House of Assembly: Vol34 - THURSDAY 13 MAY 1971

THURSDAY, 13TH MAY, 1971 Prayers—2.20 p.m. THIRD READING OF BILLS

The following Bills were read a Third Time:

Community Development Amendment Bill.

Slums Amendment Bill.

Suretyship Amendment Bill.

Canned Fruit Export Marketing Amendment Bill.

NEWSPAPER AND IMPRINTREGISTRATION BILL (Committee Stage resumed)

Clause 3 (contd.):

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to proceed now with the question which I could not put yesterday because the hon. the Minister was absent. In this clause provision is being made for prescribing by regulation the form of application for registration as well as the fee to be paid in terms of the regulations under clause 13. What I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is the reason for not having included in this Bill, as opposed to the Act of 1934, the nature of the information which would have to be supplied with the application. The Minister will be aware that section 2 of Act No. 14 of 1934, which is now being repealed, prescribes four sets of particulars to be supplied in an application for registration, i.e. the name of the newspaper, the address at which it will be published, the names of the proprietor, editor and others, and in the case of newspapers published by bodies corporate, the names of the chairman, the manager and others. That is all the information that is required under the Act of 1934. The Act then goes on to prescribe what the fee will be. It would be welcomed if the hon. the Minister could give us the assurance that the information that would be required with an application for registration under this Bill would be the same or similar to the particulars required under the existing Act and that there is no intention of extending the field of inquiry for the purposes of registration.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

First of all I should like to apologize to the hon. member that I was not here yesterday when he wanted to raise this matter. In so far as clause 3 (a) is concerned, the position is that a prescribed form has become necessary in view of the fact that it has been found throughout the years that many people who want to apply for registration were not aware of what was in section 2 of the Act. The result was that many people had to write to the office or did not supply the correct information. Much irrelevant information was supplied. This resulted in a lot of unnecessary correspondence. The department then felt that it could be of assistance if this information was rendered to the public in general.

The hon. member asked what particulars would be required and whether the form in which those particulars would be required would be acceptable to everyone concerned. This is a matter of some importance. However, there is this safeguard that amendments to the form have to be tabled in this House. Consequently hon. members will be aware of any amendments to the existing form.

In regard to the prescribed fee, the hon. member stated that this fee could be increased by officials or by people who would not be aware of the circumstances obtaining in the newspaper world, and as a result could cause a certain amount of disruption. I want to tell the hon. member that the present situation in this respect is quite unrealistic, as he may know. The fee to be paid is R2, which is a very small fee. In addition to that certain other fees have to be paid, for instance, for an alteration in the name or to the substance which was originally supplied by the newspaper. These smaller amounts of 25 cent and 50 cent caused a lot of nuisance. The result was that it was felt that the time had come for a consolidation, if I can put it that way, of the fees prescribed. But here again there is a safeguard. For instance, people may be informed by publishing the particular fee. If the Minister should decide to make it R5 instead of R2, it would have to be done with the approval of the Treasury. In other words, it cannot be done on its own But I think this in itself is a safeguard which should be regarded as satisfactory in respect of the question of fees.

Now the hon. member the other day raised another matter which I think is of some importance. It concerns the use of the word “publication” instead of the use of the word “newspaper”. I think the reply to this particular problem which the hon. member raised can be found in clause I of the Bill which is before us today. The hon. member will find that a publication is more than an ordinary newspaper. It has a wider context. A newspaper is intended for what may be called sale and public distribution. That is what is said in clause 1. I think that in itself makes it rather different from a publication. In other words, within the broad framework of “publication” there is the word “newspaper”. In addition, the hon. member, I am quite sure, is aware of the fact that there are three particular reasons why a newspaper is what it is in fact. In other words, there are certain prerequisites to being a newspaper. I can read them to the hon. member if he is interested. It has to be published once a month at least. That, in itself, makes it a newspaper. Then I have it here in Afrikaans: “Dit moet geheel en al of grotendeels bestaan uit politieke of ander nuus.” Now this has been the case for many years. I continue: “ .. en uit artikels wat daarop of op ander sake van die dag betrckking het, met of sonder advertensics en met of sonder illustrasies”. Also, in the third place: “Dit meet bestem wees vir open bare verkoop.” There must be public distribution. Only then does a newspaper qualify in respect of the prerequisites which are laid down. Now this rather restricts a newspaper as compared to what can be called a publication. If it should be accepted that these terms “newspaper” and “publication” are synonymous, it would mean that one would have to prove that (a) and (b), two of the prerequisites which are laid down …

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

There is a presumption under clause 11.

The MINISTER:

Under clause 12. I am replying to the request you put to me the other day.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

It is clause 11.

The MINISTER:

Yes, clause II; the hon. member is right.

Mr. P. A PYPER:

What clause are you dealing with now?

The MINISTER:

I am dealing with clause II, which was raised by the hon member on the other occasion. If he wants me to wait until he raises it again, I shall do so.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

The hon. the Minister was explaining why the word “publication” and not “newspaper” is used in clause II. He was half-way through his explanation. Perhaps he will be good enough to explain why the word “newspaper” is not used for the basis of the presumption in line 55 of the English text.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, let me repeat what I have already said.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

I thought you had not finished.

The MINISTER:

No, I have not quite finished my explanation yet. I want to say in the last instance that it is a new principle that has been introduced in the Bill and for that reason I thought it was necessary to deal with it rather fully.

Clause put and agreed to.

House resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT BILL

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

THIRD READING OF BILLS

The following Bills were read a Third Time:

Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill.

Land Survey Amendment Bill.

