lengthy and verbose speech for an hour, a speech in which I fear very little was said about the actual principles of the Bill itself. One of the arguments the hon. member advanced, was that in respect of these instruments—as the hon. the Minister called them —which are being placed at the disposal of the Trust, the Auditor-General would not have access to the documents and accounts of the companies or corporations. In support of this argument the hon. member dragged in certain assertions and reports that emanated from the Auditor-General in regard to the activities of the Trust over the past year. I think the hon. member did not have much to say; that is why he dragged this matter into the discussion. Surely, as an experienced parliamentarian the hon. member knows that this type of debate should really be conducted when the Vote of the Minister concerned with this particular matter, is brought up for discussion in this House. His arguments have no bearing whatsoever on the principles of this measure.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

That must still be submitted to the Select Committee.

*Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

The report from which the hon. member quoted, has as yet not even been submitted to the Select Committee. It will be dealt with here in due course, and then there will be ample opportunity for discussing it. Why drag this matter into the discussions here? Since the hon. member really had nothing to say, it would have been better for him to have remained seated instead of bringing up that matter.

I want to point out that the United Party is once again, as of old. blowing hot and cold. The hon. member said that the accounts of the corporations would not be submitted to this House or to the Auditor-General so that they might be inspected. He advanced this fact as a reason why this Bill should be referred to a select committee. I want to point out to the hon. member that the hon. member for Kensington has repeatedly advocated in this House that the I.D.C., Escom and other corporations should maintain closer liaison with the Department of Commerce and Industries. The Government has now introduced this Bill here, a measure which seeks to establish much closer liaison between the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and the corporations dealing with Bantu administration, affairs and matters.

*Mr. P. A. MOORE:

Your trouble is that you did not understand my speech.

*Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

Well, I must say that only a genius could ever understand the United Party’s inconsistencies.

The hon. member advanced as a second reason that the United Party’s objection was against the structure of the development which is being envisaged by the corporation, just as the Minister’s objection is also against the structure. May I point out that what the objection against the structure amounts to, is that the United Party regards the Bantu administration and development by the various corporations concerned with these matters, as a part of South Africa as a whole. They actually envisage the integration of everything, of the Bantu administration and development with white development and white administration. They want to see all of it as a unit, and that is why they are objecting to this structure. They really envisage integration, and we know it. The hon. the Minister’s objection against the structure relates to aspects which are quite different from those that side wants to suggest.

Let me pause at the objection against the present structure. In this measure the concept of trusteeship or guardianship receives much more emphasis and is, to a much greater extent, brought into and integrated with the corporations concerned, such as the B.I.C. and the development corporations. Let me point out to hon. members that the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936 laid down the principle that the white state would be the guardian of all the Bantu peoples in South Africa. It is the guardian or trustee through the head of the white state, i.e. the Governor-General at that time and the State President at present. May I point out then that that trusteeship covers every sphere of the Bantu’s life, namely the socio-moral, the political and the economic spheres. I want to quote briefly from the Act to point out the field that was covered by that trusteeship. In that Act it is provided, inter alia, that—

The interests of Natives in scheduled Native areas must be advanced as far as the agricultural and pastoral and other industries are concerned, as must be the general material, moral and social well-being of Natives residing on such land.

Therefore it covered the entire field of all their interests.

In 1959 we had an Act, the Bantu Investment Corporation Act, in terms of which the economic development of the Bantu peoples in the Bantu homelands were to be developed. This task was entrusted to a corporation which was designed on the lines of other State corporations. It was an autonomous body, independent of the Bantu Trust. The B.I.C.’s basis was that of a utility company and not that of a trusteeship body. In this measure justice is once again done to that trusteeship concept, also in this corporation. In 1959 it was not subordinate to the Trust or the Trustee. It was established to integrate with the wide field that was covered previously by the Trustee but was then taken away from the Trustee and given to a particular corporation. What it amounted to, was that the trust property entrusted to the Trustee was transferred to an autonomous body whose primary object was not that of trusteeship. By means of this measure the trust property is once again placed under trusteeship, since that corporation will no longer be autonomous but subordinate to the Trustee.

In 1965 we had, on the same pattern as the B.I.C., the development corporations, i.e. a separate one for each Bantu homeland. But the trusteeship concept was not embodied again in the Act which established and controlled the development corporation. In this Bill we are once again bringing this concept back under the trusteeship of the Trustee in order that the trusteeship concept may be carried through. Previously neither of those two corporations were co-trustees. They were simply not even partners of the Trustee. They were simply separate from the Trustee, and therefore the Trustee did not have any control and could not use it as an effective instrument. That is why we are pleased about the reintroduction of this trusteeship principle into the structure of the B.I.C. and the Development Corporation. I would have expected the hon. member for Transkei to have been able to elaborate on this much more, but he evaded it. He cannot claim that the United Party is opposed to the trustee concept as far as the trusteeship of the Bantu peoples in South Africa is concerned.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

When did I say that?

*Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

I said that I would have expected you to have elaborated much more on that, because I do assume that the United Party is still in favour of the idea that the white state should act as the guardian of the non-white peoples and that we may not entrust that trusteeship to autonomous bodies. But I come to the strange argument the hon. member for Transkei used in this regard. He said that this legislation was being introduced because the B.I.C. and the development corporations had failed. Where does he get that from? It is the greatest foolishness I have ever heard. They are not in liquidation yet. [Interjections.] Money is being poured into them because their activities are expanding. The hon. member knows that, and the hon. the Minister furnished figures in that regard. Those corporations are doing very good work. But their structure hampers them in their work. They must continue that work under the supervision and with the assistance of the Trustee. That is all we are seeking to achieve by means of this legislation. This legislation was not introduced because these corporations were unsuccessful. On the contrary, they are operating so well that their continued existence is being ensured by this specific Bill. If they had been unsuccessful, it would not have been written into this Bill that they should continue to exist and that they should continue with their activities. The only difference is that they are no longer going to operate as autonomous bodies, but that they are going to continue their activities in collaboration with the Trustee.

Now I come to a further argument that was advanced by the hon. member for Transkei. He said that he wanted this Bill to be referred to a select committee, because this work could not be carried out by public servants and because they were not the right persons to be entrusted with such an important task. I do not think that one of the members who have been working for the corporations so far, has been a public servant. Is the hon. member so uninformed that he does not know that the people who are working for the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Bantu Development Corporation, are not public servants? In fact, they are businessmen. The father of the hon. member for Standerton was the chairman of the B.I.C. for many years. He was one of the best and most outstanding businessmen we have ever had in South Africa. He built up an empire of his own. He knew everything about particularized initiative and private capital. At no stage in his life was he a public servant. He was the chairman of the B.I.C. That hon. member and the other hon. members opposite ought to know that. None of the officials working for the B.I.C. are public servants. They are all drawn from various spheres of society and work for the B.I.C. Now he objects to the public servants and says that a select committee should be appointed. The same applies to the Development Corporation. But apart from that, the hon. member knows that the 1936 Act was introduced by the United Party. The United Party entrusted all this work to public servants. All of them, without exception, were public servants. At that time this side of the House did not request that this work should not be entrusted to public servants. Why does the United Party not repudiate their own Government which placed this Act on the Statute Book in 1936, or have they perhaps forgotten again? We know that they are changing their policy so rapidly that they themselves cannot keep pace with it.

This measure establishes a connection between the Trust, the B.I.C., the development corporations and those corporations which are being established for specific projects. I am sorry that the hon. member for Transkei did not pause at this point for a moment, i.e. this provision which is now providing for corporations for specific projects. Now for the first time we are given a juridically accurate and also, as far as the National Party is concerned, an ideologically accurate view of the entire principle of how the Bantu in South Africa should develop.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

The Minister said that this was the old policy.

*Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

Yes, it is the old policy. We do not have a new policy every day. It is a better view of our policy. The hon. member must bear in mind that we had as a basis an old U.P. Act which we had to change and amend all the time so that it might fit in with our policy. The hon. member forgets that we have had to build on the bad foundations laid by the United Party, foundations which we have to change now. The Minister needs means and instruments for developing and promoting the interests of the Bantu nations for whom we are acting as guardians. Let me explain how this Bill makes provision for these things. It envisages one instrument for the white Trustee. That is the B.I.C., the umbrella body. That is its economic instrument for looking after the interests of all the Bantu nations in South Africa. Then a second instrument is being created by means of this legislation. That is the development corporation for each individual Bantu nation. This second instrument should actually be regarded as the instrument of that particular Bantu nation for its own economic development. Once they have developed to that stage where they can look after their own affairs, that particular development corporation of that particular nation will really be its I.D.C., just as the Whites have their I.D.C., which was established to develop them economically. Similarly, in the case of those nations this will also be their own economic instrument. That is why it is so interesting that this particular new measure has been embodied in this legislation in terms of which it is being provided that the activities of the boards of directors of those development corporations may gradually be taken over by Bantu boards of directors. They start as advisory bodies which will be granted powers in the course of time. Later on those advisory bodies will have full status and will be enabled to look after that instrument.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Where does it get such powers in terms of this Bill?

*Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

If the hon. member had read this Bill attentively, he would have seen that the State President may from time to time grant certain powers to that advisory board of directors. He may from time to time increase those powers. When he increases the powers of that board of directors, he would of course be decreasing the powers of the white board of directors. Surely that is obvious, because two boards of directors cannot exercise the same power in regard to the same matter. In due course the instrument created by this legislation will become the instrument of that particular nation. That is the way we envisage it and that is the way it will develop. That is what we learnt in regard to Bantu universities. What the National Party introduced, was a very good and a new policy, namely to teach the Bantu gradually, as they develop, to take over their own affairs.

But now this hon. member has a large number of objections to the very things the hon. the Prime Minister said in this House. He said that the Bantu could not develop more rapidly than the Bantu themselves could absorb such development. Apparently the hon. member wants the development in the Bantu areas to take place at a tremendously fast rate. He claims that at the present stage of the development of the Bantu, such rapid development can indeed only take place with the aid of white skill and white capital. The Whites are hundreds of years ahead of the Bantu. If that development has to take place, it would be of absolutely no use to the Bantu, because they would not be able to absorb it. In other words, instead of a Bantu state or a Bantu homeland, a new white homeland would be created in a Bantu homeland. The Transkei would no longer be preserved for the Xhosas but it would be taken over by the Whites i.e. if the policy of the United Party were implemented. We know that this is their policy; they would like to have it that way. They are aiming at integration. We know that. They do not want separate nations in South Africa. They want one coffee-coloured nation in South Africa. Therefore we know what they are aiming at. That is why they are taking such a firm stand on that point.

Mr. Speaker, it is a significant fact that a nation cannot make faster progress than its state of development permits. It is our first task as wards to bring that nation to spiritual maturity before we can bring it to economic maturity. We are not the only people who say that, but we find to-day that there also UN experts who say so. May I point out that this question of the development of backward countries is not peculiar to South Africa only. At the moment there is a congress in India which is deliberating on this specific question. They are faced with the same problem we have, namely that one cannot give the backward countries economic development without developing the masses themselves so that they will be able to cope with such economic development. Otherwise it is of no use to those people. Surely, the hon. member should realize that. There is nothing wrong with it, and I am in favour of it. I believe that none of us can accelerate it. I wish the hon. member would give us the secret formula for making those people capable of absorbing the development at a faster rate, a formula which is different from this method, which is the slow and permanent one that we have to follow. The people have to be developed before economic development can take place.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

What did you say last time when you returned from Hammarsdale?

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

He was pleased to get away from you.

*Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out that the pattern which is being followed in creating these instruments for the Bantu in the economic sphere, is also being applied in other spheres of the life of the Bantu. In order to allow the Bantu to develop in the political sphere, this Government has created separate instruments, such as the national authorities and the tribal authorities, to prepare those people for this development.

In the social sphere, too, we find the same development, in that we have established certain welfare organizations amongst the Bantu so as to allow them to take care of their own social development. Those organizations can only effect social development as the Bantu themselves develop.

In this regard I just want to say that I hope that in establishing towns in the Bantu areas for example—about which the hon. member had so much to say this afternoon—we shall also give consideration to establishing some auxiliary body or other. I want to suggest that we make use of the Resettlement Board to undertake the work in that regard.

Now we come to the concept of agencies as against the concept of private enterprise. The hon. gentlemen are all pleading for private white capital and skill in the Bantu homelands. As opposed to that we are putting forward the concept of agencies. Between these two concepts there is yet another policy, namely that of partnership. I do not know whether the United Party, too, is in favour of the partnership concept, but I do know that this concept was strongly propagated by Dr. Anton Rupert. But I want to point out that that concept will have the same result as that of private white capital. There will simply be a take-over by the superior capital and skill. The weaker capital and skill will be ousted and destroyed and integration will be promoted.

In regard to the agency concept I just want to mention that the underlying principle of this concept is that the work is always being done not in the interests of the agent, but in those of the principal. The principal in this case is the Trustee. The Trustee is the representative of the nation which is under trusteeship. In other words, through the agency work will always be done for the benefit of the nation under trusteeship and never for the benefit of the agent. But when it comes to private enterprise the person concerned enters the field with one idea only, namely to make as much profit as possible. He goes there to expand his business interests to such an extent that he may enrich himself as much as possible in the shortest time possible. That can only lead to one end result, namely economic colonialism and nothing else. This is nothing less than exploitation. The underlying principle of the partnership concept is the fact that the partner—in this case the less skilful and moneyed person, the Bantu—will be ousted, and that, despite the fact that they are working for their common benefit, the person who has the most capital and the greatest skill, will derive the biggest profits and benefit from it. Then only one kind of pattern of development remains, namely the agency concept, where that development must always take place for the benefit of the nation under trusteeship and never for the benefit of the agent. The agent is, of course, paid for what he does. He receives his remuneration. But he is remunerated for services he performs, and that is the underlying idea with which we are dealing here. He must perform the service there, but it is always to the advantage of the person under trusteeship, the nation under trusteeship.

The hon. member quoted in this regard from what Dr. Adendorff had said. The impression I gained—and I was present at that congress—was that that was not what he had said. He expressed all sorts of stimulating ideas, but nowhere in his speech did he say that the private enterprise and skill of the Whites should be utilized so as to allow the development to take place there. Nowhere in that speech will you find that, Sir. He was holding forth on the rate of development which was supposedly not fast enough for the problems in store for South Africa. That is something we all know; it is the problem with which we are faced. We know that there are tremendous problems, and for us as Whites the rate is too slow. But we simply cannot help it, because we must also be realists. We must also accept it as a fact that the nations we are dealing with, develop slowly. We cannot accelerate their development. We are causing it to be as fast as possible. That is a problem we are faced with. We all know that. Mr. Speaker, we would have been pleased if the United Party had told us what their practical solution in this regard would be. But they did not say anything about that. They did not give us one jot or tittle of their plan. No, the hon. member wants a select committee to be appointed, yet another committee on a matter to which they are objecting. They want us to work out a policy for them on that committee, because they do not have one. We have a policy, and we intend to go on with it. Why do they want a select committee to be appointed in that regard? Here is the answer: We have a policy and we do not need a select committee, but the Opposition does not have a policy and that is why they need a select committee.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Sir, I am not prepared to cover more than one or two of the points dealt with by the hon. member who has just sat down. First and foremost I would like to refer to the statement which he made some ten minutes ago when he fell back on that barren argument which is used by hon. members opposite so often when they are dealing with non-European affairs, namely that we on this side of the House are opposed to it and that we do not appreciate what the Government is doing because we stand for integration as far as the non-European peoples are concerned. Sir, may I suggest that that has nothing whatever to do with this Bill, and in any case the hon. member knows that that is not correct. He knows perfectly well that it is not true. That is just a sort of gimmick; it is a cliohé which hon. members opposite use when they have nothing else to say. It is not true and the hon. member knows that it is not true.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is now accusing the hon. member of telling a lie.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

I say that the hon. member knows that that is not true. Our attitude is perfectly clear from our documents and from statements which have been made over and over again in this House, and if the hon. member makes a statement like that, in conflict with what we have said in this House, then he is accusing us of saying something that is not true. That is the position. The hon. member is saying that we are guilty of telling lies when we say that that is our policy.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member can refute those arguments, but he cannot say that the hon. member knows that what he is saying is not true.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Sir, that is not our policy. We have repudiated that statement here repeatedly. The hon. member knows that we have repudiated it.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member is quite entitled to do that, but he is not entitled to say that the hon. member knows that he is telling an untruth.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

I did not say that he was telling an untruth, with respect, Sir. I said that we had often repudiated that statement. The hon. member knows that we have done so, but he uses this now as a gimmick when he has nothing else to say. He simply says in a general way, “Hon. members on the other side stand for integration.”

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member said that the hon. member for Heilbron knew that what he was saying was not true.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

He knows that we do not stand for integration. I repeat it. He can’t deny it. He knows that we do not stand for integration. We have said so in this House repeatedly.

Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

You may have said so but you still stand for integration.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

You see, Sir, what we have to deal with. I want to deal with one or two points made by the hon. member.

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

Sir, on a point of order, did I understand your ruling correctly? The hon. member accused the hon. member for Heilbron of having fold an untruth, and he went on to say that the hon. member knew that what he was saying was untrue.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I drew the hon. member’s attention to the fact that he had said that the hon. member for Heilbron knew that what he was saying was not true. He is entitled to say that the statement made by the hon. member is not true, but he is not entitled to say that the hon. member knew that it was not true.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Sir, he said that it was our policy.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member can refute that, but he may not say that the hon. member knew that that statement was not true.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

With submission, then, Sir, I say that it is not true. We have repeatedly denied it in this House and in our documents. I hope we will hear no more of this from any hon. member on that side of the House, because if they do then they will be repeating something which they know is not true.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must only withdraw the statement that the hon. member for Heilbron “knew”, that what he was saying was not true.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

I withdraw that.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member for Heilbron interjected, “You may say these things, but you still stand for integration”, implying that the hon. member for South Coast is lying.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

I say that you stand for integration.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

He is implying that the hon. member is lying.

Mr. SPEAKER:

No, that is a question of opinion.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

With great respect, Sir, the hon. member for South Coast has again said that he does not stand for integration. The hon. member for Heilbron now says, “You may say that you do not stand for integration, but I say you do stand for it.” [Interjections.]

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Sir, we know what we know and we think what we think. I say that to the hon. the Deputy Minister and any hon. member who has made that remark.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

I say that you stand for integration.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

When the hon. the Deputy Minister was on this side of the House he stood for integration; that was one of the reasons why we kicked him out.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Transkei was attacked by the hon. member for Heilbron. Amongst other things he said that the hon. member had not dealt with the principles of this Bill. Of course he did and, if I may say so, he did so in a very capable manner indeed. He went on and’ showed he was against the principle of the Bill? and in what respect. The hon. member for Heilbron said that we had changed our policy since the first Bill came before Parliament, that is to say, the Bill dealing with the setting up of the Investment Corporation.

Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

No, the 1936 Act was the first one.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Sir, the Investment Corporation was the root of the whole thing in 1959. May I read out to the hon. member what our amendment was at the third reading? The hon. member for Constantia moved the following amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House declines to pass the Third Reading of the Bill because (a) its provisions do not clearly disclose the plan for the economic development of the native areas, (b) the board of directors as envisaged in the Bill will be unable to fulfil its duties and functions impartially or adequately and (c) the provision for Parliamentary control will be ineffective. (Hansard, 23rd March, 1959, col. 2965.)

Sir, that Bill is being re-enacted, and the hon. member for Transkei went to great lengths to show how right we were in moving that amendment in 1959. He dealt at some length, very adequately and properly, with the comments of the Controller and Auditor General. I would have thought that at that point the hon. the Minister would have got up and asked for a select committee to inquire into the report of the Controller and Auditor-General in regard to the expenditure of the moneys of the Bantu Trust. As my hon. friend pointed out, the funds of the Bantu Trust are subject to the control of the Controller and Auditor-General, but these funds that we are dealing with here and the funds of the Investment Corporation set up in 1959 are not audited by the Controller and Auditor-General; that is the point. If there was an inquiry at the present time into the activities of that corporation since it was first established, what will we find? Who knows? Here, Sir, one of the basic principles of Parliament is being violated, the principle that we shall not vote money until we are satisfied as to the purposes and the method of control. This principle goes right back to the days of William Pitt the younger and all parliamentary control of finance is based on the principle that there must be an annual report back to Parliament as to the way in which the money voted by Parliament was spent. We in Parliament cannot sit as auditors. We set up an instrument for that purpose; we set up an official, the Controller and Auditor-General, with staff under him, to do this work and to report back to us. Here we have the Auditor-General’s report, which discloses a shocking state of affairs in regard to the moneys of the Bantu Trust. When my hon. friend says that the officials in the Department of Bantu Administration who are attached to the Bantu Trust are not the appropriate people to deal with organizations of the kind contemplated in this Bill, it is no good the hon. member for Heilbron coming along and saying that these people are very capable and so on and so forth. Sir, I think that an inquiry might be held to good purpose one day to find out what we are asking the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration to undertake to-day. I wonder whether we realize what burden we are placing upon their shoulders. Every single conceivable law that we pass nowadays seems to have some kind of aspect which is applicable, somewhere or other, to the Bantu people, placing a further burden on the officials of that Department. Sir, these officials are not people who are qualified to set up organizations of this kind. It is not their job; it is not their business. What does Dr. Adendorff say? He points out the weaknesses, the ineffectiveness and the inefficiency of this organization. He points out that it cannot possibly hope to succeed. He points out, for example, that over the next 15 years employment has to be found for 39,000 Bantu per annum in the reserves. Sir, it makes the mind reel when you read the report of Dr. Adendorff, the man who is in charge of the Corporation at the present time, and when you think of the proposals we have in front of us. How can the officials possibly cope with a problem like that? It is quite impossible. It is no good the Department turning round to its officials in the Department of Bantu Administration and saying to them, “You have to make this thing work; you are the officials, you must see that this thing is effective and efficient”. I wonder, Sir, how much some of the members of the Bantu Affairs Commission are doing with a view to making some of these things work? I wonder whether they are getting stuck in and carrying their share of the burden or whether they are leaving it all to the officials?

Sir, I want to deal with one point which the hon. member raised in connection with the auditing of the accounts. He made play of the fact that none of these corporations had gone insolvent.

An HON. MEMBER:

He has run away now.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, this is really not according to parliamentary etiquette for the hon. member to pull out like this, especially when I asked him to stay here. He was the last member on that side to speak. Why did he not stay here and take his medicine?

An HON. MEMBER:

He cannot take it.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Yes, he cannot take it. He knows what a bad speech he has made. He knows that he cannot stand up to criticism; he knows perfectly well that he has not got a leg to stand on; so he runs away.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

He has crawled back into his cave.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

The hon. member said in effect that these corporations were financially sound and able to pay their way; that they were effective and efficient instruments for the purpose for which they were created, because they have not gone insolvent. I would like to point out to the hon. member, if he can grasp it, that they have the South African taxpayer behind them. I am quite sure that there are other businesses which are operated by, shall I say, hon. members opposite, that would also be in a very flourishing condition if they had the South African taxpayer behind them. What private business would not be if it had the taxpayers behind it? Here is the Government sitting with the whole control of the finances of South Africa behind it, with an open purse, to be fed into the organization which has been in existence since 1959, and the hon. member has the effrontery to come here and say that that body has not gone insolvent and therefore it is economically sound and efficient.

An HON. MEMBER:

That shows how much he knows about business.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Sir, does he not link with that the necessity of having the accounts of that organization investigated by the Controller and Auditor-General?

That brings me to the Bill that we have before us where the Government is at pains to see that the Banking Act shall not apply, that the Bantu Land Act and the Bantu Trust and Land Act shall not apply and, unless the State President decrees otherwise, that the Companies Act shall not apply and, on top of it, the Controller and Auditor-General shall not come into the picture. Sir, what kind of edifice is this that is being built up here? Who conceived this kind of edifice? I can hardly believe that this Minister created it. It must have come from one of the Deputy Ministers or from members of the Bantu Affairs Commission.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Don’t you know the existing Acts?

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Yes, I do—only too well. Why does the hon. the Minister not get up and call for an inquiry into the finances of this Corporation to show how it has been running over the last nine years?

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

And then?

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Let the Minister then lay the report on the Table of the House and face us and say: “And then?” Let me ask the hon. the Minister through you, Sir, why he does not have the accounts audited by the Controller and Auditor-General?

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I shall answer you at the correct time.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

It is all very well for the Minister to say “And then?” We want a full parliamentary inquiry into the expenditure of this public money, with the Controller and Auditor-General’s Report before us in regard to the funds of the Bantu Trust and the whole matter thrashed out here properly according to parliamentary procedure. Until that time comes there will be a shadow lying over the whole of the funds administered by these various bodies.

We on this side of the House have certainly considered this matter of the development of the Bantu homelands very carefully, and I want to suggest that the time has come when we as a Parliament, with recognition from both sides of the House. should accept that we have to give title to the land to the Bantu people in the rural areas as well as in the urban areas. They have it in the urban areas and they should get it in the rural areas. The basic principle in a capitalistic society is the accumulation of capital based on the security of land and we cannot expect the Bantu to accumulate capital and to go ahead according to the normal rules and principles of a capitalistic society if we are going to create an entirely hot-house plant by artificial means such as will be created in terms of this legislation and the legislation passed in 1959. In fact, the past legislation has now proved to us how right we were and how wrong it is to think that there can be any permanent improvement along the lines of that legislation. If these corporations were to be entirely successful, there is nothing here which provides for the transition from control by the Whites on these boards over to the Bantu. There is no such thing. Here is the socialist concept of the communal ownership of land, the communal ownership of the basic rights to property, which in a capitalist society forms the basis for the accumulation of capital, and that socialist concept the Government is trying to graft on to a capitalistic society and the capitalist regime here in South Africa. It is basic and we must not run away from this difficulty because we know it is a difficulty. If the Government says to us: We recognize the difficulty here, but we are prepared to face it and we would like to make this a non-party measure and deal with it on the basis of what is good for South Africa, and the Bantu must be given the opportunity to develop their own reserves, then we will help as far as possible because we want to see those areas developed. [Interjection.] I repeat that the time has come, and the Minister should recognize it, that this kind of socialist concept cannot be grafted on to a capitalist society any longer. This is pure socialism and it will not work. The Minister can pour in millions and he can create his corporations and they can go forward with their operations, but where will it lead him? Because where did we start? The starting point has got to be that the Bantu must get ownership of land in the rural areas so that they can accumulate capital.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Is that traditional for the Bantu?

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

The Minister asks whether it is traditional for the Bantu. No, it is not, but neither are corporations traditional to the Bantu, especially when every member of the board is a white man. The formation of towns for the Bantu to live in, except at the chiefs’ kraals, which were not towns in that sense at all but camps for the military, is not traditional either, but the Bantu have to learn to live under urban conditions, in towns. The hon. member for Heilbron, who is still running away, made that point, and I think the hon. the Minister in his speech also mentioned it, and it has been mentioned by hon. members opposite, namely that they must learn to live in towns. I go further and say you cannot get your labour for factories and industries unless you have an urban population. You cannot get a permanent, trained labour force for industry by keeping them under rural conditions as peasant farmers. You cannot get a trained supply of labour under those circumstances. So the first point is that we must give individual ownership of land to the Bantu in the reserves to give them a chance to create capital. The Bantu must learn to live in towns and they must be given home ownership in those towns. Then you have the labour force available if you are going to establish factories. But you cannot just establish factories and businesses of all kinds under the conditions prevailing, particularly in the Transkei and elsewhere at present, where conditions are such that it is purely a rural population which is partly pastoral and partly dependent on agriculture. The Bantu were originally a pastoral people, not an agricultural people. They are moving away from being a pastoral people and are now becoming an agricultural people. But we are hurrying them forward because of our civilization, but we have to hurry them along the lines of, well-defined principles in a capitalist society. To do otherwise will be fatal. It will be fatal to the Bantu and will lead to trouble with them, the same as it will lead to a clash of interests between the Bantu and the white people.

I would ask the hon. the Minister to pause and think for a moment. If his corporations are successful in this sense that they can be established, what is the dividing line and what will prevent a clash between the interests of all these industries which are being established now as border industries, on the borders of the Reserves, looking to the reserves for the labour which has to make their wheels go round, to make them economically viable, when the corporations are establishing their industries and factories inside the Reserves? What is to prevent them from clashing with one another? These industries in the Reserves will be free of the provisions of the Companies’ Act, the Banking Act, control by the Auditor-General, the Bantu Land Act, etc. They will be free of all controls which apply to the border industries which the Government as a matter of deliberate policy is establishing right against the borders of the reserves. The Government is establishing all these industries there, all subject to these laws I have mentioned and other restrictions, and at the same time the Government is now taking power, with countless millions of money, to establish competition just on the other side of the border, in the form of industries which will not be subject to these restrictions or controls. How is it humanly possible in this cut-throat world in which we live to expect that those two sets of industries and undertakings will be able to co-exist without clashing with one another? Unless we get down to the application of a common bedrock principle in the form of one economy and one economic law for the whole of South Africa, I cannot see how this will succeed. The hon. the Minister smiles. I see he does not understand.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

You still say you are not in favour of economic integration?

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

The Deputy Minister no more understands what I am talking about than he did nearly four years ago when he said we did not want one economic law in South Africa; it would be better if we had six or seven because they would be in competition with one another. But now he says that because I say there should be one economic law for South Africa, I am in favour of integration. What nonsense! He does not understand. He should go back to school again. We all contribute to our economic pool in South Africa—everybody, with our labour, our money and our brains. The resources of South Africa come from one economic pool, and to the extent that the Government deliberately builds up a completely artificial structure for the Bantu in their homelands in the belief that they are doing something worthwhile in the field of economics or commerce or industry, which is in fact bolstered up artificially the whole time, they will let down the Bantu. Sir, the Bantu are carrying on and they are opening up their own businesses to-day in the areas where they have certain rights, like home ownership. There are Bantu who find that they can compete, and in the end they will have to do it. This is not something which is protecting the white man. The Indians and the Coloured people are subject to the same economic laws as the white man at present. They either compete or they go under. There is nothing special to help them. Until we are prepared to accept that as far as the Bantu are concerned, giving them the aid that is necessary as we get it through the Industrial Development Corporation, but on the same basis, this will not be successful; and the rockbottom basis is that they should have the right to own their own land in order to build up their own capital. Without that start, and without getting them to live in towns, the whole of this is a completely false façade which is being built up and it has no substance; it rests on shifting ground; it is uneconomic and there is no basis whatever on which it can stand, and it must collapse.