ADMISSION OF PERSONS TO THE REPUBLIC REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL (Second Reading) *The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, on various occasions during the past few years various members of this House and other parties have made mention of the fact that the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act, 1913 (Act No. 22 of 1913), had since 1913 been amended on various occasions, and to such an extent that they at present found it difficult to find their way through all the amendments. A few of the previous Ministers of the Interior consequently undertook, as a result of requests for a consolidated act to be established, to comply with those requests. Consequently, in order to comply with this undertaking, the intention is to submit as soon as possible a consolidated Bill for consideration in terms of Standing Order No. 72, which will not only have been adjusted in accordance with the technical principles of law drafting at present applicable, but which would now, for the first time, make the provisions of this Act available in Afrikaans as well.

While the various provisions were being studied with a view to their consolidation, however, it very soon became apparent that some provisions had in the course of years become less effective for the satisfactory regulation of certain matters and that certain amendments would consequently be necessary to make the consolidated measure an effective instrument for combating the unlawful entry of undesirable persons who constitute a threat to the economic and social structure of the Republic and the safety of the lawful inhabitants of the Republic and their property.

In my opinion this Bill could preferably be discussed to greater effect in its Committee Stage, but it is perhaps advisable to elucidate certain aspects in greater detail at this stage. It will be observed that the ceiling of fines and sentences which may be imposed upon conviction for certain offences has been raised because these penalties have, for the most part, remained unchanged in the Act since 1913 and have, particularly in respect of the fines, owing to changed circumstances, lost their deterrent value, with the result that these offences which have to be combated by such penalties are increasing and are making control of undesirable persons very difficult. In this connection I should like to refer to the following: In clause 1 it is being proposed, inter alia, that the person who refuses, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the summons of a board of appeal that hears the appeal of a person who has been prohibited from entering the Republic, shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R100 or, in default of payment, may be sentenced to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months. The present punishment which may be imposed, is merely a fine not exceeding R10 or, in default of payment, imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month.

In clause 7 it is being proposed that the ceiling of the present maximum fine of R200 be raised to R2 000 and that of the alternative imprisonment for a period of six months be raised to 12 months, because the present possible punishments do not deter persons in view of the tremendous profits they make from prohibited persons by helping such persons to enter, or remain in, the country unlawfully. With the increase of these maximum penalties an attempt is being made to counteract the activities of these accomplices in the interests of the country as well as those of the prohibited persons who sometimes have to live under unenviable conditions here for fear that they may be traced and expelled from the country.

In clauses 3 and 4 it is, inter alia, also being proposed that the maximum amount which may be forfeited by shipping companies upon failure to comply with certain prescriptions of the Act is being increased from R200 to R2 000. Here, too, it is the case that it is very often cheaper for some ship's captains to forfeit an amount not exceeding R200 than it is to comply with the requirement, with the result that the Department is saddled with problems in regard to prohibited persons including crew members who have absconded, which in most cases cost more to clear up than the present amount of R200.

The intention with the increases which are being proposed by this Bill in respect of other amounts of money or sentences is also to make the more efficient application of the provisions in question possible.

Mr. Speaker, there are at present a large number of aliens in the Republic who are in possession of aliens’ residence permits in terms of which their residence here is regulated, but it is also a generally-known fact that there are a large number of prohibited persons in the Republic who are not in possession of such permits. To trace these prohibited persons, who are attracted by the economic progress and public peace and order, is a tremendous and endless task. In order to make this task a little less onerous for passport control officers it is being proposed with the amendment of section 19 (1) (f) (clause 6) that those officers be vested with the power to take action against persons who fail or who are not in a position to produce the required permits by taking them into custody and charging them before a competent court. If these persons cannot be taken into custody, they simply disappear and then one must proceed to trace them all over again.

Further to this proposal it is also being proposed that section 19 (2) (a) be amended in such a way that passport control officers are required, when they give a person who is not a prohibited person in terms of the provisions of the Act their consent to enter the Republic, to endorse such consent in the travel document of the person in question. With this endorsement in his travel document a person will experience no difficulty in proving his right to reside in the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I come now to the proposed amendment which is perhaps the most important provision in this Bill, viz. the amendment of section 20 of the Act, as proposed in clause 7.

As will appear from the provisions of section 24 (1) of the Act every person who is not a South African citizen by birth or descent shall be in possession of an unexpired passport as well as a visa when he presents himself at a port of entry with a view to entering the country. There are citizens of certain countries who are not subject to this requirement to be in possession of a visa because they have, in terms of agreements between the Republic and their countries of origin or as a result of an exemption granted by the Minister, been exempted from the requirement. However, there are other countries whose citizens do in fact have to be in possession of such visas; otherwise they are prohibited persons in the Republic and entry may be refused.

There is a rapidly growing tendency among persons who should be in possession of visas to arrive at a port without them and then to apply any method to gain entry without them. In cases of death or serious illness these people are accommodated, but the question is always where to draw the line and what steps should be taken to avoid incidents at the ports, which are extremely prejudicial to the image of the Republic.

It is being proposed in this amendment that shipping companies be prohibited from conveying persons without the necessary visas to the Republic and if they should in fact do so, to charge them, when they will, upon conviction, be liable to a maximum sentence of R2 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months.

Shipping companies as well as travel agents are in fact thoroughly conversant with the visa requirements of the Republic, which are repeatedly brought to their specific attention. Consequently it should not be a heavy burden for them to spare persons a long and fruitless journey.

Mr. Speaker, the last important proposed amendment I should like to deal with is contained in clause 9 where an amendment of section 23 (1) is being proposed to dispel a measure of doubt which has arisen in respect of the onus of proof in criminal prosecutions. In terms of the present provisions which have been contained in the Act since 1913 the onus of proof that a person did not enter the country or was to be found there contrary to the provisions of the Act lies upon the person in question. The provision has always, since 1913, been interpreted by the Department as being that in criminal prosecutions of persons who entered the country unlawfully, the onus of proving the contrary should also lie upon such person. Very recently, however it has been decided in a number of cases that the provisions of section 23 (1) are only applicable to procedures which relate to the Act and are limited to boards appointed in terms of the Act and are therefore not applicable in criminal prosecutions.