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

The hon. member for South Coast made a great fuss this afternoon in regard to the fact that the United Party does not stand for integration. We are very grateful to learn that, but I want to say at once to the hon. member for South Coast that they will have to prove it to us, for it was not so long ago that the hon. member for Yeoville was still saying “You cannot unscramble an egg”. I happen to have here in my hand a statement in regard to the matter which is now under discussion and which I want to quote from Hansard (column 26, 1956)—

The only sensible policy with regard to the Native reserves, is not to treat them as a separate area, but if you want to have those areas developed, and developed properly, the only way to do it, is to integrate European managerial skill and European capital into them, and to develop them as part and parcel of our whole national economy.

That was said by the Leader of the United Party, Mr. Strauss, in 1956, but now they are making a great fuss about integration. That is why we say they must prove it to us and we will then be very grateful.

I do not have the time to go into all the points raised by the hon. member for South Coast. I only want to touch on one or two. I just want to point out that if they are no longer in favour of integration, then they have changed their policy and they must admit it. Just look for example at the speech Mr. Strauss made at Worcester. They have done one of these two things now, they are either in favour of integration, or they have changed their policy, and the hon. member need not make so great a fuss about it. We should like to see what the United Party does in this regard.

In the second place, the hon. member for South Coast, and the hon. member for Transkei as well, were very indignant about the spending of funds by the Bantu Trust. The hon. member for South Coast went so far as to say that he wanted “a full parliamentary inquiry” in this regard. But surely the position is very clear. Particulars of those funds, and the spending of those funds, are submitted to the Auditor-General, and are then submitted to the Select Committee of this Parliament. The hon. the Deputy Minister was quite right in pointing out a moment ago that these had not yet been submitted to the Select Committee on Public Accounts—and I know, because I am myself a member. Then the Select Committee, as a responsible committee, will investigate the matter, and it will report back to this House in order to indicate what the circumstances are, and if steps are necessary, the necessary steps will be taken. Why make such a fuss therefore about such a small debating point in regard to this matter? The procedure is there and that old parliamentary procedure will be followed and justice will be done in respect of the taxpayer’s money in this case as in any other case, and the National Party Government will see to it that this happens.

But in the third place I want to point out that the hon. member for South Coast said the following: “Let us make this a non-party issue”. That sounds fine and one would like to make a “non-party issue” of this, but the first requirement for that, to my mind, should be that the United Party should simply tell us what their policy in this regard is. After all, we cannot make a “non-party issue” of a matter if we do not know where the United Party stands, since the United Party has changed front so many times in regard to this matter of the development of the Bantu homelands.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

The individual ownership of land should be a non-party issue.

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

Well, we can discuss that. Hon. members who have so much to say about the unrestricted admission of white skills and white capital forget that in 1932, when the present Opposition was in power, a “Native Affairs Economic Commission” was appointed. That Commission came to light with a bulky report on Bantu homelands. And do you know what the essence of this Commission’s finding was? It was “Unless soon remedied, desert conditions will prevail”. They were referring here to the Transkei. Why did the United Party not allow the unrestricted flow of white capital and white skill in order to alleviate those “desert conditions”? After 1932 they still had 15 years’ time in which to do something. But they simply gave up; they, as the voters reproached them with time and again, let things take their own course. Therefore, before we make a “nonparty issue” of this matter, we must have clarity and certainty in regard to these things.

Up to now in this debate we have not had this.

So far in this debate there are only three major points which have been made by the United Party side in regard to this matter. In the first place, the hon. member for Transkei alleged that the Government was not going far enough with the development of the Bantu homelands. If that is their opinion, they must tell us how far they think the Government ought to go in regard to this matter. They must also tell us how far the United Party will be prepared to go if they should come to power. But if that is the basis of their argument, i.e. that we are not going far enough, then the United Party must explain to us why they do not support us as far as we do in fact want to go. Here we have a very important and difficult problem. At this point I want to interrupt myself to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department on this Bill, a Bill which I regard as model legislation as regards content as well as form. I think they deserve our praise for this legislation.

The United Party maintains we have changed our policy. Because I want to deal with other points, I do not want to go into this assertion too far except to quote to the House what Dr. Verwoerd stated in this House on 23rd January, 1962, in regard to the same matter. I am doing so in the hope of dealing effectively with this story that we have allegedly changed our policy. Nothing is further from the truth, and nothing will bring us further from a solution for a very thorny ethnic and national problem than this kind of assertion which the United Party is at present throwing at us. In any case, Dr. Verwoerd said that “white money and white initiative can be channelized” through these corporations, i.e. the Bantu Development Corporation and the Bantu Investment Corporation. This blunder on the part of the United Party to try and make the country believe that the Government is against white capital and white skill must come to a rapid end, because nothing is further from the truth than such an assertion. Dr. Verwoerd also said—

In other words, the Transkeian Development Corporation must be looked upon as a ward-entrepreneur which will not itself acquire vested interests, as in the case of a private owner, and which will have no desire in that direction, but which is established in order to utilize white initiative, white managerial ability, white skill, white training ability and white money without the profit motive or any inclination towards exploitation as far as the undertaking itself is concerned.

This is what he said in this House in 1962. He repeated the words “white” four, five, even six times for the benefit of hon. members.

He stated further—

It will be a development corporation for the benefit of the Bantu and as the latter learns to play his full role at the various levels of development, he will be given the opportunity to take over these undertakings. The economic potential within his own area rightfully belongs to him and to nobody else.

Now just one last quotation of what Dr. Verwoerd said in order to make it very clear, and I quote—

The Bantu Development Corporation will be able to make use of white private firms who wish to place their skill and administrative abilities at its disposal and even to make use of those who wish to make their money available through the medium of the corporation …

He then went on to refer to the conditions, that there should be no profit motive, etc. He also spoke about mining development in the Bantu homelands, and stated that white capital and private initiative was already being used in order to help with that mining development. I want to repeat my challenge again in order to deal effectively with this story, because it is bedevilling a difficult matter in South Africa.

*Dr. G. F. JACOBS:

But surely you are now contradicting the hon. member for Heilbron.

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

I am coming to that. I am not contradicting anybody on this side of the House. I want to issue this challenge to the United Party again: Mention one instance where white capital and white skill were anxious to assist in allowing this development to take place, on the Government’s conditions, and where this was refused? Just mention one instance. The hon. the Minister issued this challenge to the United Party last year, and up to now they have not mentioned one instance. I am asking them to mention one instance, but they cannot do so. I therefore ask hon. members on the opposite side not to be so irresponsible.

Let us look at this matter very soberly now. There are points of agreement between us on this side and the United Party in regard to this matter, a matter which I maintain is a very thorny and important one. We agree on certain points regarding the development of Bantu homelands. Let us see what they are. We agree that Bantu homelands have to be developed. Let me state with great emphasis that the proper exploitation and development of the Bantu areas on a crash basis is a matter of absolute priority for us on this side. Let me add, it is in the interests and for the welfare of all in this House that this should be a matter of priority. The rapid development of these Bantu homelands for all who love South Africa, must be regarded as a task for the people and not merely as a task for the Government. I am now making that appeal to the United Party. We are dealing here with a national task in which the future of every white man, woman and child, every Bantu man, woman and child, and all the other colour groups in South Africa are seriously at stake. That is why I say we must be careful in this regard. We agree that the areas must be developed as rapidly as possible. If we are agreed on this, on what do we differ? There is in fact a difference. We differ in regard to the methods, in regard to how the Bantu homelands should be developed. But I can tell you now that as regards the methods of development there are differences within the United Party itself. If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout advocated in this House a few weeks ago the uncontrolled development of the Bantu homelands by white capital and white skill.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

That is not true.

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

This afternoon we heard how the hon. member for Transkei said—and he said it very clearly—and in this respect we have made some progress now …

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Just read my speech in Hansard.

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

… the hon. member for Transkei stated emphatically this afternoon that there should be some form of control over that white capital and skill. We are grateful to him for that, because we have now made progress in regard to this matter.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

But we have always said so.

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

No, you have not always said so. Now I want to put a few important questions to the United Party to see whether we cannot reach greater clarity in regard to this matter. I agree with the hon. member for South Coast when he said that this matter of the development of the homelands is of great importance to all of us. That side, however, must face up to a few matters now. I do not want to try and make political capital out of my questions now. I am asking these questions seriously. That side now maintains that they are in favour of white capital and white skill on a controlled basis. If the United Party were to come into power, would they allow the undertakings built up by white capital and skill to pass into Bantu hands? I should very much like to know.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Yes.

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

The hon. member for Transkei says “yes”. What does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say? Will it pass into Bantu hands?

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

That is the whole purpose thereof. Do not ask such a foolish question.

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

Then I want to point to two things now. In the first place, they have once again changed their policy. That was not Strauss’ policy, and it was not the original policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition either. Well, we have made a great deal of progress now and we have really obtained a final reply from the United Party. Provided they do not change their policy to-morrow or the next day, it means that if they should come to power, the undertakings would pass into Bantu hands. [Interjections.]

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

You are now stealing our policy.

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

As the hon. the Minister and the hon. member are quite rightly saying, that side is now stealing our policy. But we do not mind their stealing our policy as long as we make some progress in regard to this matter. That side must now reply to a second question, which is the following. How is the United Party going to ensure that the undertakings built up by white capital and skill do in fact pass into Bantu hands, in other words, what forms of control are the United Party suggesting? That is the problem with which we are struggling. I hope that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or another hon. member on the opposite side will during this debate progress so far as to explain to us, since they are now admitting that they will allow the undertaking to pass into Bantu hands, what form of control they will apply in order to ensure that it does in fact pass into Bantu hands. Because if they cannot give us this information, their conduct in regard to this entire matter, which I emphasize again, is of great importance, has been extremely futile.

Since we have now made this progress, I want to point out that we are dealing here with a matter in respect of which this side of the House states emphatically that white capital and skill will in fact be harnessed by us, as ward-entrepreneurs, in order to bring about the most rapid possible development of these Bantu homelands.

*Dr. G. F. JACOBS:

On an agency basis.

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

Wait a minute. I am asking the hon. member for Hillbrow in order to see whether we can make even further progress. We say this development must take place in a certain way, and that is what we differ about. We on this side of the House maintain that the development must take place on a so-called agency basis. There are good reasons why we say that. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member on the opposite side who has such a lot to say now, that his eloquence is solely attributable to the fact that he finds that he has now been driven into a corner. Let us consider what the position is.

We on this side maintain that the development should take place on an agency basis, and we have reasons for saying that. If there is one thing for which this side of the House is deserving of the nation’s praise, and the Opposition’s as well, then it is for the sensible way in which they have dealt with this entire question, a question in regard to which the United Party gave up a long time ago, as I indicated just now, and is still doing, unless they are now going to give this matter further thought. The sensible conduct of the Government lies therein that they are protecting the Bantu against exploitation. In this way the Government has, over the past 15 years, prevented South Africa from being labelled as a neo-colonialistic and exploitionistic state. I want to go so far this afternoon as to invite hon. members to ask people in our neighbouring states in Africa what they think of this matter. I believe there was little, if any, conduct on the part of the National Party Government which contributed more to the friendly relations which have been built up with our neighbouring states than this resolute attitude which the Government adopted, i.e. to refuse to develop the Bantu homelands in a neo-colonialistic manner. We do not want to allow the Bantu there to be exploited because we know that, if one is going to give free play to white capital and skill, the Bantu are going to suffer, and will, if one should in addition adopt the attitude that it should be possible for Whites to purchase land there, they will be exploited to such an extent that all future friendly relations will simply go by the board. We refused to do that.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Are you a socialist?

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

No, it has nothing to do with socialism. I am not a socialist. This is a question of the sound basis on which an underdeveloped country must be developed. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we should not discuss this matter back and forth in such a flippant way here. We are dealing here with a real problem and the real problem in regard to the Bantu homelands is the following: Even if one had all the capital and skill in the world, surely the hon. members for Transkei and Hillbrow are aware that that will not necessarily assure the development of those homelands because one has to deal with the problem Dr. Eisselen—it was my privilege to have been a research officer for five years on his personal staff—always mentioned when discussing these matters: Our major problem is making progressive people of the Bantu. That is our problem. It is not in South Africa where the problem in regard to development is one of this nature. No less a person than the authority Colin Clarke states in his brilliant work “Growthmanship”, which was written for the International Economic Association in 1961 and which met with a response throughout the world, that: “The principal factors in the economic growth of underdeveloped countries are not physical but human.” If one makes all that capital and skill available to them we will develop past the Bantu and this will lead to exploitation. And then, I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast, there is integration. This is what we suspect the United Party wants. That is why we say: Come out of your shells and tell us what your policy is.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

[Inaudible.]

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

Then there is integration towards the white side, and towards the side of the Bantu homelands, that is to say, double integration. That is what Advocate Strauss advocated, and we are not certain whether the United Party is not perhaps still advocating it. This human factor is being increasingly emphasized by the economists in South Africa. I am referring to Professor Stadier, professor in economics at the University of South Africa, and Professor Lombard. I can refer you to numerous other professors, such as Professor Rautenbach and others, who are coming to realize more and more that one can do just what one likes, but if this problem of the human factor in regard to the Bantu is not overcome, it will be of no avail no matter bow much money, from whatever source, is drawn. Mr. Speaker did the U.S.A. not experience this in Africa? I read a brilliant article the other day in which one of America’s outstanding economists stated: “What we have learnt in Africa was a very simple lesson.” But the United Party in South Africa has not yet learnt it. Do you know what that lesson is? He stated that what they have learnt was that in the U.S.A. they could erect a factory within 12 months but that to erect that same factory in Africa, and this is what he says not I, would take them from 12 to 18 years. They have all the capital they need. Why, he asked? The reply is extremely simple. In America they have entrepreneurs, the know-how, etc., but in Africa the Bantu have to be trained to become those entrepreneurs. [Interjections.] Now the United Party are laughing at this. With their laughter they are proving once again that it is difficult for us to believe that they are not advocating integration. If we were to do what the United Party wants us to do, namely to release white capital and skill in the Bantu homelands, give me a reply now to this simple question: Does the United Party, and specifically the hon. members for Transkei and South Coast and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition think that if what this American was talking about was done, and one was then to obtain further development in the Bantu homelands in that way, one could prevent those Bantu homelands from becoming totally integrated and the Bantu from being totally exploited? And if they think it could be prevented, let die hon. member for Bezuidenhout, when he makes his speech …

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

May I ask the hon. member a question? I should like to ask the hon. member what the position would be if those areas were independent. Would they not simply do the same as Lesotho is doing?

*Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

Mr. Speaker, I should like very much to reply to that. I am very grateful to the hon. member, because it is a point I wanted to come to. [Laughter.] There is nothing to laugh about. I am discussing this matter in a serious vein. The hon. member for Hillbrow must listen carefully now. I am saying nothing new. I quote what Dr. Verwoerd stated repeatedly in the 1962 debate, and repeatedly thereafter, and also in public, i.e. that when these homelands have reached the development stage, they will have full control over their own affairs, those Bantu homelands are entitled to invite private firms, private capital and white skill, as is at present the case in Lesotho and Swaziland. It will not be possible for us to place any obstacles in the way of that development. But that brings me to this very point, and that is why I am glad the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked me that question: Who must accept the responsibility for that? Surely it is not the Transkei in this stage before they have obtained full independence. We, this Government, have to do it. It is this very point of ours which it seems to me they cannot understand. If we assume the responsibility now and allow White private capital and initiative in there, and it should lead to exploitation—and it will lead to that as surely as two times two is four, even with good control—those Bantu will say, if difficulties should crop up, as they are saying to America in Africa and other countries: You were the exploiters! In this way they kicked the Whites out of Africa, because they had the economic interests there. That is why our standpoint is quite simple. We say: Where we must now accept the responsibility, we are prepared to do so, but only over our dead bodies will we allow White capital and skill to exploit the Bantu, because that will also contain the seeds of death for White survival in South Africa, whether it be in two generations, 20 or 200. That we will not do. We will never ever do it. When the hon. member for South Coast talks about “non-party lines” now along which we should discuss this matter, let him understand thoroughly where we stand. But when the Bantu themselves have reached that stage of development where they have full autonomy in regard to their own affairs, it is another matter. Then they accept the responsibility and they are responsible to themselves alone and to nobody else on this earth. I hope that we have made progress as far as this matter is concerned.

I am discussing the human factor now, because it seems to me the United Party does not understand it. The human factor is a difficult one. Let me tell you that there was a time when this Government held unwaveringly to this standpoint and maintained it under great pressure from its own economists in South Africa. In the future the Bantu and the White of this country will still be eternally grateful to this Government for that resolute attitude it adopted, for it withstood the pressure both from within and without and did not allow free play in a matter where people wanted to have free play. Now, as regards the human factor, it is being accepted to-day that the economic-dynamic type of human being must possess four qualities. These are four quite simple qualities. Now we say: Come and help us so that we can cope with this problem, and do not indulge in cheap politicking in regard to this matter. The characteristics of the dynamic, economic type of human being are the following: Industry, thrift, reliability and honesty, and a rational philosophy of life. Which simply amounts to this that man should derive the maximum from his environment, in other words, display the initiative to derive the maximum from that environment. I speak with appreciation of our Bantu. I have made a study of them. I speak only with appreciation of the Bantu, because we want to help the Bantu. But against the background of these economic-dynamic qualities of character needed by man, surely it is clear that a major task still awaits us all in this country before this problem can be satisfactorily solved. That is why I want to make an appeal in this debate to the United Party not to act irresponsibly in regard to this matter. I do not want to level any accusations, but they are acting irresponsibly. And I want to refer specifically now to our major English-speaking industrialists who have to a great extent in the past felt themselves at home with the United Party. I want to say that the future of our children depend upon this, and I want the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to know this. I as a young man am stating this unequivocably here this afternoon, because it is so, that they must not fell our economists in South Africa what the United Party is doing in regard to border industry development. They must also cease from sowing so much suspicion in regard to the economic development of the Bantu homelands and the border areas development amongst our people and particularly the English-speaking industrialists. [Time expired.]

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

Mr. Speaker, it is very significant that the hon. member for Primrose, who has just sat down, obviously did not collaborate with his colleague the hon. member for Heilbron because they contradicted one another. It is quite clear that they did not do their homework together. They must sort out the differences between their two points of view. In the course of his remarks the hon. member for Primrose referred to the tremendous interest which he had had in the Bantu people over the years and what should be done to train them better in industry. I want to know why he has not been using his influence over the last 20 years to see that there was adequate technical training in the Bantu areas. There is no technical training whatsoever in a single Bantu area in South Africa. How does he then expect industrial efficiency to improve?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

I hope that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration will tell us when he speaks where the training institutions for the Bantu in the Bantu areas are and how many people they are training annually. He must tell us before he tells us that we are talking nonsense. He must prove to us that there are training institutions and that they are training Bantu. He must also tell us how many are being trained.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

You do not even know of the one nearest your hometown.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

I am not dealing with schools or colleges; I am dealing with technical training institutions for industry. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister and Deputy Minister have finished having a conversation, or when the Deputy Minister participates in this debate later on, I hope he will give us an answer to the question how many Bantu are receiving technical training to substantiate what the hon. member for Primrose has said.

I want to say that this Bill is part of a pattern of legislation which has as its objective the concentration of the Bantu in the homelands. The pattern up to now on the part of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has been to stop the flow of Bantu into the cities. He is concerned with influx control. His colleague the hon. the Minister of Planning introduced the Planning Bill to ensure that there would be no expansion of industry in the urban areas, except with his consent, to ensure that as far as possible the Bantu return to the homelands. But now in terms of this Bill the Minister is hoping to establish sufficient attraction to bring the Bantu back to the homelands so that the Bantu in the homelands can develop and invest in industry and set up an economy which we hope—and we have not had an answer to this yet—will not damage the economy of South Africa. At best economic development is an intricate process and requires careful planning, taking into account all the various aspects of economic development, such as the development of capital, land, labour and management. We now find the Minister and other hon. members talking glibly of management. It is only in recent years that our major universities have introduced special courses in management techniques. We are entitled to ask the Minister whether the best advice is available in connection with his Bantu Investment Corporations. The whole object of our motion that this matter be referred to a Select Committee is to give us the opportunity of not only questioning the members of the public who wish to give evidence but we hope that organized commerce and industry will also come forward to state their point of view. We hope that the officials who have had experience in the Bantu homelands will state their point of view as well as members of the Bantu Affairs Commission. We have had some doubts up to now as to whether this Bantu Investment Corporation could adequately carry out its functions in the light of the information we have had up to now. The Bantu Trust has powers to hand over money to the Bantu Investment Corporation. According to the last report of the Auditor-General, the Bantu Trust has not managed affairs too well. Incidentally, I should like to congratulate the Controller and Auditor-General on his report. I hope that the present Controller and Auditor-General will be as conscientious as his predecessor. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration must pay attention to the following extract from the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, 1966’67:

  1. (a) Planning—
    1. (i) Large quantities of building material and other stores, including components for prefabricated houses, sewerage and stormwater pipes and fencing material, which represent capital expenditure on hundreds of thousands of rand were found which had been unused for periods of up to three and a half years.

That is the kind of administration for which this Minister is responsible. These remarks apply to, amongst others, Grankuwa near Pretoria which is one of the Government’s show places. The report says this:

  1. (iv) During inspections hundreds of houses were found which had already been unoccupied for up to 20 months owing to a lack of water supply, lighting and/or incomplete building and sewerage work; in some cases also because the prefabricated houses are apparently regarded as unsuitable for prevailing climatic conditions, have inadequate cooking facilities and are therefore unsuitable for the purposes for which they were erected.

No wonder we are asking for a select committee so that we can obtain some expert advice. We dare not trust the Bantu Trust to handle this—

  1. (vi) Replanning decided upon after stores, building material, heavy equipment and personnel for the erection of a township were already on the site, or where townships were in an advanced stage of construction, involved avoidable or fruitless expenditure, inter alia, on transport, planning and development compensation, etc. In one case bad coordination also resulted in considerable damage to existing buildings and additional expenditure.

This is proof of this incompetent, muddling Government. The Minister and the Deputy Minister are responsible for this evidence of their incompetence. I continue:

  1. (b) Management and administration—
    1. (iii) General weaknesses in office administration and internal control were noticed to a greater or lesser degree at 12 townships and including, inter alia, one or more of the following aspects, namely, faulty or non-existent checking of stores, financial and other records which in some instances, were also not properly maintained; personal debt cards not properly kept and/or reconciled with controls, the latter in some instances being incomplete or not maintained; disregard of procedures and instructions; carelessness in completing and signing of deeds of sale.
Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONBMAN:

The hon. member for Transkei has already quoted that from the report this afternoon.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

No, he did not. The position is, Mr. Speaker, that I prepared my speech before the hon. member for Transkei spoke this afternoon and I took particular care to mark off the points which he had left available for discussion. I wanted to rub it in and show just how incompetent this Government is.

Under this Bill the Government wants to give the Bantu Trust the authority to deal with our funds. No wonder we are suspicious; no wonder we have asked for the appointment of a select committee. Sir, this discloses gross incompetence, bad management and a state of affairs that is a disgrace to any government. This Government treats the matter as a joke; they do not take the matter seriously, because they just pass the necessary law, and the result is that money is wasted. If this state of affairs continues, Sir, can you imagine what we can expect when we have this Investment Corporation. You see, Sir, it is proposed that this Investment Corporation will carry on in the same form. It will be exempt from the provisions of the Companies Act. This balance sheet which I have here of the Bantu Investment Corporation does not comply with the Companies Act. It is true that the Companies Act does not apply to it, but if the Companies Act did apply this balance sheet would be ruled out of order and the directors would probably be prosecuted.

Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

You are making a serious statement. Tell us why you say they will be prosecuted.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

Let the hon. member get hold of the Companies Act and see in what respect this balance sheet is deficient, as far as a full disclosure of information is concerned. If the hon. member makes inquiries he will find that there is a Companies Act commission sitting where evidence has already been given that balance sheets should be more informative and that they should disclose full information. This balance sheet does not disclose the full information.

Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

Is that why you say the directors should be prosecuted?

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

A balance sheet, in terms of the Companies Act, must comply with certain requirements, and if it does not comply with the requirements of the Companies Act, the directors who sign the balance sheet can be prosecuted. Surely the hon. member should know that.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Is that why he abandoned law?

Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

But why do you say that they should be prosecuted?

An HON. MEMBER:

He has just told you.

Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

You say it is not informative enough. Is that all? Is that the offence?

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

In this balance sheet of the Bantu Investment Corporation we find this item, “Funds invested in stocks and in definite period building society shares, including accrued interest: R2,143,227”. This is an item that we cannot discuss in this House. We get no opportunity of discussing in which building societies the Corporation has invested these funds. Are these funds being invested in building societies because the Bantu Investment Corporation at the present moment cannot find another investment? We find ourselves in this position that this body can table a report in the House in terms of, I think, clause 22 of the Bill; the trustee, who is the State President, can appoint the members of the board but those members cannot be sacked by this House. If the board of directors of an ordinary company were faced with a report such as we have here in the Auditor-General’s report, all self-respecting directors would resign at once, or take their medicine; they would not stand again.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

You could raise the matter under the Minister’s Vote. Of course, this House can sack them. Why don’t you try?

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that under the Minister’s Vote we can discuss these affairs. That is my whole point. Under the Minister’s Vote we can discuss his affairs but we cannot discuss the Bantu Investment Corporation; that is my complaint. We are asking for this Bill to be referred to a select committee before the second reading because it will give all sides an opportunity of being heard. The Minister’s whole difficulty is that this Government does not want to face the truth; it does not want to face criticism; it wants to appear at all times as perfect administrators and yet their whole record of administration is shocking. The Bill provides that the operations of the Bantu Development Corporation shall be confined to Bantu persons and undertakings of Bantu persons in Bantu homelands. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in charge of this Bill what he means by saying that all operations must be confined to the Bantu. Does he include marketing? Will the Bantu Development Corporation be at liberty to sell goods in open competition with the rest of South Africa? If it is to be concerned with marketing, will it be interested in marketing in South Africa or only in the Bantu areas? Will it be concerned with marketing outside the boundaries of South Africa? This Bill is silent on that point. Is this Bill not going to result in two economies? Is there going to be one economic level for the Bantu areas and another one for the other areas in South Africa? Let me tell the hon. Minister why we are concerned. There was a case recently where the Kokstad Municipality called for tenders for the supply and erection of 24 houses at Kokstad. The tenders closed on the 5th February of this year. The Xhosa Development Corporation of Umtata submitted a tender of R116,000 for the supply and erection of these 24 houses, against the tender by B. Harris and Sons of R121,369, which was the second lowest tender submitted. It is an important matter of principle to establish whether or not a firm in the Transkei, which is Government-assisted, is entitled to tender in competition with other firms. I do not know whether the tender was awarded to the Xhosa Development Corporation, but is that the pattern? Is the pattern that the Xhosa Development Corporation is going to tender against ordinary builders? If so, are the ordinary labour regulations which apply to the rest of South Africa going to apply to the Bantu homelands?

An HON. MEMBER:

And wage determination.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

Sir, over the years we have built up a pattern of wage legislation which is an example to the rest of the world, We have had fewer strikes and less labour unrest than probably anywhere else in the world. Are we going to have a different wage rate in the Bantu homelands, and is this going to pull down the cost structure? What is going to happen if there is a lower rate of wages in the Bantu homelands? Take the footwear industry for example. The Minister has indicated that a footwear industry and other industries will be established in the Bantu homelands. Will the minimum rate of wages be lower than the minimum rate of wages in the border areas? The minimum rate of wages in the border areas is already lower than the rate in the metropolitan areas. [Interjections.] Sir, these are pertinent questions which the Minister will have to answer, because if he does not answer them it will be clear to us that they have not been taken into consideration. These are questions which commerce and industry are asking. The timber industry in South Africa wants to know what is going to happen in the sawmilling industry. If the rates of wages, etc., in the sawmilling industry in the Bantu reserves are going to be different from the rates in the sawmilling industry in the rest of South Africa, what is going to be the effect upon sawmillers outside the reserves. A lower cost structure in Bantu areas is clearly going to affect the competitive position of industries situated in the metropolitan areas, and it seems to us from an examination of this Bill that insufficient consideration has been given to the question of infra-structure, services and the question of the technical know-how that has to be introduced into the Bantu areas. What provision is going to be made for the training and education of the Bantu in those areas? To what extent is the outside industrialist protected from competition from the Bantu areas? We have an example already in the wholesale industry where the Xhosa Investment Corporation is buying in bulk and selling their goods in the Bantu areas in competition with wholesalers in Johannesburg. Is the ultimate ideal that in these Bantu areas they will be the main suppliers of goods to the Bantu people of South Africa?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

It seems that your main fear now is that there is going to be too much development there. That is the burden of what you are saying now.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister’s suggestion that the development there is only going to be limited? If it is only going to be limited, then why all this expense? Unless you are going to develop the Bantu to the utmost of his capabilities, this money will go down the drain. Sir, we must ensure that the economy of South Africa is so developed that the industrial output in the Bantu areas will not undercut industrial development in the metropolitan areas, and that you can be as efficient in the metropolitan areas as in the Bantu areas without lowering standards. It is the lowering of standards that we fear, and that is an issue which can only be decided if we refer this Bill to a select committee.

If we refer this measure to a select committee we can get the point of view of all those interested. Let us hear the views of those who have specialist knowledge to offer us and of those who have had experience in establishing industries in other parts of the world. I am quite sure that these people, if invited, would be prepared to come and give evidence before the select committee and give us the benefit of their advice and tell us how this Act can operate in the best interest of all concerned. At the present moment there is grave doubts as to whether this measure can be administered efficiently under this Minister and this Department. We have seen the results of the administration by the Bantu Trust; we have seen the effect of their incompetence. We have seen how incompetent administration can result in the objects of the Act not being attained and in a tremendous waste of money. While it may provide jobs for a favoured few, in the long term it will not be in the interests either of the economy of South Africa or of the Department itself. The Minister’s speech has given us no evidence that he has any idea how to meet the position. He mentioned by way of illustration that the Department had taken over four garages and in the same sentence he went on to say that they were training four people in the motor mechanic industry. Sir, when we look at the figure quoted by the hon. member for Transkei as to the number of jobs that will have to be provided over the next five years, let alone the next year or two, it is quite clear that far more information is wanted than the Minister has given us up to now and that information can only come from a select committee where all parties concerned can give the necessary information so that we can examine this matter more objectively than we can in the cut and thrust of debate across the floor of this House.

*Mr. A. S. D. ERASMUS:

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Pinetown on what was probably the most incoherent speech one could listen to. So far three members of the United Party have spoken this afternoon, and I want to accuse them of having failed to come forward with any fundamental, profound thoughts in regard to this legislation. This legislation deals with the economic development of the Bantu areas, and its cornerstone is the trusteeship of the white man as far as the Bantu and their education are concerned. All the speakers of the United Party are saying now that they are not advocating integration; then they say that they want a free flow of capital, but with control, and then they say nothing further and we do not know what control they want.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

What did Tomlinson say?

*Mr. A. S. D. ERASMUS:

We are not dealing with Tomlinson now, but we are in 1968, dealing with the legislation before the House, legislation which deals with the economic development, and the legislation gives you everything you want. But they totally fail to see those two factors in the legislation. The hon. member for Pinetown made a revelation this afternoon, namely that there was a feeling of anxiety in the ranks of the United Party. Firstly, there is fear of the development of the Bantu homelands and, secondly, fear that it will bring about competition between the Bantu homelands and the economy of the White. Then he got hold of a red herring and during this debate they, the United Party, have been drawing it across the trail ad nauseam instead of discussing this legislation, namely the report of the Auditor-General dealing with certain materials which were not used. But that is solely a departmental matter. This has already been made quite clear by the hon. member for Primrose, and I shall repeat it because the hon. member for Pinetown also repeated it. It is a departmental matter which will in the course of events be brought up before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and there this matter will be investigated. The report will then be submitted to this House, and then it will be time to discuss this matter, not now. I want to say that in his speech the hon. member for Pinetown did at least rise above the rest to a certain extent, and that he raised a few points of constructive criticism. But then he kept on harping on the same old string of the so-called waste, and he immediately linked this up with the two corporations for which further provision is now being made in terms of this legislation. He wants to create the impression that under these corporations the same thing happened as was supposed to have happened under the Department according to the report of the Auditor-General. I repudiate that, because it is not the case. No complaints have been lodged against the operation of these corporations. Then the hon. member for Pinetown came forward with the same old story, namely that there was no control by this Parliament over the activities of these corporations which are to be established. That I repudiate, too. In the first place, the principle embodied here is by no means a new one. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown that he did a very bad thing to-day. I think he gave a highly esteemed and respected profession a slap in the face. Let us see what clause 21 says. It says very clearly that the board must cause proper books of account to be kept, and also all necessary books and records in relation thereto, and that the accounts of the corporations must be audited by a person who is a registered accountant and auditor to be appointed by the Trustee. Clause 22 provides further that as soon as practicable after the end of every financial year, the board of the corporations must submit a balance sheet and a statement of income and expenditure which reflects the state of the affairs of the corporations as at the end of the last preceding financial year. The auditor must submit a certificate stating that to the best of his knowledge and belief and on information supplied to him, the balance sheet and statement of income and expenditure reflects a true statement of the assets and liabilities of the corporations as at the end of the financial year. In this respect a procedure is followed which is in operation all over the country. Let us take an example. This Government delegates powers and grants money to the Provincial Administrations which control all the municipalities in their area. In that respect we have the example to-day of the City Council of Johannesburg which handles more than R100 million per annum. It is audited by a private firm of auditors, and that procedure is accepted by numerous municipalities and by the Government as well. Now the argument is advanced all of a sudden that this House has no control over the financial affairs of these corporations. I repudiate that.

*Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Where do you see that?

*Mr. A. S. D. ERASMUS:

I shall tell you where the control is. If you read clause 24, you will see that the trustee holds all the shares in this corporation and that he delegates his powers to the Minister. The Minister is fully empowered to appoint the directors. In other words, he controls the directors and he has a veto in regard to the activities of the directors. It differs from the I.C.D. [Interjections.] I shall go on. The statements are audited and submitted. Now the hon. member for Pinetown does not say—and he ought to be ashamed of himself—that this balance sheet is not in conformity with the law, but he says that this corporation is not subject to the Companies Act. If it had been, the statement would not have been in conformity with the law. Surely, that is childish. This corporation is not subject to the Companies Act, and that is why this balance sheet is absolutely in conformity with the law. It was drawn up in accordance with the best norms of accountancy. Let the hon. member tell me where this balance sheet was drawn up incorrectly. It is merely an administrative matter for the Minister to give instructions that in future, when these statements are drawn up, he wants balance sheets which furnish him with more information, that he wants concise statements of the affairs of the subsidiary companies. This is merely administrative. Owing to the fact that the Minister has full control over these matters, they can be debated here fully. [Interjection.] Of course, there is an opportunity for doing so, under the Minister’s Vote. After all, this is a new Act, and the old one is being repealed, and I have just explained what powers the Minister has in terms of this legislation. The statements can be discussed. I have now replied to the argument advanced by the hon member for Pinetown. In a false manner he wants to tell us that these balance sheets are not in conformity with the law since they do not fall under the Companies Act. Tt stands to reason that the Companies Act does not apply to them. They are two separate things. The Companies Act is applicable to public companies where the individual holds shares in the company and the auditor is the direct representative of the shareholder, and he must take action in terms of that legislation. But this is quite a different case.

I want to go further by saying that the other two speakers who spoke here, came forward with the same story; they are concerned about how these areas are going to develop now. Do they want tremendous development to take place overnight? They want to know what has already been done. But they have not yet told us what they mean by control. What kind of control do they want? I believe that this legislation is a consequence of the old Trust Act which envisaged that the Bantu areas would develop. Even under the old Trust Act there was development in the Bantu areas with the aid of white capital, but still under control, and the control was based on the concept of trusteeship. This legislation is a logical consequence of the old Trust Act, the X.D.C. and the former investment corporation. The hon. member for Transkei says that it was a failure. It is the most disgraceful remark I have ever heard. How can he say that it was a failure? An amount of R3.5 million is already on loan to Bantu business concerns, and R11 million has already been invested in the Bantu areas. Now a new piece of legislation is being provided so as to make the control and development more supple and easier. An umbrella is now being provided under which each particular Bantu area will receive a development corporation, and from that development corporation other corporations will originate which will see to it that every economic sector will have its own development. In other words, there are smaller subsidiaries all of which have their origin in this one big corporation. As the Minister said, it is an all-encompassing umbrella. From that projects will also result which will be to the advantage of the Bantu entrepreneurs, and it is important that the capital development in the Bantu area must also take place through these development corporations. This investment corporation will be the channel along which the capital will flow to the Bantu areas. The capital will come from the Trustee, in the first place, and from outside sources, i.e. white capital which may be invested in the corporations. A cutting remark was made here about the Minister’s observation in regard to the profit motive. I think the whole thing was misunderstood completely. The Minister referred to the profit motive of the Investment Corporation. The point is not how much profit the corporation is making; even if it only breaks even it is still important, because it creates development and it affords labour to the Bantu. That is the idea. When hon. members said that it operated at a loss, they did of course refer to the white entrepreneur who may have been making investments on an agency basis, but this does not enter into the matter at all. He will not invest in it if he cannot make a profit; if he does so, he is not quite all there. A third way of forming capital, or the channel along which the capital may flow, is from the Bantu themselves by way of the money they themselves will save and invest.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that these corporations will always remain effectively under the control of the hon. the Minister as a result of the particular approach that was evident at the time of the establishment of the corporation. This particular approach is very important, because it is a particular case. The Trustee, i.e. the Minister, remains the guardian or the trustee of the Bantu nations. He is not only that in name, but also in practice, in the true sense of the word. That is the idea which is still evident. That is why it is imperative that the hon. the Minister should have full control, because the economic development of a nation is at stake here, and that is of course a tremendous responsibility for anybody to shoulder. Consequently the Minister should be able to exercise effective control. This is what was written into this legislation. That is why I repeat that, when these matters are brought up in this House, every aspect of what has been done, can be debated here.

The investment corporation does not only serve as an investment channel for outside capital, but will also initiate points of growth, which are so necessary in these areas. The corporation will also be instrumental in the establishment of the necessary production factors. What I mean by that, is the infra-structure which has to be provided before positive industrial development in these areas can be expected. In actual fact the investment and the development corporations act as the patron of the Bantu. These people are safeguarded against intense competition from outside, and that is our point of view. They are protected against exploitation and they are trained in a particular way. It was asked how these people were going to develop now. But surely, the development takes place among the Bantu themselves. They are trained by way of in-service training. They are employed at firms and there they are taught to do the work by way of a training programme where lectures, and so forth, are given to them. They are trained by way of after-care visits paid to Bantu businessmen to see to it that they are staying on the right course and handling their affairs correctly. They are also trained by way of special speech-days which are arranged. These are actually meetings which are held by Bantu who already have business concerns, and at which they discuss business and problems. It is then explained to them where they went wrong and what they should do to set the position right again. This is a particular service with which the Bantu are already being provided.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Where has this already taken place?

*Mr. A. S. D. ERASMUS:

It has already taken place. If the hon. member reads his reports, he will see that it is so. The hon. member may come to Pietersburg and I shall take him around and show him where all these things are taking place. The hon. member for Pinetown is welcome, too. He referred to technical training, and I shall show him where technical training is taking place. It can so easily be asked, “Yes, but how much are there?” Well, one has to start somewhere, and a very good start has already been made.

As I have said, the Minister does in fact always remain the guardian, in all respects. In other words, outside interests, i.e. white entrepreneurs or other bodies not belonging to that specific Bantu group, will, for as long as this Government remains a guardian of that Bantu nation, not be permitted to build up entrenched economic rights in that area. In other words, this view is based on the principle that nobody may enrich himself at the expense of the Bantu in that area, in that homeland. In the course of time all these things take place; they take place slowly, but they do take place. We have now reached the stage where it has become absolutely essential for us to help the Bantu so that they may help themselves, in order to enable them to mobilize themselves economically. In this way they can make their own homeland viable so that they may make a living other than the traditional agricultural living they have been making over the years. This development can only be as rapid as the Bantu can adapt themselves to it and absorb it. If the development is accelerated too much, it may perhaps be a failure. We can only proceed as rapidly as the Bantu themselves can.

It is interesting to note the progress that has already been made. The hon. member wanted to know what happened and where it happened. In his speech the Minister also explained that R3 million was already on loan to Bantu businessmen, 85 per cent of which was on loan to business interests, commercial undertakings, shops, etc.

*An HON. MEMBER:

They have lost money now.

*Mr. A. S. D. ERASMUS:

No, I shall tell the hon. member now. Thirteen per cent was on loan in respect of service establishments, whereas 5 per cent went into industrial development. We have no cause for concern. This pattern is the recognized pattern of any economic development which changes over from a primary economy to a market economy. This is the normal pattern, and the pattern is right. We are satisfied with it. I agree that the development is rather slow, but it is nevertheless taking place. However, there is a significant phenomenon, which gives me a great deal of confidence and makes me very happy. I am referring to the fact that the amount of bad debt that occurs, is absolutely minimal. This bears testimony to the thorough and good work that was done by the investment corporation in the past. There is no reason why it should not be possible to continue the good work, to develop it further and to achieve even greater success. I believe that the Government is indisputably follow ing the right course by allowing the economic and political development of these areas to take place on a parallel basis. This development is taking place under the protective wings of the Government, and the National Party is squarely behind the Government. This is the course we should follow and not the course indicated by the Opposition. They did not furnish us with any blueprint telling us how they are going to implement their policy. I am not going to accuse them of wanting to implement integration. But I want to tell them that if they are advocating that private enterprise should be permitted with control— but they do not state what kind of control, or the control is not positively based on the trusteeship advocated by this side—it will lead to integration. As the Bantu are unable to hold their own, they will lose their possessions. [Interjections.] According to our method the adaptation is not so rapid and the results will be forthcoming gradually. But as the Bantu are being trained, the advantages will also be permanent, which could only be of considerable advantage to the Whites as well. The rate of development will be determined by the speed at which the Bantu acquire the knowledge and the know-how to do business. As they acquire more knowledge, the rate of development will accelerate.

Sir, I think that in years to come we shall look back upon this legislation with the same measure of satisfaction with which we are looking back to-day upon the I.D.C. The I.D.C. demonstrated to us what could be done in South Africa. Although this corporation has a different basis, I believe that the work it will do, will be as good. I believe that it will achieve as much success as the I.D.C. has done. As a result of the methods that will be applied, the economic growth there will really be sound. We shall not have any mushroom booms if the activities of the corporation continue on the basis which is being laid down. The investment corporation will form the bulwark for the forming of capital in each Bantu area.

I make bold to say that the Bantu nations now have the privilege and a golden opportunity to develop well economically. I want to say that they are a fortunate and privileged nation, because where else in Africa and even in the world do we find a nation whose neighbour, who does not even belong to the same race or nation, protects that nation in so many respects? We are protecting the Bantu’s territory; we are protecting their language and culture; we are protecting their economic assets. We are prepared to educate them as far as we can.

*An HON. MEMBER:

We did not have that privilege.

*Mr. A. S. D. ERASMUS:

No, we did not. We never had that privilege. On the contrary, we know what oppression is; that is why we will not apply such a thing to other people. Our Bantu enjoy a measure of protection which no other nation in the world is granted. In time to come we shall be held up as an example to Southern Africa and the entire world.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Is that so?

*Mr. A. S. D. ERASMUS:

Yes, we shall be held up as an example, as a result of what we are doing for these ethnic groups. The conscience of the white man in South Africa is clear before the world, and this peace of mind is attributable to the National Party. The United Party is riding on the National Party’s back, and when people of that Party go abroad, they show off with the National Party’s achievements. Then they say, “Look, just look at all the things we are doing for the various peoples there”. This is a fact. The white man’s policy in South Africa has a Christian and moral basis. This is the basis of everything. When these Black nations reach maturity one day, and they will reach it, when they take their independence one day—when they want it, they can get it— and when all these business concerns go over …

*HON. MEMBERS:

Is that so?

*Mr. A. S. D. ERASMUS:

Yes, they can get it.

*An HON. MEMBER:

What policy is that?

*Mr. A. S. D. ERASMUS:

Is the hon. member a stranger in Jerusalem? Now I am really surprised. These hon. members have been in Parliament for many more years than I have; surely, they must have heard great speeches here. Do they want to tell me now that they have never heard that any Bantu nation which eventually reaches that stage where it asks for its independence, may get it? Is that not so? [Interjections.] I have read that in Hansard numerous times. I want to say that when those nations reach maturity, they will not take us to court or accuse us— as Swaziland is accusing Britain at present— in the following way, “You were our guardian; you governed us; but give us back our land which you alienated to foreign elements. It is our land; now we want money; pay us for it”. That will happen if the United Party’s policy is implemented. We shall then have the same experience as Britain has at the moment. The Swazis are asking for compensation.