Since it is extremely difficult for the State to prove, in combating the unlawful entry of persons, that a prohibited person who is found in the country did so unlawfully, it is essential for the combating of this unsatisfactory condition that the onus of proof should also lie upon that person. It may be added that the Attorney- General of the Transvaal recommended that the degree of doubt would thus be eliminated and that it would be ensured that the onus of proof in this respect in criminal prosecutions would lie upon the accused.

The other amendments contained in this Bill which I have not covered are in fact of a self-evident nature, but if any hon. member has any questions to ask in regard to them, I shall reply to them gladly.

I should like to emphasize that the provisions of the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulations Act. 1913, which are going to be consolidated after this Bill has been considered, are of the greatest importance for the maintenance of peace and order on many levels of social life and that the task of keeping undesirable persons out of the Republic is a tremendous one and results in many problems of a genuinely human nature which must, however, be dealt with with the greatest circumspection.

Mr. L. G MURRAY:

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support this Bill at the second reading. We welcome the statement which has been made by the hem. the Deputy Minister that it is intended to introduce as soon as possible a consolidated measure in other words, a Bill which contains all the measures concerning the admission of people to the Republic. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, this Bill first of all contains adjustments as to the amounts of possible fines and also the amounts of deposits to be made for certain purposes in terms of this legislation. One realizes that those figures are more realistic having regard to the value of money today and the nature of the fine which is necessary, but one must draw attention to the fact that a certain number of these penalties, such as forfer ture of deposits, are left in the hands of passport officers. The amount will be fairly considerable and I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister would do us a service if he would, in replying to this debate, indicate what checks there are on these passport officers. He could also mention the grading or the status of those particular passport officers who will be empowered by this legislation to impose these fines or forfeitures. One wants to be sure that there is no question of or possibility of capricious action on the part of a passport officer or victimization which could occur unless there were some checks on what in fact was done by passport officials.

The second point I wish to raise is in regard to clause 6 (a) of this Bill: Clause 6 (a) is to my mind to be welcomed for two reasons. The first is that although it may appear at first glance that the passport officer is to have a wide scope as regards the requirements he may wish a person to comply with, one must bear in mind that what he can demand of that person is circumscribed in the Act itself. These requirements mainly have reference to the undergoing of a medical examination if it is thought to be necessary and if a person is suspected of having some contagious disease. I believe that the power to endorse upon a passport at the place of entry the right of that person to be in the country is a valuable improvement on the present position and can in fact rectify the position of persons who arrive in an emergency without the necessary documents from their country of origin. That can now be rectified at the port of entry.

In clause 7 the Bill introduces a new offence. That is the offence of conveying or causing to be conveyed into the Republic any person who is not in possession of an unexpired passport. We believe that that offence is too baldly stated when one has regard to the preceding provisions of the principal Act which is being amended. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 20 of the principal Act all contain the provision that the action must occur knowing that the person concerned is without a passport or without the necessary documents. I trust that the hon. the Minister will have regard to the proposal which we will make in the committee stage that similarly the mere conveyance of a person should not in itself be the offence, but the conveyance of a person knowing that he is not in possession of a passport or other document.

Finally the hon. the Deputy Minister has referred to the question of the presumption in clause 9 of this Bill. One wonders which is the better one. The new draft is a little better or a little less onerous on the persons concerned, than the provision in the existing Act which is being withdrawn. Under the Act as it exists as present, there is an onus of proof whereas in this case there is a rebuttable presumption. I must agree with the hon. Deputy Minister that the only person who can rebut that presumption is the individual concerned. It would be quite an impossible task for the State to prove that a person has come into the country without the necessary' documents. There are other minor matters which we can deal with during the committee state. We will support this Bill at its second reading stage.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for Green Point for his, on behalf of the Opposition, having no objections to the principle of this Bill. I have taken thorough cognizance of the possible amendments which they may request, and we shall definitely give attention to these in the Committee Stage.

I am really thankful to the Opposition for aiding us in assuring the Second Read ing of this Bill a safe passage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

MEDICAL, DENTAL AND PHARMACY AMENDMENT BILL (Senate Amendment)

Amendment in clause 6 put and agreed to.

PAYMENT OF “EX GRATIA” AMOUNTBY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTBOARD *The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That this House, in terms of section 15 (4) of the Community Development Act, 1966 (Act No, 3 of 1966), approves the proposed payment by the Community Development Board of an ex gratia amount of R9 040 to a building contractor, details of which were laid upon the Table in the Senate and the House of Assembly on Monday, 3rd May, 1971,
Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on this matter. This motion refers to a contract which was let by the Department of Community Development in 1966. It is now 1971 and one shudders to think how many manhours have been wasted over the last five years in connection with this particular dispute. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain how arguments of this kind can arise from a building contract as a result of variations in such a contract. If the normal procedures are adopted in regard to the letting out of a building contract, variations like omissions and extras can only be recognized if they are authorized in writing by the supervising architect. The pricing should present no difficulty if the Government insists on price schedules when these tenders are received. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us the assurance that those precautions are adopted. It is normally referred to as a white form contract. The provisions thereof should be inserted in all building contracts which are let by the Minister’s department. Variations will only be recognized, whether they are omissions to extras, if they are approved of in writing by the nominated architect whose name appears on the building contract. Secondly, these variations either for additional payments or for reductions should be priced according to price schedules which should be attached. Perhaps it happened in this case and I trust the hon. the Minister will give us this assurance. We realize it is a just amount in this case and we have no objection to it being approved.

*The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point must forgive me for replying to him in Afrikaans, but unfortunately everything I have here in front of me is in Afrikaans. The hon. member is quite correct, and I fully agree with the procedure mentioned by him. This is, in fact, the procedure which was followed. What happened in this case was that a contractor accepted a contract and that he, in the process of executing that contract, virtually went into liquidation. Every endeavour was made to assist him to complete the various buildings for which the contract had been let. He did additional work which he actually should not have done. The Department then made him an offer of R12 000 in order to settle the entire matter in that way. However, this person was not satisfied with the amount of R12 000 and took us to the arbitration court. While the arbitration court was hearing the case, the health of this person failed him completely. He then withdrew the request for arbitration. The Department was thereupon instructed by us to treat this person as justly as possible. All the steps mentioned by the hon. member were then taken. After the architects, engineers, etc., had been consulted, they came to the conclusion that the maximum they could pay was this amount of R9 040. This amount was then paid to that person in full settlement of the outstanding amount. Actually it was not necessary for us to pay it. We paid it to him in fairness, and he accepted it as such. Now, however, the position is that he has been ordered to pay the costs of arbitration as well, which amount to just over R6 000. In other words, instead of the R12 000 which we offered him originally, this person actually retains only R3 000. We are again investigating this matter, and we shall possibly settle the matter at the next sitting. However, I cannot give any assurance in this regard. As far as our Department is concerned, the matter is settled with this R9 000; but as this man now has to pay the costs and as the original offer was R12 000, we are prepared to go into this matter once again. But I want to give the hon. member for Green Point the assurance that all the procedures which he quite rightly mentioned here, had been complied with. He knows how this kind of situation arises. This was an attempt by the Department to have justice done to a person who had landed in difficulties. I hope this satisfies the hon. member for Green Point.

Motion put and agreed to.

EXPROPRIATION AMENDMENT BILL (Second Reading) *The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Expropriation Act, 1965, invests the Minister of Agriculture with power to expropriate, subject to an obligation to pay compensation, any immovable property for public purposes. The provisions of the Act are often applied in cases where the owners are either not prepared to hand over their land to the State on a voluntary basis or prevented from doing so by fideicommissary provisions.

The expropriation of a person’s property is a drastic step, which is not lightly resorted to. As the interests of the individual must necessarily yield to the public interest, it is therefore inevitable that expropriation has to be resorted to at times. However, one principle is always being upheld, i.e. that the person who is deprived of his property, must not suffer any loss. The practical application of the Act has brought to light a few deficiencies, and consequently the Bill, which is before you, Sir, seeks to remedy these deficiencies.

Section 2 of the Act, which authorizes expropriation, prevents any proclaimed mining land or land on which minerals are found in exploitable and paying quantities, from being expropriated without the concurrence of the Minister of Mines having been obtained beforehand. In practice the application of this provision has given rise to the Department of Mines, in expropriating small pieces of land in cities and townships, being encumbered with numerous applications in respect of which consent could, from the nature of the ease, have been granted without more ado. As it is, the Department of Mines is consulted prior to a township being established irrespective of whether the land is proclaimed or held under mining title, and therefore it already has the opportunity of expressing an opinion as to whether or not the establishment of the township will, as seen from a mining point of view, be in the national interest. Similarly, the requirements of mining and related matters are very thoroughly examined by the Department of Mines before the reservation of land for town ship purposes in terms of the Mining Rights Act is recommended, and such conditions are laid down as are deemed desirable in the interests of mining, safety or health. The proposed amendment as contained in clause 1 (a) is therefore effected at the instance of the Department of Mines in order to eliminate unnecessary applications, which only place an additional burden of work on that department.

The fact that the Expropriation Act only provides that land or any part of such land or a real right required for public purposes may be expropriated, inevitably has the effect that such expropriation or acquisition of agricultural land or a right in agricultural land may result in a farmer whose land is affected by such expropriation or acquisition, possibly being left with an uneconomic unit. It is also desirable that the creation of uneconomic units be prevented in cases where, for instance, water from a Government water scheme which was available for agricultural purposes, is required for urban consumption or industrial purposes and where the acquisition of the relevant water rights by the State may result in its no longer being possible for the agricultural land, which has been affected because of the abstraction of the water, to be utilized economically by the individual owners. Therefore, in order to prevent the creation of uneconomic units as a result of the acquisition, in the public interests, of agricultural land, or any right in, over or in respect of such land, the proposed clause 1 (b) provides that upon such acquisition the Minister may also expropriate, if he deems it necessary, land affected by such acquisition.

Another deficiency in the Expropriation Act is that, although the Central Government, as well as the provincial and local authorities, may under that Act expropriate land required by the State for public purposes, its provisions do not include the expropriation of land for the purposes of a body established by law for the promotion of any matter of public importance. Various Acts were passed in the past. Acts in terms of which certain bodies were established for the promotion of matters of public importance, and under which the Minister of Agriculture has the power to expropriate land mutatis mutandis the Expropriation Act of 1965 for such a body if that body satisfies the Minister that it reasonably requires the land in question for the purposes of its functions and that it is unable to acquire it on reasonable terms. Examples of this are the Universities Act, 1955, the Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967, the National Monuments Act, 1969, and the Atomic Energy Act, 1967,

Other cases of this nature are found from time to time; the most recent example is that of the Potato Board. It is not desirable that in every particular case in the relevant Act under which the body was established, provision should be made for powers of expropriation, and the object of the amplification of the Expropriation Act as embodied in clause 2, is therefore to introduce a comprehensive provision, in terms of which the Minister will then, in all cases of this nature, have the power to expropriate land for the benefit of the body concerned, i.e. if the body concerned satisfies the Minister that it reasonably requires any particular piece of land for its purposes and that it is unable to acquire it on reasonable terms. However, all costs will have to be borne by the body concerned, since the land will upon expropriation become the property of that body. As the expropriation of land is a drastic step which cannot be resorted to lightly, expropriations of this nature are made subject to approval by Parliament