We are doing what we are in honour bound to do, and we are doing it because we want to retain our own identity. We want to keep our own territory as White as possible. That is why we do not begrudge the Bantu the retention of their own identity. That is why we do not begrudge the Bantu the opportunity of making their own territories viable, so that they may enjoy a decent standard of living there, look after themselves and educate themselves. We are not worried as the hon. member for Pinetown is. The hon. member is worried about the competition the developed Bantu areas will imply for the white areas. That is once again the selfish colonial view: “How much money can I put into my own pocket? How much can I get at the expense of somebody else?” That is the attitude adopted by that side. It is not the attitude adopted by this side of the House.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Mr. Speaker. I am not going to talk at great length on this Bill for one very good reason: I do not take it very seriously. [Interjections.] Yes, I could talk quite lengthily on it, but to me it is no more serious an attempt to develop the so-called Bantu homelands than the two previous corporation Bills were. The results of these have been apparent to everybody. We have the same high-faluting speeches about the development of those reserves for the benefit of their own people; about the prevention of colonial exploitation; and about the maintenance of the identity of the Bantu people. All these speeches we had when the Bantu Investment Corporation was set up and when the Homelands Development Corporation was set up. Now we have this measure. We have the hon. member for Primrose waxing lyrical over the steps that the Government is taking to prevent the exploitation of the Africans.

I would have been more impressed with speeches like that had I not known that the whole Bantu labour system in this country was the grossest form of exploitation. The whole migratory system of labour, on which the Government bases its economic philosophy, is an exploitation. All this big talk from the hon. member for Pietersburg about colonial exploitation is absolute nonsense. If we had not had investment in South Africa from foreign sources, does he really think we would have reached the stage of economic development that we have in this country? All of a sudden the Nationalist Party members are talking about “protection of local inhabitants”, about “preventing exploitation”, and so on. It is absolute nonsense. Foreign investment built this country, whether we like it or not. Investment in those backward areas of the homelands, the reserves, would have a great effect on those reserves, provided, of course, there were the basic resources that could be developed. This is the crux of the whole matter. We would not have had one penny of so-called colonial exploitation in South Africa, of what I call foreign investment—for which I am profoundly grateful, as every single member in this House ought to be profoundly grateful, because the whole standard of living in this country was given an uplift by that foreign investment—if South Africa had not had the basic resources to be developed. To talk about Swaziland in this derogatory fashion! Let me tell the hon. member that of the three ex-High Commissioner territories Swaziland is the one that has got the greatest chance of establishing itself economically, and for one reason only: It has the basic economic resources. Foreign white investments from overseas and, to a large extent, from South Africa, has been put into Swaziland in order to develop it. The people have reaped the attendant benefits. So let us have a little less of this airy-fairy nonsense, and let us have a little basic economics talked in this House. Maybe then we would make a little progress.

Now what does this Bill purport to do that other Bills have not done? It purports to attract, to attempt to encourage the investment of white capital under strict control in he Bantu homelands. First of all, I want to say at once …

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Where do you see that?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Where do I see that? I have heard that from the Minister. I not only see it in the Bill, but I have also heard it from the hon. the Minister when he introduced this Bill. He told us that the idea was to encourage white investments in the reserves …

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Helen, you did not read the Bill. Be honest and tell us.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Yes, I did. I read the Bill and I have the hon. the Minister’s speech here. So I ploughed through it, unfortunately! He gave us eight or nine conditions under which he would allow that investment to go into the reserves. I might say that, if I were a white investor seeking an investment outlet for my capital, I would not for one moment think of putting it into those reserves under the conditions that the hon. the Minister has laid down. It is absolutely absurd. There is no guarantee as to what is to happen to the businesses once they are established and once they are functioning. There is a specified time, and thereafter nobody knows what is going to happen to the entrepreneur and his investment. What ludicrous conditions! By the way, mention is made of the profit motive. The agent, the contractor, or whatever he is to be called, may be allowed to make some profit, but that must not be the major reason for his going into the reserves. I may he lacking in all these spiritual values that we heard so much about from the hon. member for Primrose, but as far as I know, the one thing that encourages businessmen to invest their money, is the hope that they are going to make a profit. In fact, it is the only thing. They are not philanthropic institutions. They give a good percentage of what they earn straight back to the Government, which promptly proceeds to waste it, right, left and centre. And they give a proportion of their profits to philanthropic institutions which they choose. But they are certainly not going to invest in the Bantu areas as a philanthropic venture. It is absurd to lay down conditions which are obviously right at the beginning designed to put a stop to the very thing the Government said it is hoping to achieve by means of this Bill.

Now let us look at these reserves. What are the resources which can be developed in those areas? Primarily, the reserves are agricultural areas and they are very backward agricultural areas. If the hon. the Minister would perhaps devote a little more of his money to buying up some of the land which has still got to be acquired in order to bring the scheduled and reserved areas up to maximum, then possibly be might be able to do a little more for those people than merely spending the money that he has spent on the building of houses to house people who are the families of workers that he uses in the towns. Of all the waste of money, that I think is one of grossest wastes.

In answer to a question which I put the other day, I have learned that there are still almost 1½ million morgen of land to be acquired by the Trust before the reserved and scheduled areas are complete. That is a large area of land.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

Do not forget that six million morgen have already been acquired.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Yes, I am delighted. It is a very big area; but may I point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the last Land Act was passed in 1936. It is now 1968. It is a long time since that Land Act was passed. All this land should long ago have been acquired, in which case we might have had a little more development in the reserves agriculturally, because basically that is what those areas are— agricultural areas. There is no infrastructure for industrial development inside the reserves, and until the hon. the Minister gets down to it and provides some of that infrastructure, he is not going to be able to attract any white capital, leaving aside these ludicrous conditions that he lays down in this Bill. He is not going to be able to attract any white entrepreneur into the reserves. That is number one.

Number two: whatever mining resources there are, will be—and I use this ugly word— exploited. They will be exploited if there is any hope that they are going to be developed properly. That money, that exploitation, that investment in mineral resources, will redound to the benefit of the reserves. There is no doubt about that. First of all, royalties will be paid. Secondly, employment will be provided for many thousands of people. So one does not need a Bill of this nature to enable mining houses to go into the reserves. There are already mining houses to the best of my knowledge, searching for minerals, and I think even developing them in certain areas. Is this correct?

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Yes, but you are now contradicting the first paragraph of your speech.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

No. I say that what resources there are, will be developed if it is economic. But to expect businessmen to go into the reserves to develop industry, for which there is no potentiality whatsoever, just in order to help the hon. the Minister and his Deputy Ministers as well as his aspirant Deputy Minister to absorb all those millions of Africans that they hope to draw back from the white industrial areas, is so much nonsense. This is the real basis of this Bill. It has nothing to do with this fine, philanthropic, guardianship attitude of the white man over his black ward that we have heard so much about from the hon. members for Primrose and Pietersburg. There is one basic reason underlying this Bill, and it is to try in every possible frantic way—and it is frantic—to reach their aim. I certainly detected notes of hysteria in the speeches of the hon. members for Heilbron and for Primrose, hysteria, because they know perfectly well that everything that the Government has attempted so far, from the time that the Bantu Investment Corporation was set up in 1960, I think the date was, from the time that the Tomlinson Commission reported, way back in 1956, has fallen far short of the lofty hopes that were held out in those years, hopes that opportunities for employment would be provided, that Bantu residing in the urban areas would be attracted back into the reserves. None of this is happening. We are not beginning to touch the fringe of the problem, because agriculture can absorb only 15,000, I think the estimate of the Tomlinson Commission was, additional people per annum in the reserves. We are going to have to provide jobs for at least 50,000 to 60,000 more Africans every year in those areas. Agriculture cannot do it and industry is certainly not doing it within the reserves. The figure I was given recently was that from 1960 to 1966 the industries established in the Bantu areas with Government assistance provided employment for only 945 people. This is not even a drop in the ocean. It is infinitesimal, non-existent, to all intents and purposes. As far as the border industries are concerned, the second leg of this hopeful plan to attract Africans from the white industrial complexes back to the reserves, I think that the number of jobs provided is approximately 46,000. This is absolutely nothing. Those jobs are provided for Africans from reserves which happen, by lucky accident of fate, to have been situated next to the existing industrial areas of white South Africa. This is a hopeless position.

I therefore cannot take this Bill very seriously. I do not think that it really matters very much whether it is sent to a select committee or not, because I regard the reserves in an entirely different light from both sides of the House. I regard those areas as areas which were simply set aside as a kind of protective mechanism to an underdeveloped people many years ago, before South Africa had really developed industrially. The first Land Act was passed in 1913 before World War I and the second in 1936 before World War II.

World War II is the watershed of industrial development in South Africa because then tremendous development took place, sucking labour in from the poverty-stricken reserves on the one hand and helping towards the building up of the white industrial areas on the other. What we should have been aiming at since that time was further industrialization in those areas of South Africa which are basically suited to industrialization, where all the locational factors are present, namely the markets, skilled labour, power, and the transport of raw materials. Those are the locational factors.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

And eventually handing the country over to a black government.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

This is not going to happen. It is a fallacy because this is a multiracial country. It will always be a multi-racial country. We can no more do without African labour than the Africans can do without white entrepreneurship.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the need for white entrepreneurship, which is the very crux of this Bill, the need for Africans to have the value of white entrepreneural leadership and of white capital. The reverse side of the coin is the irrevocable, ineluctable need of the Whites for African labour. The development of the reserves as industrial areas capable of replacing, as far as employment opportunities are concerned, the opportunities that Africans enjoy in the white areas, is a possibility that just does not exist. As far as I am concerned this Bill will achieve nothing, in the same way that its predecessors achieved nothing, and all the planning Bills of the hon. the Minister of Planning will achieve very little in forcing industrial development to the borders of the reserves, unless white South Africa is prepared to accept a disastrous drop in the standard of living of everybody in this country. Then of course there is nothing that we cannot do. If we want to revert to the situation where all of us have a lowered standard of living, when indeed the spectre of poorwhitism will again rear its head, we must go ahead with measures such as this instead of tackling the economic problems of this country and developing our industries as fast as we possibly can in the right areas and not in under-developed agricultural areas.

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton reminds me of the old English proverb “he who hesitates is lost”. That is more or less the position in which she finds herself to-day. She started off in a completely pessimistic vein as far as our future here in South Africa is concerned. She approaches in a negative way any measure we adopt in this Parliament in respect of the race groups. I therefore do not think that we should take her seriously, because she will disappear from this House in due course in the same way as her ideas will disappear from this House. The hon. member said that of all the former protectorates Swaziland is the one which probably draws the most capital. As far as I know, and I may be out with a small percentage, Swaziland is the only one of all three the protectorates where approximately 45 per cent of the land belongs to Whites. The Swazis are already laying claim to that land at present. They want this land to become the property of the Swazis and of the Swazis alone, in the future and not the property of the Whites. One wonders what will eventually become of the economy of Swaziland when that situation develops. Has the same thing not happened in Kenya, for example? Has the same thing not happened in other African states? It is still happening in Kenya to-day. The people there say “We have been sold out.”

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Like the Whites in the Transkei.

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

I shall deal with the hon. member for Transkei presently. For the moment I want to confine myself to the observations made by the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for South Coast made a very important statement here this afternoon. The hon. member for South Coast is a person for whom I have very great respect. He said that the United Party is not in favour of integration. We on this side of the House have always taken the view that the policy laid down by the United Party would lead to integration. It would lead to economic integration. I want to know whether the hon. member agreed with his Leader when he made the following statement (translation)—

The United Party believes that White, Black and Brown in South Africa do not merely form part of the population here, but that all of them form one nation.

This is what Sir De Villiers Graaff said to an audience consisting of students of the University of the Witwatersrand. Does the hon. member agree with that? The United Party believes that White, Black and Brown in South Africa do not merely form part of the population here, but that all of them form one nation. This is integration in all its facets. The hon. Leader of the Opposition made this statement to students of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

From which newspaper does this report come?

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

It comes from the Transvaler. Does the hon. member repudiate this report? Unfortunately I could not make my speech while the hon. the Leader was in the House. He said this in 1963. In 1967 the hon. the Leader made another statement (translation)—

The United Party accepts the responsibility of establishing a successful multi-racial state in South Africa.

The hon. the Leader made this statement in Bloemfontein. How can the hon. member for South Coast come along here to-day and say that the United Party is not in favour of that and that their policy will not lead to integration in the end? It is preposterous to make such a statement here. Everybody in this House agrees, however, that the reserves in South Africa must be developed. We do not deny that. The Government must develop the reserves, and both sides of the House are agreed on that. The question is, however, what method should be applied to develop the reserves.

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

You are coming right now.

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

I have always been right, but that hon. member has never been right. The difference of opinion is about the way in which the Bantu homelands should be developed. The United Party says they should be developed as an economic unit, an “economic pool”, as the hon. member for South Coast put it. The Government, however, wants to develop the homelands by means of this legislation so that the Bantu may become economically self-sufficient.

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

As an uneconomic unit.

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

I shall not answer the hon. member, because he does not know what it is all about. The United Party says the development should be undertaken as a “pool”, in other words, the South African economy should be centralized.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

What economy? For the whole of South Africa?

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

Yes, that is right, we understood each other. If we were to apply the policy of the unit or a “pool” in future, would the reserves ever really come into their own? Would they be able to develop to the point where they would have their own sovereignty? Would it not mean that the reserves would eventually be incorporated in South Africa economically and would play an inferior part in this country in the future? Would it not mean that integration in all its forms would ultimately reign supreme in South Africa? If we applied the policy of a unit or a “pool” in South Africa, it would therefore be fatal to the future of the white man in South Africa. I do not say this with the intention of frightening anybody, but because of the numerical strength of the Bantu it is our bounden duty to-day to develop South Africa by means of the homelands, while at the same time looking after our own economy.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Do you think the Bantu areas should have their own separate economy?

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

Yes, they must have their own independent economy eventually.

*Dr. G. F. JACOBS:

Do you deny that Professor Tomlinson said that South Africa was “one, integrated economy in which the Bantu homelands have a central role to fulfil”? He also said …

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member may not make a speech now.

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

I do not think it is necessary to reply to that question. We have our policy, and I think the hon. member knows what our policy is. Our policy is as I stated it with reference to what the hon. member for South Coast had said. This Bill is before the House to-day in order to accelerate the economic development of the Bantu homelands. Hon. members said that the Bantu homelands were not being developed rapidly enough, but the development must not be accelerated to the extent that it takes place at the expense of the Bantu in the homelands. Because of the Bantu’s limited absorptive capacity, we should not go too fast. It will also be fatal to the homelands if they are developed by means of white capital. As I have said before, as a result of this measure we will not be reproached, when problems arise in the future, with having sold out the white man in the black areas of South Africa, as is happening in the rest of Africa. Not only the Bantu, but also the white man is protected in the economic field by this measure. Nevertheless it meets a need in making it possible for the brain-power of the white man to be used for the development of the reserves, without any economic integration taking place.

What the white man does not tolerate or allow in his own area, the Black man will not tolerate or allow in his own area either. It would be dishonest of the white man to use his position of power to exploit the Bantu. Under no circumstances will we allow this to happen. Without in any way departing from the principles as laid down and applied by this side of the House in the past, I must say that while it is possible to bring about development of a specialized nature in the homelands at present, such development will also help to accelerate the economic development of the homelands. This is of the utmost importance to the continued existence of not only the Whites, but also the Coloureds and the Indians. Wherever the white man has had to leave, the rest has followed. In terms of this measure the Bantu trust will serve as an umbrella for the development of other corporations, in other words, subsidiaries. There will be closer co-operation and liaison between the various types of corporations. But all of them will be under the same umbrella, namely the Bantu trust and the trustee, which will thus be able to bring about co-ordination. Such co-operation cannot be brought about under the existing legislation. The task of the trustee will now be greatly facilitated in spite of the fact that expansion and development will take place on a much larger scale than has been the case up to now. If no development takes place in the reserves, economic stagnation will set in, and if economic stagnation sets in it will be fatal not only to the future of the white man, but also to that of the black man. We are in a fortunate position in South Africa to-day in that we are able to accelerate the development of the reserves. Sir, I should like to refer you to an article in Optima written by Mr. Michael Comay. Mr. Michael Comay is the present Israeli Ambassador at U.N. I think Mr. Michael Comay, who lived in South Africa previously —he left this country for Israel in 1944—is an expert in the field of African development to-day. He said inter alia, the following—

The co-operative movement is one of the keys to African self-help. It should ease the transition to modern farming, shield the small man against exploitation, and instil democratic habits. It offers a middle road between Western capitalism and state socialism. And it fits the temperament of the average African, who is strongly individualistic but does not take kindly to coercion.