The amendment contained in clause 3 seeks to increase the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts in regard to the determination of the amount of compensation for expropriated land in cases where the parties concerned cannot reach agreement, from R3 000 to not more than R10000. Under the National Roads Act this amount has also been fixed at not more than R10 000. This amendment is necessary owing to the tremendous rise in land prices since the Expropriation Act was passed, which has had the effect that at present applications for the determination of compensation are in almost all cases beyond the jurisdiction of any magistrate's court. The only matter involved here, is the determination of the amount of compensation and it is in the interests of both parties that costs be kept as low as possible and that applications be dealt with as quickly as possible. The principal Act already provides that in any such proceeding a magistrate may invoke the assistance of two persons who are skilled and experienced in the matter.

Section 14 of the principal Act already provides that the Minister of Agriculture and any Administrator may assign to an officer in the employment of the State any power or duty conferred or imposed on them in terms of this Act The Act also confers a number of powers on inter alia the Minister of Mines in regard to the expropriation of mining land, and for the purposes of the practical application of this provision it is necessary that it should be possible for the powers of the Minister of Mines to be delegated to senior officers of the Department of Mines. Provision is being made accordingly.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this Bill at the Second Reading stage, but there are aspects of this Bill that we would like to have clarified. If the hon. the Minister cannot do it now, I hope he will take note of the fact that we would like to have this clarification during the Committee Stage, The first clause of the Bill provides that it is not necessary to have the concurrence of the Minister of Mines when certain land is expropriated. The hon. the Deputy Minister has explained why this is necessary. One would have thought that the permission or the concurrence of the Minister of Mines might have been sought in places where mining operations take place. One only has to think of some of the townships on the Reef where they have had sinkholes and all sorts of other difficulties relating to mining operations. This makes one wonder whether perhaps it would not be wise to retain the provision that the concurrence of the Minister of Mines should be obtained.

Sir, the other important aspect of clause I is, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has explained, that one sometimes has to expropriate for the public good—he gave the example of local authorities in respect of water affairs—a part of someone’s land, rendering the rest of the land owned by that person economically useless to him. We welcome the provision that the Minister may authorize that all the land in those circumstances be expropriated.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, I have not before come across this expression “juristic person” in our law relating to expropriation. I appreciate that the hon. the Deputy Minister is a farmer and that is why I should like to give him notice that I should like to know what a “juristic person” means. I expect that he has in mind bodies corporate—State corporations—for whom the Minister will expropriate land and one wonders whether a better expression could not be found. In the Interpretation Act of 1957 a “person” is defined, and it includes (a) any divisional council, municipal council, village management board or like authority, (b) any company incorporated or registered as such under any law and (c) any body of persons corporate or unincorporate. That is a “person” in law. Here, Sir, we are talking about a juristic person. What is a juristic person? What is this expression intended to convey? Is it something different from a person as defined in the Interpretation Act? Is it a persona, as one understands that expression in law? Just what is it? It is an unusual expression and it must be interpreted having regard to the provisions of the Interpretation Act, which define what a “person” is and how “person” must be interpreted in any law. Sir, I do not expect the hon. the Deputy Minister to give an answer at this stage, but we would certainly like to discuss this matter when we come to the Committee Stage.

Then in clause 3 provision is made for the expropriation proceedings, where there is no agreement between the expropriator and the person whose land is being expropriated, to go to the magistrate’s court or the Supreme Court. The present position is that if the amount in dispute is R3 000 or less, then you go to the magistrate’s court; if it is more than R3 000 you go to the Supreme Court. If I may say so, Sir, the civil jursidiction of magistrate’s courts at the moment is R1 000, so that already under the law as it now exists they have three times their normal jurisdiction. The proposal here is to extend that jurisdiction from R3 000 to R10 000. The only reason which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave was what he called “die geweldige styging in grondpryse”. Does he want to tell me, Sir, that since 1968 the price of land has risen in that proportion, from R3 000 in 1968 to R10 000 in 1971? Sir, it is not a good enough reason. I am glad the hon. the Minister of Justice is in the House because he can tell the hon. Deputy Minister why it is that he has retained in our law the provision that magistrates would have jurisdiction in civil matters up to R1 000. As a matter of fact, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Justice has been consulted about this. He maintains that the jurisdiction ought to be R1 000 whereas it has already gone up to R3 000 in the Expropriation Act. Now it is proposed in this Bill to increase it to 10 000 the only reason for it being that land has increased in price since 1968.

Another extraordinary thing the hon. Deputy Minister said was that he was doing this because in the National Roads Bill the expropriation provision was extended from R3 000 to R10 000. It was pointed out at the time that the Expropriation Act provided only for R3 000 and the answer we got from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport was different except in so far as he also referred to the increased price of land. This juxtaposition, one Deputy Minister relying upon the other for a justification of his actions, reminds me of a well- known professor in private international law. He used to write what he thought about private international law, how he thought a particular problem ought to be resolved. There was also a Judge in England who used to incorporate in his judgments the writings of the famous author who would then, when he published another edition of his book, quote the judgment of the Judge as authority for his statement. Something similar is going on here. The explanation which has been given just does not hold water and I hope therefore that the hon. the Deputy Minister will consult the hon. the Minister of Justice or perhaps the hon. the Minister of Justice could indicate to us what he thinks in this regard.

In the remaining clause, clause 4, it is provided that another Minister other than the Minister as defined, may assign his powers and duties under the Act. At the moment it is the Minister of Lands or an Administrator, The hon. the Deputy Minister said it was now going to be the Minister of Mines, amongst others. There is only one other person mentioned in section 2 of the Act, i.e. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. Because he is mentioned there, he too is included. I hope therefore that the hon. the Deputy Minister will indicate to us why he wants to give this power to the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Coloured Affairs and to no one else. Why, in fact, does he want to give this power to these two Ministers with power of delegating it to their officials?

These are the matters on which we would like explanations. However, these matters are particularly appropriate for discussion in the Committee Stage. As far as the Second Reading of this Bill is concerned, we have no objection to it.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

The hon. the Minister is here asking for the power to expropriate on behalf of a “juristic person”. The hon. member for Durban North has put certain pertinent questions to the hon. the Minister about what was meant by a “juristic person". In his introduction, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that this was “a body established by a law”. Accepting that and leaving apart for a moment the question of what exactly is a “juristic person”, let us look at the other provisions of this Bill. Clause 2 (2) declares that the “other provisions of this Act shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of the expropriation of any immovable property in terms of this section”, i.e. the expropriation of property for a “juristic person”.

The other provisions of the Act to which the proposed new section 2A refers, are the question of exploration, the question of notification by the department, the governing of the passing of ownership, the regulations governing the offer of an amount of compensation and the way in which the compensation shall be determined in the absence of agreement. As my hon. friend has pointed out. clause 3 seems to indicate that the hon. the Deputy Minister anticipates that he is going to pay very much enhanced prices for these lands because of the extension of the jurisdiction of the magistrate's courts. The basis on which compensation is to be determined is, of course, also laid down. Referring to the penultimate section of the Act, we find a clause which allows the hon. the Minister to make regulations which will govern the procedures to be adopted when a property is to be expropriated.

I want to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister the procedures which have been adopted in the past and the basis which has been used when arriving at a determination of the value in cases of expropriation. I want to put it to him that I sincerely hope, particularly in the case of these “juristic persons” who are not, as far as I can make out, the State as such, that a different attitude will be applied by the department, particularly with regard to the expropriation of land owned by non-Whites. We had a case in Durban a little while ago of residential property with a municipal valuation of R28 000, which was expropriated by the department of the hon. the Deputy Minister for the construction of a post office. For some reason the plan was scrapped before the expropriation was completed. A private individual then offered to purchase this land from the department and it was purchased, I believe, at a greatly enhanced value. This piece of land was ultimately used as a business site. The municipal valuation immediately placed on it as a business site, was R80 000. This does not help to better the picture the public has of such a department.

I want to quote other concrete cases. Let me deal first with the question of arriving at an amount which will be offered to a seller. There is a case which occurred in 1964 …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! These matters should be discussed on another occasion. We are now only concerned with the Bill.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

With respect, I submit that we are now applying all these provisions with regard to compensation to the new powers which are being given to the hon. the Minister in terms of this Bill. I submit that I should be able to discuss with him the basis on which be will make offers for compensation when particular pieces of land are expropriated. To enhance my case, I must quote examples and ask that such cases do not re-occur. I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the proposed new section 2A (2), which is to be inserted in terms of clause 2. In the particular case I was referring to, 10 acres, with various buildings and trading licences on it, were expropriated and an offer was made of R7 905. This land belonged to a non-White. After many years of argument back and forth this case was finally settled, without going to court, for an amount of R24 552. On what basis did the department determine its initial offer of R7 905, when, after arguing for nearly 5 years, they paid R24 5527 In close proximity to the case I have just quoted, another property of 2 acres was expropriated during 1969 for which the department paid R2 608. But, close to that, another property of 20 acres with buildings …

Mr. SPEAKER:

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

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, subsection (2) of section 2A contained in clause 2 of this Bill applies the whole of the Expropriation Act to the powers which are now to be given to the Minister to expropriate in respect of juristic persons. The Expropriation Act provides that, first of all, you must have a treaty, you must try to come to an agreement, make an offer and try to settle the matter and only then does it go to court.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, may I just complete my point of order? My submission is that the hon. member is in order because he is now dealing with the manner of treating before the court proceedings start.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I have heard the point of order. The hon. member is now making another speech. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District may continue, but he must come back to the Bill.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Mr. Speaker, to finish the example I was giving, I want to say that we have adjacent to this two acres which were expropriated for the sum of R2 608, another 20 acres with buildings and a trading licence for which an offer was made in 1969 of R3 777, At the end of 1970, after argument, the offer was increased to R5 112. But is this a fair valuation when a property in close proximity of two acres with no development was expropriated for R2 608 whereas this is a property of 20 acres with development for which the final offer is now R5 112? I might say in passing that I believe that this expropriation was done in respect of one of these juristic persons to whom the hon. the Deputy Minister refers in his Bill. If I accept the definition given by the hon. the Deputy Minister in his introduction as being a body established by a law, then this was done in respect of just such a body. The valuation of this property was undertaken by his department. A letter in this regard that I have here reads as follows—

All valuations of the land concerned were made by the Land Tenure Board of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, and the basis of valuation has been the same in all cases, including your clients.

I cannot see how these properties could have been valued on the same basis because you have two acres with no development valued at R2 608 and 20 acres with development which has now finally been valued at R5 112,

But we have another case where the department seems to go backwards. I want to draw to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister that the image of his department amongst these people whose properties are being expropriated, is not as good as it could be, because invariably the offer which is made is too low. I must say that in this case this was a White farmer. In 1962 a certain portion of his farm was expropriated for which the department paid an average of R202-50 per acre. Then in 1970 a further portion of his land was expropriated. This time the offer worked out at only R200 per acre. Eight years after the first expropriation took place the farmer was offered less for his land. What had happened to the land in the meantime? A 60 acre sugar cane quote had been established and a portion of the land on which the quote had been established was now being expropriated. This was established in the interim. A clay deposit and a brick yard existed on the land which the department wanted to expropriate. Yet they are paying less than they paid for farmland before. These are the matters which I wanted to bring to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I should like to ask him in the interest of his own department and the goodwill of the public to look into these matters and to see that this will not happen with regard to these juristic persons when he comes to expropriate on their behalf.