Not only do we want to protect the black man in agriculture, but we want to go much further than that. It is a recognized fact today that co-operative techniques play a very important role in many of the black African states. As a rule these countries have insufficient capital. Hardly any entrepreneur class exists in those countries. The majority of the population are farmers. It is the same position as we have in South Africa. The difference is that here in South Africa the black man is able to go to the white area, while in the black African states the black man has to stay where he is. This makes all the difference as far as our South African economy is concerned. In those states there is nowhere else for them to go. Until recently, or until a few years ago, Nigeria was always held up to us as the prime example of a prosperous state on the Continent of Africa. In Nigeria 78 per cent of the male population are engaged in agriculture, forestry and the fishing industry. Six per cent are engaged in commerce, while a further six per cent are employed in manufacturing industry. Mr. Comay further makes a very important statement he says—

On the other hand …

And this is the crux of the whole matter—

… unfettered private enterprise is no answer either, especially as it might preserve a claimant position for foreign capital. The initiative for development must come from the governments, but they can spread responsibility and involve broad levels of the people through encouraging co-operative methods.

This is the same system as the one we are pleading for here. These are not the words of a South African. He was born in this country, but these words come from an expert who is conversant with African affairs.

*Dr. G. F. JACOBS:

Why do you not tell us what Professor Sadie says?

*Dr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE:

Who is Professor Sadie after all?

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

When the hon. member gets up to speak he can tell us who Professor Sadie is. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

In a report of the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Africa for 1962 it is stated that there were 12,000 registered co-operatives south of the Sahara in that year. This figure does not include the white co-operatives in South Africa. It is a well-known fact that many of the Black states turn to Israel to-day for the training of their people. Israel has had many years of experience of the managerial techniques of this kind of undertaking. Israel has had great success with its kibbutz system, which, although it is a collective system, nevertheless rests on the co-operative basis. We go much further in this Bill. We do not want to train the black man merely to become future farmers. We also want to train the black man in respect of mining and industry so that he may take care of himself for the good of his own people in future. The development of the homelands is a difficult task.

However, it is not the task of the hon. the Minister alone. It is also the task of the people of South Africa. I believe that it is one of the most difficult tasks in the world, i.e. to protect and safeguard not only the future of the white man, but also that of the Coloured. Because when the position of the white man is threatened, the position of the Coloureds and Asiatics is also threatened. This is a dual task and planning has to be undertaken for both the white man and the black man. However, the future is beckoning us. We shall succeed in the end, provided that everybody, including the Opposition, makes his humble contribution.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

Mr. Speaker, many Government spokesmen to-day have shown in their speeches how absolutely vital they regard the question of development. In everything that they have said they have shown that it is absolutely vital, and I stress absolutely vital for the success of their policy and approach. They know very well that, unless they get the development and the job opportunities opening up there, their policy will fail more and more. And what have we seen? What have we seen in the figures that the hon. the Minister has given us as to the development thus far? A lot of money may have been spent, but, in so far as job opportunities are concerned, virtually nothing. And now, if we look at this Bill before the House and the speeches of the hon. Ministers, we can see that in the next four-year period the contribution in employment opportunities is again going to be minimal. I will quote certain figures in a moment to support this. But what I stress is that it is quite obvious that we are entering upon a further four-year period of the development of these reserves at a pace which makes no significant contribution to the success of Government policy. Therefore it becomes absolutely vital that, instead of continuing to waste time, the Government reappraise this whole policy and other aspects of it.

Let me just give hon. members some figures from which one can deduce how many job opportunities are now envisaged by the hon. the Minister with the expenditure of moneys mentioned in his speech. The hon. the Minister has told us, if I do him justice— and he can correct me if I am wrong—that between 1968 and 1972 he is going to spend R25 million in development through the Bantu Investment Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation, and by means of such other instruments as he is taking to hand. That is R25 million in a four-year period. What do we know from the investment in border industries? R300 million was spent to obtain jobs for approximately 50,000 Bantu. R25 million should, on a mere mathematical basis …

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

Was that Government money?

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

No, that was not Government money. I am merely using this to draw a comparison to ascertain how many jobs are now going to be created.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

It does not matter what it is. It is an investment. R300 million was spent to give jobs to 50,000 people over a long period of years. On a mere mathematical calculation the R25 million which the hon. the Minister envisages to spend, will give a total of 4,000 jobs. And this is spread over four years.

*Mr. G. F. VAN L. FRONEMAN:

May I ask the hon. member a question? Could the hon. member tell us whether he has calculated the cost of employing one Bantu here in the white towns?

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

This is the attempted answer which Government members always give. They ask what it will cost here. Perhaps it will cost the same amount. I am simply examining what the scale of Government plans is in terms of this legation. The scale of Government plans is to spend R25 million over a period of four years which will provide a total of 4,000 jobs in the Bantu reserves, if they are lucky. Consequently, this Bill we are discussing with all the expenditure it entails will give 1,000 jobs per year in the Native reserves. Who, therefore, can seriously think that after four years we are going to be any nearer the solution of this problem than we are to-day? Who can really seriously think that? Hon. members do not all appreciate this. Surely hon. Ministers, at any rate, appreciate that, after four years, we are going to be no nearer a solution. Surely, therefore, they appreciate that one must adopt a new approach in these matters.

I should like to suggest that one of the good reasons for sending this Bill to a Select Committee is that the hon. the Minister and Government departments are certainly not the best possible instruments for obtaining development. The hon. the Minister and his Department have many virtues. I do not doubt that. But they are not people who have experience in industrial and commercial development, even though good work has been done in the agricultural field.

Again and again hon. members opposite adopt policies and show a lack of understanding of what, in fact, brings development and what not. Let me give a few examples. We have had the Planning Bill. It is now hoped that, if you force away and deny industries the right to establish themselves in certain areas, they will necessarily establish themselves on the borders of the reserves and in the reserves. They will not. They will not establish these industries at all if it does not pay them. Now we have this Bill to set up these various instruments to establish development in the reserves, but against what background is this established? This is established against the background of breaking up the country and establishing independent states. Hon. members opposite never tire of telling us that one of the reasons why we get industrial development in South Africa is that we are a stable country. I would be the first to agree that we are a stable country, and may it long so remain; but is there any hon. member opposite who would say that a new, independent state carved out of South Africa is likely to have that same stability? This is a factor which any industrialist worthy of the name would look at. [Interjections.] Yes, and they are either undeveloped or, where they are developed, they employ entirely different techniques from those which the Government will permit. Hon. members opposite should know that industrialists are not going to be inclined to go to these areas, for that reason alone. If they are not prepared to establish industries inside those areas, they are likewise not prepared to establish industries on the borders, where there is a real risk that those borders may become trouble spots. I quite concede that nobody takes the Government seriously when it suggests that the Native reserve outside Pretoria, upon which the border industry development is based, is going to be an independent state. Every industrialist knows that, whatever the Government says, this Native reserve outside Pretoria is not going to get independence. Every industrialist knows that it is nonsense to talk about giving this area independence. This is surely a case of hon. members opposite, like the Minister of Defence, saying one thing, but knowing in their hearts that they mean another thing. One naturally is not surprised to find that we are getting development there, and that industrialists are being attracted there because they feel, above all, that right against the heart of South Africa’s capital there is no possibility of an independent state. But people are not certain to-day whether the Transkei will one day get its independence. The industrialists are not taking a chance. The Government has been in power for 20 years and, recently, there has been more and more talk about this movement towards independence. But in the whole of this period white industrialists have not gone to the Transkei. This is partly because they do not want to take the chance that I have mentioned, and partly because economic forces tend to drive them elsewhere in any case. This whole basic framework of Government policy within which industries are to be established and employment opportunities created, negatives the possibility of development. People do not want to go there; they do not want to take political risks and face dangers which they do not know about. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Government policy is still-born in this regard.

Sir, when hon. members opposite ask us what our plan is in this regard, my reply is this: The first vital difference between their policy and ours is that, under our policy, you will have the stability that South Africa has to-day, not only in the so-called white areas, but over the whole country, and, consequently, you will find that industrialists are more willing to go into the reserves and to establish industries there. This is the vital point which justifies us in saying that, under our policy, there will be far more development in the reserves than under Government policy, and that our policy is infinitely preferable.

Sir, when you leave the question of the framework of policy and you come to the question of method, here too I would have thought that it was obvious that you would create more development and employment opportunities by adopting our approach rather than the Government’s approach. Let us look at some of the points made by the Government in this regard. First of all we have the fact that it is mainly the Minister and his Department, with the best will in the world, who are going to ensure the development of the reserves under their policy; this is the gist of the Bill. The hon the Minister has the final say in everything. He decides where an industry is to be established and Whether it will be established. His whole approach to development shines through this whole measure. Secondly, it is obvious that the Minister would like to see the Bantu themselves ensuring this development, and he is disappointed that they cannot as yet bring about this development themselves. Well, he is right in suggesting that you cannot expect large-scale development to come from the Natives themselves in the reserves. You have certain limited developments there and doubtless they can grow, but you cannot expect any sizeable development to be initiated by the Bantu themselves, for the time being at any rate.

Finally, the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite indicate that they are only going to allow white capital in the reserves on an agency basis and on some kind of altruistic basis. Industrialists must not look too closely for profit; they must be prepared to share their normal profit with somebody else. Sir, I think hon. members on that side are losing sight of what they themselves apparently want. They say that they want employment opportunities and development in these areas. Why should they be reluctant to accept development even though it may to some extent involve the profit motive? Surely the opportunity is the big thing —the opportunity of living and working in and near their homes and enjoying a reasonable standard of living. Hon. members on that side, by talking about “neo-colonialism” and “winsbejag”, are virtually placing any possible development in a strait jacket and killing it. Therefore they are not getting the employment opportunities and holding the Bantu there, which they apparently desire so much. We say to them therefore that they must re-examine some of their ideological objections in order to achieve their own objective, namely, to keep the Bantu in his own area and give him work near to his home.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

Why was there no more development when your formula was applied?

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

I will come to our formula. Some hon. members opposite are claiming that white capital and skill are going into the Bantu areas; others say that that is not so. There is no doubt about it that for years the Government has virtually been discouraging industrialists from going into the Bantu areas. We all recall the statement by the late Dr. Verwoerd that if industrialists cared to go into the protectorates—and I take it that the same will apply to the reserves— they must not look to him for protection. Sir, can you imagine any greater discouragement to would-be industrialists? I suggest that there still remains great discouragement in this Bill. There are many provisions in this Bill which are highly discouraging. Firstly, the Government says that there must on no account be links with foreign interests. Sir, half of South Africa has been developed by industries with foreign links and we have come to no harm. Every English company, every American company, every French company, I presume, is a “foreign interest”. Will the hon. the Minister tell us which countries are frowned upon by the Government? He did not specify them in his speech. I have already mentioned that the Minister lays down the condition that an agent must not operate in the Bantu areas solely for his own advantage. Well, no sensible industrialist operates solely for his own advantage. He is concerned to give employment to people and to bring wealth to the country. From what the hon. the Minister has said I think he is envisaging something beyond that. What he is envisaging is that the industrialists must not take the normal profit, and before hon. members opposite get apoplexy when I talk about normal profit, let me say that I will come back to certain limitations which we definitely envisage. Thirdly, there is no doubt whatsoever that there will be a vast amount of red tape connected with the establishment of industry or in connection with contractual or agency work in the reserve areas. All the Minister’s conditions alone are additional to the ordinary burdens an industrialist will have, and quite clearly one is going to have a vast amount of red tape. So I say that whereas in the late Dr. Verwoerd’s time there was a specific warning that industrialists should not go in and develop these areas, the Government has now changed to a rather less direct but equally discouraging policy towards these people. Therefore it will not surprise me at all if we do not get the development which the Deputy Minister was mentioning a moment ago. I say again that Government members lose sight of the need for this development to give these people work near their homes. With that as the great object, surely they can revise some of their views in this regard.

Let us glance now at the method of the United Party in this matter. It is only necessary here to state certain principles. In the first place it would be a main principle of ours to give opportunities for employment to the Bantu themselves. This would be our main aim, and therefore I do not doubt that there will be the hope that more and more they will rise to high positions in the firms established there and, as was said in answer to a question over the floor of the House, if they were in the position to buy an industry, perhaps established by a white man, this would be perfectly in order. One would be only too glad if they could in fact purchase an industry established by white capital and skill. There can be no fear on this account, because the hon. the Minister himself wishes to see these industries taken over in this very way.

A second principle would flow naturally from the approach the United Party makes to these areas. We regard them as reserves, as areas reserved for the ownership of the Bantu. Consequently we would take such steps as are necessary to protect their ownership of the land. Any rights given to white capitalists coming in would be severely limited and subject to that factor. With those things, and doubtless with inducements which we would give to people to go there, I believe you would get a considerable measure of development. And I make bold to say, on the basis of what I have said here to-day, that there will be far more development than we shall see within the policy framework and the methods which Government speakers have urged.

But this side of the House is not so blinded by the possibility of development as to believe that this will be the answer for the great mass of the Native people. Already, as we know, two-thirds of them are outside those areas and their numbers are growing apace. That is why, of course, in these big matters we have a different approach. I do ask hon. members opposite, where they in their heart of hearts know that they are not going to get the sort of population ratio in the so-called white part that they desire, surely they must re-think their whole basic approach. The fact that they in this debate showed genuine concern about the absence of an opportunity for development in those areas, is a measure of their appreciation that things cannot go on like this, that they cannot continue to follow this rainbow in this way. So we rejoice that they see the importance of the need for development and we trust that they will draw the appropriate conclusions where it does not come.

Just for a moment, let us look at the attitude of the people there themselves. As I read the reports in the Press, the Bantu there certainly wish to see white capital coming in on a freer basis than the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept. Surely this is an important consideration. Hon. members opposite say that once they are independent they can do what they please. Surely if at this stage they are keen to have it and their Government is keen to have it, this is an argument for allowing a freer basis than the one contemplated at present.

We have pointed to the fact—the hon. member for Transkei mentioned the article by Prof. Sadie—that also Prof. Olivier said that the whole question of the development of these areas needs to be subjected to a thorough examination. What better place to do that than in a select committee? We pointed to the real danger of the wastage of public money. We hope the hon. the Minister will be able to allay our fears that money may be wasted to a considerable extent in regard to this deboning factory and certain of the other undertakings there. There again, the fact that we do not have a full picture, and cannot keep an adequate finger upon the finances of these companies, is a very grave weakness in this Bill. There is another point I would like to bring pertinently to the Minister’s attention. In his speech the hon. the Minister pointed out that the normal profit motive is not to govern the establishment of the undertakings. I would like to quote what the Minister said—

In hierdie verband huldig ek die standpunt dat ons nie die gebruiklike streng winsmaatstawwe aan die dag behoort te lê nie.