Finally, when dealing with the question of procedure, I want to refer to a case of a non-White person who has fixed premises and who, out of the blue, received on the 14th October, 1970, a letter which reads as follows—

As you are no doubt aware this property was expropriated on the 9th June, 1967, in terms of Government Notice No. 342, and that the ownership of the property vested in the South African Bantu Trust 60 days after that date.

The point here is that no notice was ever served on this storekeeper. The notice reads further—

In terms of the notice of expropriation you should have advised the Secretary for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure within 30 days of the amount claimed by you as compensation and also have surrendered the title deeds for the property.

But no notice was ever served on the person concerned. Now, three years later, he receives this notice. As I have said, the date is important, it was the 14th October. I quote further—

You are further advised that as you are occupying Trust property, you may be liable for rent for this site with effect from the date of expropriation.

He now has to pay rent for his own property which he is occupying, while he has had no notice of expropriation. Worst of all is the final paragraph. Then I want hon. members to take notice that this person is a businessman. I quote—

Please also take notice that you should vacate this property on or before the 31st December, 1970.

This meant he had 24 months in which he had to wind up his business and get out. At this stage no offer had even been made for compensation. These are the things I am referring to. It is in the power of the hon. the Deputy Minister to sort these things out, to improve the image of his department in the eyes of the public. With these new powers which he is taking he has the opportunity to review the whole situation, and I want to appeal to him to do so and investigate what is happening. He should in some way try to do these things in a fair manner, particularly when it comes to non-Whites. The question must be asked in how many cases these non- Whites have merely accepted this as being the dictates of the Government, and that they are fortunate to get anything whatsoever.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Durban North is under the impression that we always go to court when we expropriate. We very seldom go to court. I doubt whether 2 per cent of the cases go to court.

Mr M. L. MITCHELL:

Did you hear what Warwick Webber has just said?

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes, I will come to that. The hon. member first referred to the wording of this Bill. He referred to the wording “juristic person”. I will quote the wording, and then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City will understand that a juristic person is not the person who makes the valuation of the property. I quote section 2A (1) of the principal Act, as it is being inserted by clause 2 of the Bill—

If a juristic person established by or under any law for the promotion of any matter of public importance …

Now the hon. member will understand. I mentioned the Potato Board in the Second Reading Then I also referred to the Atomic Energy Board, which is a statutory board. In the Afrikaans wording we use the term “regspersoon”, and by that we mean these boards which have been appointed for a certain purpose.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

And the Pumpkin Board?

*Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

You are a member of the Pumpkin Board.

The MINISTER:

Now he asks us why we should not get the permission of the hon. the Minister of Mines. If we have to get the permission of the hon. the Minister of Mines for each portion of land we expropriate, whether it goes to court or not, it will involve thousands and thousands of morgen per year. If our department in collaboration with the Department of Planning has decided that a city should be erected on a certain site—and the hon. member has said there might be sinkholes —the Minister of Mines is always in the picture. If we must go to the Minister of Mines for every piece of land, it will be an unnecessary waste of time. Do these hon. members not want us to get this measure streamlined? Why should we waste time? If permission has already been given for a new city to be erected in a certain area, does the hon. member want us to go to the Minister of Mines for every plot? Do they want us to go to the Minister of Mines and ask him to sign the contract in every case before we can go on? The only thing is we want to get things done. We do not want to waste time, and that is the reason why we are making this alteration.

Id regard to the amount of R3 000 to R10 000, I want to ask hon. members whether they can think it possible that a grown-up person can argue about R3 000 when a man is going to court. Can anybody buy a plot in the vicinity of Cape Town for R3 000? hon. members know how property prices have gone up. A person who argues with us about R3 000 is not going to court. We might offer him R2 500, whereas he wants R3 000. We settle the matter amongst ourselves and therefore it is not necessary to go to court. Only where it is a big transaction and where it is worth while going to court, will we go to court. Therefore I cannot see anything wrong with the fact that the jurisdiction of a magistrate is shifted up from R3 000 to R10 000.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Is it not worth going to court for R9 000?

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

The hon. gentleman said that I am a farmer. He, however, is a lawyer but I am at least practical. That is the difference between us. Then the hon. member was upset about a provision in clause 4. It is not only the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Coloured Affairs who are owners of land. All departments are owners of land, and that is the reason why we want to delegate the powers to senior officials in the departments. It will then not be necessary for a person to go to the Minister concerned with all his problems.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

In which departments? All departments?

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

The Department of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Justice own property, and sometimes they have to decide on certain things we want to do on land which is under their jurisdiction.

Then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District mentioned the case of a post office and certain transactions in his constitutency, He felt we did not treat non-Whites especially correctly in those cases. Why does the hon. member not bring me one example in my office? I will then go into the matter. He asks: How is it possible that a piece of land can devalue? I will give the hon. member the reason for it. It may be that a farm was valued with a beautiful dwelling and with sufficient boreholes and that after two or three years you find that the house has been demolished. This will result in the price being lower than it was a year or two previously.