He is speaking there of an undertaking established by one of his instruments. What I want to ask him is this: If he is prepared to establish an undertaking, not on a normal basis, but, if you like, on the basis of no profit virtually, what is going to happen when this is handed over to the Bantu? Because it is envisaged that these undertakings will be handed over to the Bantu in due course. They will then inherit an undertaking which is simply designed to give employment, but not designed to stand on its own economic feet. I suggest that this is a serious weakness as far as that aspect is concerned, because, unless it can stand on its own feet, it will collapse once the subsidies and other financial aids are withdrawn. I hope the Minister will look at that and tell us what his answer is.

I regret to say that the hon. the Minister himself appears to me to be despondent in regard to the possibilities of development. Not only does he despair of getting outside capitalists interested, but he says in one place here that there is no need for the assistance of private enterprise in trade and very little in industry. He cannot really be at all hopeful of getting any if he says it is not needed, if he feels that these governmental instruments will be adequate. He is going to get that small measure of development which I mentioned earlier. We, therefore, see from the Minister’s own words that he does not expect private enterprise to be greatly interested in this basis which he is offering them. This is a most serious indictment of the scheme he is offering. It is not fair, in the light of this statement, for Government members to claim that there is a true use of white capital and skill there. The Minister says in so many words that it is not needed. He says there is no need for assistance by private enterprise in trade and very little in industry.

So, when one comes to attempt to see how things will develop, one is driven more and more to the conclusion that those leading Afrikaans businessmen were right who said that, by the turn of the century, there will not be, as there are to-day, 4 million, or perhaps a little more, Bantu in our urban areas, but virtually 12 million. This is a fair inference from the speeches of Mr. Jan S. Marais of the Trust Bank and of Mr. Human of Federale Volksbeleggings. I would refer hon. members in this regard to the speech of Mr. Marais at Bloemfontein in September, 1965, in which he envisaged the following, as he said at page 2 of this document—

At present 85 per cent of our white population and 38 per cent of our non-white population already live in urban areas. Personally I expect that, by the year 2000, at least 95 per cent of our white population, and more than 50 per cent of our non-white population, will reside in cities and/or urban areas, say approximately 60 per cent of the total population.

Bearing in mind the population ratios, and bearing in mind that he expects that there will be one White to four non-Whites … [Interjections] … I am sorry that I cannot hear what that hon. member is trying to tell me. It is a mere matter of mathematical calculation that in their opinion there will be approximately 12 million Bantu in our urban areas and cities by the year 2000. I have no hesitation in saying in the light of the small plans that we have for the development of these areas, in the light of the general framework within which this development is to take place and in the light of the general trend of population movement from country to town, that Mr. Jan S. Marais will be right and the Government wrong.

*Mr. H. D. K. VAN DER MERWE:

I think that the hon. member for Pinelands, who has just resumed his seat, ought to be glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is not following upon him, because I think he would then have had a hard time. A few of the statements made by the hon. member are really very inaccurate. He has shown himself to be a pessimist—in fact, I am sure that if the hon. member took off his jacket, we would see that he is wearing a belt as well as braces. The hon. member suggested that if the United Party was governing at this moment, there would have been stability throughout the country. But in the light of their policy, I would suggest that if they had remained in power after 1948, we would by 1953 already have had no more stability in this country. And if they should ever come into power with their race federation policy, the stability built up by the National Party would disappear as quickly as did the stability for the Whites in the Congo.

The hon. member also spoke about the rate of development in the homelands. The paper read to Sabra by Dr. Adendorff on the subject of “the necessity of consolidating the Bantu homelands—economically” has been freely quoted in this debate. But my impression was that the hon. members of the Opposition had not made a proper study of all the papers read to Sabra on this matter. Of course, they did not have the privilege of attending the discussions which arose from these papers, nor do they have any knowledge of the atmosphere in which these discussions took place. For the benefit of the hon. member for Pinelands I want to quote what Dr. Adendorff said about the development in Bantu homelands in the field of agriculture and mining. He said [translation]—

As regards the development of agriculture, the basis of the economy in the under-developed homelands, the Government has already made considerable progress. More than 50 per cent of the available agricultural land has already been planned, while 34 per cent of the land which was destroyed by wasteful exploitation has already been reclaimed.

This wasteful exploitation took place during the regime of the United Party. Dr. Adendorff went on to say—

Progress has also been made in the field of forestry, and of the 687,000 acres in the Bantu homelands which are considered suitable for afforesting, 130,000 acres have already been afforested, according to the latest available information, while future afforesting will take place at a rate of 10,000 acres per year. Of the 60,000 acres which are considered suitable for the cultivation of hard fibres, 17,000 acres are already under sisal, phormium tenax and other varieties. About 44,000 acres of the Bantu homelands are eminently suitable for sugar cultivation, and about 3,500 Bantu farmers are at present cultivating sugar cane on 22,000 acres.

Dr. Adendorff continues as follows—

It is interesting to note that up to 1965, 25,521 miles of roads, 619 bridges and 4,707 dams had been built and 7,400 boreholes had been sunk in the homelands, while at the end of 1965, 23,500 morgen were already under irrigation in the homelands.

I just want to illustrate further that there has in fact been development, according to Dr. Adendorff. He went on to say—

In order to resettle those Bantu who have been uprooted as a result of the agricultural rehabilitation schemes, 37 towns with a total of about 38,600 houses have already been completed in terms of the five year plan. The five year plan terminating in 1971 makes provision for the erection of 93,480 dwellings, at an estimated cost of R121,500,000. In addition to the 37 towns already being built, it will mean the development of 61 new towns in the Bantu homelands in the next five years. They will provide accommodation for approximately three quarters of a million people. As far as mining is concerned, about 90 concessions have already been made available to white persons in various parts of the Bantu homelands to develop mineral resources in the Bantu homelands on an agency basis on behalf of the Government. Although some of the homelands have considerable mineral resources at their disposal, mining as yet does not contribute a great deal to the national income of the Bantu in the homelands.
Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

*Mr. H. D. K. VAN DER MERWE:

No, unfortunately that would mean that I would not have sufficient time to finish my speech. The hon. member will get another opportunity. In any case, the hon. the Minister will reply to the hon. member’s questions. The point I want to make here in reply to the hon. member for Pinetown is that they are making gross generalizations as though nothing has been done in the homelands in the past five years. Since 1956 I have travelled with students through the homelands, first as a student myself and then as a lecturer. I am at present working on a thesis about the homelands, and I can assure hon. members that the development which is taking place there is phenomenal. I want to say here to-night that in time to come the development of the homelands in South Africa will be considered the Eighth Wonder of the world. We shall meet again in 20 years’ time, if we are spared, and then we can discuss the matter again. Finally, I just want to say this, for the edification of the hon. member for Pinetown in particular, and then I will leave him in peace. The hon. member actually had nothing to say, and so he said it.

This Bill is the product of the natural growth of the policy of the National Party for solving the contact situation between Whites and Blacks in South Africa. Clause after clause proves the consistency of the policy of the National Party. It is proof that the historical acceptance of the guardianship of the Whites over the Bantu has not merely been a hollow party political slogan, as it was made out to be by the enemies and opponents of the National Party, but an honest, firm and dedicated responsibility. In the face of the great deal of opposition which the National Party encountered from the United Party, not even to mention the Progressive Party, this call to guardianship had to be accepted and perpetuated. With the practical realization of the Bantu homelands policy, the National Party said that we would develop the Bantu homelands economically, and that is what we are doing. I now want to ask the hon. Opposition to make an honest, scientific analysis of the position of the Bantu homelands in 1948 and to-day. This guardianship is being accepted with responsibility and good cheer by the rising National Party generations. In all fields of the academic sphere, scientists from the younger generation clearly appreciate this logical reasoning of the National Party, and its practical execution presents them with a challenge.

In this way one will probably find differences of accent as regards the rate of development, and so on, because scientists are not politicians. The sociologist sees it through the eyes of the sociologist alone, the economist through the eyes of the economist alone, the ethnologist through the eyes of the ethnologist alone. But the National Party, because it has an understanding of the scientific spirit, and because it can employ scientific research, is in a position to view the matter as a whole and to convert it into a political policy, even though there may be small differences in regard to the purely scientific aspects. What is of primary importance is that there are no longer any differences of opinion about this in that most scientists in our country already accept that in principle the Bantu homelands have come to stay, and that they offer the only solution to the contact situation between Whites and Blacks in South Africa. As more persons are confronted with this practical situation in respect of the economic development of the Bantu homelands, the old truth which the National Party has been proclaiming for generations, is being confirmed, namely that when one wants to deal with the contact between Whites and Blacks, one is faced with two totally different cultural groups. On the one hand one is faced with a Western European, whose economic system in integrated with a totally different orientation to life, a system which has grown in a remarkable way into a refined and highly specialized form in modern times. Western man has had to bring this about in order to maintain himself in this modern world. Here then we have the Whites of South Africa, with this highly specialized economic system, as against the Bantu, who are not only totally different from the Whites, but who are also divided into various groups, and whose general forms of industry, as far as their economic systems are concerned, only comprise agriculture and animal husbandry. And these are only very rudimentary, and are supplemented a little by hunting. In this respect their economic system differs totally in nature from that of the Whites. The development of the homelands further demands, along with sympathy and good faith, a precise knowledge of both of the economic systems of these two groups, and then also a knowledge of the situation with which we are faced.

Clause 3 states the object of the Bantu Investment Corporation as being the development of the Bantu homeland as well as the Bantu. From this it is clear that the Bantu cannot be viewed as being detached from that soil which must one day nourish him. These developments go hand in hand, and the one group cannot be emphasized more than the other. The development of the one is there for the sake of the other.

Furthermore, I just want to mention a few matters in respect of the self-development of the Bantu in their own areas. What is of fundamental importance is the fact that we must not accept the false point of departure in our views on the development in the Bantu areas by which our policy of separate development will assume an over-hasty and anxious character. Because if separate development for the Bantu does not in effect mean self-development as well, however protracted and difficult this national growth process may be, it will mean either deceit towards them or self-deceit. The self-development of a nation, or in this case of a tribe or tribal unit, is development whereby that nation’s country is developed primarily by itself. It is essentially a self-educational process which works through to all the other facets and fields of the living pattern of that particular nation. Self-development means that the community must equip itself and its youth for its task in all these fields, and will, in the process, develop an individual character and its own independence in its life in all these fields. This self-development must, however, be measured against norms and standards. One cannot speak of self-development or development if certain norms and standards do not exist against which it can be tested in order to determine whether it is developed or not. [Interjection.]

In case the hon. member does not understand, I am now dealing with clause 3. The development has such depth and significance that one can discuss it for years. In the field of providing in one’s own needs we find economic norms, such as advanced planning, balanced industries in respect of the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors; labour discipline and labour distribution; marketing economy; enterprise, and so forth. Each nation which develops itself, also does so in terms of its own nature, its own growth rate, its own growth pattern, in terms of its own standard of living and attitude to life, and in this manner gives its own answers to its own challenges.

It is obvious that in this situation in South Africa where we have a guardian, the guardian will also give assistance to these developing groups. When we speak of this assistance, we realize that it is valuable. It is essential. But if it is to be really valuable, it must fit in with that community's own growth pattern and growth process, it must be of assistance which it will be able to assimilate through each stage of its development so that it becomes its own.

The failures and the difficult growth problems of many other African states are often due to, on the one hand, the fact that the European colonists, Europeans who came to settle themselves in Africa, did not consider black people capable of developing themselves according to the processes and standards of a Western way of life or, on the other hand, to the fact that the development and growth rate which they introduced there, was for the benefit of the Whites themselves. In this respect South Africa is also a good example in a certain sense. The imperialism of the Dutch East India Company or the imperialism of the British Government—and if I look very carefully at the United Party, I see that they are actually only a continuation of that—never really cared for the development of the indigenous population groups. They followed a policy of economic integration and economic exploitation. When the last penny has been extracted, those persons simply return.

It is therefore clear that separate development is not a simple question of developing a country by pumping into it labour and capital from outside enterprises. That is indeed a sure way of harming, retarding and preventing self-development. Aid from outside, in the case of any self-development, must respect this development as self-development of a human society in all fields of life and of its own rights and opportunities in that regard. Assistance in economic development must not disturb the entire living pattern of that community. This means that one may not merely develop the economic facet of a particular society and ignore the other facets. This leads to disturbance and confusion, and then frustration develops in those people. The best way in which to be of assistance from outside in the development of Bantu areas, and with a view to the quickest and most durable results, remains at this stage the assistance and opportunities which this Bill offers to us and to the Bantu. Nor may this measure be viewed separately from the entire Bantu policy of the National Party. It must in actual fact be viewed in the light of all the activities which the National Party wishes to undertake for the solution of our race problems.

The primary self-development factor in the life of the Bantu to realise their own highest achievements in all fields, is an individual national education system inside and outside the Bantu’s own areas. This is something which the National Party Government, in its foresight, already established years ago, despite great resistance from the hon. the Opposition. What is being and has already been done in this regard, to stimulate and shape the Bantu’s own development in all spheres, cannot simply be judged in terms of large sums spent on it. However large these sums may be, its effect on the future well-being and prosperity of the Bantu, and the good relations between Whites and Bantu, is altogether incalculable.

I conclude by saying that this measure is fully based upon the principles of separate development as expounded by the National Party in the course of time. It gives the Bantu the assurance that the Whites, the National Party, will never go back on the guardianship which it has taken upon itself. In the second instance it gives assistance to the Bantu in such a way that he need never lose his self-respect. Thirdly, it affords him an opportunity of adopting, of acculturising Western norms and techniques, of making them his own without losing those things which are peculiar to him. Also, this development will take place without disruption to the economy of the Whites. Lastly, it is proof that the National Party will not allow the Bantu in South Africa, the Bantu which are under its guardianship, to be exploited, not by the Opposition, nor by anyone else in the world.

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

Mr. Speaker, earlier in this debate the hon. member for Aliwal North said that both sides of the House were in complete agreement in regard to the development of the Bantu areas. I want to confirm this. I want to make the further statement that there can be no right thinking White person in South Africa who will not confirm it. No one can tell me that there are Whites in South Africa who are not concerned that the Bantu areas should be developed as soundly and as rapidly as possible in order to prevent the Whites from being swallowed up, both in the urban areas and in the rural areas, by a preponderance of numbers, as indicated earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Pinelands. If we have to accept that the natural increase of the Bantu is taking place very rapidly, and we keep in mind the prediction of the preponderance of the Bantu over the Whites in the year 2,000, it is clear that the Bantu areas must be developed to the best of our ability in order to provide employment to the Bantu. It must take place on an even larger scale than is contemplated by this legislation. If this is not done, the Whites in South Africa have no chance of maintaining themselves. The essential difference in approach between the two sides of the House is this, that this measure provides that White capital may only enter the Bantu areas on an agency basis, while the attitude of the United Party is to encourage White capital to enter those areas. We agree that if we want to preserve the Bantu areas for the Bantu, Whites should not have right of ownership there. But then methods must be devised whereby White capital can enter those areas to help to develop those areas on an agency basis. The terms must, however, be more attractive than those which the hon. the Minister has laid down in his legislation.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.

The House adjourned at 7 p.m.