*Our whole object in buying land is that the seller should not be treated badly. Our system of expropriation works like this: It is the price which a willing seller will accept from a willing buyer. We determine land prices on this basis. The hon. member should at least be realistic now. There are people who, whenever the State buys, charge exorbitant prices, but whenever they sell to a private person, it is quite a different story. I want to ask the hon. member again to bring those cases to me. It is my job and I am being paid for it. I shall then analyse every case, and if we did make any mistakes, those cases will be investigated.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Minister must come back to the Bill now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

APPROPRIATION BILL (Committee Stage resumed)

Revenue Vote No. 20.—“Sport and Recreation”, R840 000 (contd ):

The MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION:

Mr. Chairman, I realize that the atmosphere is much calmer than the more riotous one which prevailed last night. I would hate to be responsible for disturbing it, but I nevertheless do feel that I should reply to a certain number of charges that have been made. Both the shadow Minister of Sport and the shadow Deputy Minister last night again called for my resignation. The hon. member for Johannesburg North became quite upset and artistic about it. In fact, I thought that he was going to earn an Oscar at one stage or another last night. I nevertheless want to answer some of the accusations. One of the main features of the argument of the hon. member for Johannesburg North was that it was really this foolish Minister’s actions that had prevented them from getting back into F.I.F.A. He implied that if I had only listened to the United Party we would have been back in F.I.F.A.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

And your policies.

The MINISTER:

I am talking about what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said. This is an old charge. I remember when the Government prevented the soccer match in Swaziland between a White professional side, Highlands Park, and a Johannesburg Bantu professional side, the Orlando Pirates, from taking place, that the hon. member for Johannesburg North made that accusation. He was supported by the hon. member for Hillbrow who made one of his numerous Press statements about how this Government had given us no hope whatsoever of getting back into F.l.F.A. Of course, it is just so much nonsense. It is just an attempt to pin the blame on the Government for everything that happens. I will read, and then the hon. members must be fair enough to give me their judgment. Let me read, first of all, from the Rand Daily Mail of 22nd August, a report from Zurich. It talks about a statement made by Dr. Keyzer, the Secretary-General of F.l.F.A. This is what he says—

The ban was imposed because South Africa was suspended for apartheid in sport by the decision of the 1964 F.l.F.A. Congress.

Then he goes on—

The refusal had nothing to do with the South African Government’s ban earlier this week on Black and White South African teams playing each other in Swaziland.

It had nothing to do with it. You can see it. Sir. The hon. members can try and talk themselves out of it, but that is a fact. I am actually quoting extracts, not from what I said but from what was said by the man who is the Secretary General of F.l.F.A. He says it had nothing to do with the expulsion of South Africa. Then he goes further. This is on 30th November, 1967, in the Star. The other one was 22nd August—

But in Zurich yesterday F.l.F.A.’s Secretary, Dr. Helmuth Keyzer, said that there had been no written application from South Africa for its suspension to be rescinded. If F.A.S.A. did apply, the question would have to be taken up at the next F.l.F.A. congress in September.

Now listen to this. This is also at the same time and it is from Sir Stanley Rous, who is no enemy of South Africa; he is a friend of South Africa. It comes from the Rand Daily Mail, and not from Die Transvaler or Die Vaderland, which hon. members say are misleading. The heading is “Marais spoke too soon” and it says—

Sir Stanley Rous, President of the World Football Organization, F.l.F.A., yesterday accused Mr. Dave Marais, the South African soccer chief, of making premature statements to the Press in South Africa.

You see, Sir, I want to say to the hon. member that this is Sir Stanley Rous. It is not my criticism of him, but Sir Stanley Rous’s criticism. I will read it—

Sir Stanley, who seemed quite upset on the matter of Mr. Marais’s reported remarks about sending Black or White South African teams only to future world competitions if South Africa is eventually allowed back into F.l.F.A. Mr. Marais had long talks here recently and he told me that he had sponsorship and organization lined up for the non-White league competition on the same basis as the White N.F.L. League, but he had now rushed things by his statement in East London.

Then it goes on—

Sir Stanley said there seemed to be some misunderstanding also about the next F.l.F.A. meeting. I asked him if there was a chance of the venue being changed from an African state so as to enable South Africa to attend. “No, I don’t think so”, he said. “I was given to understand by Mr. Marais himself that the South Africans also thought they had little chance of setting out their case at any F.l.F.A. meeting before 1970.”
Mr. D. J. MARAIS:

What is wrong with that?

The MINISTER:

I will tell the hon. member what is wrong with it. The hon. member said it was this Government’s action in not allowing the game to take place in Swaziland, which was the reason for our problems in regard to F.l.F.A. Of course, that is not so; F.l.F.A. says that unless we have multi-racial soccer in South Africa, we will not go back. And the hon. member knows it. I think I have another quotation where they say that unless we play multi-racial soccer in South Africa in our teams …

An HON. MEMBER:

Who said so?

The MINISTER:

I will give it to the hon. member.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

Well, give it to us.

The MINISTER:

I am not going to look for it now; I have a lot of papers here; I will find it and show it to the hon. members. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, whenever hon. members opposite get into a corner, they start making excuses. I have told the hon. member time and again that you may attempt to do anything in certain directions, but as far as F.I.F.A. is concerned, for instance, but you will not get back into F.I.F.A. unless you have multiracial soccer in South Africa.

Mr. D. J. MARAIS:

That is not true.

The MINISTER:

It is. I say that the hon. member is misleading the public and members of his own party when he says that is not the case.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

Quote the evidence to us; do not give us your impression.

The MINISTER:

Sir, that hon. member does not come into the debate now to try to aid his party, I will get the cutting and quote it to him. Let me get on to the next point.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

Will the hon. the Minister tell us why he is hopeful that a South African amateur soccer team will get to the Olympic Games on the present policy?

The MINISTER:

The Olympic people themselves have such hopes, but I am talking about what F.I.F.A. says. After all, the Olympics Investigating Committee which came here accepted us without trials; they accepted our bona fides without trials, but nevertheless we were not allowed to play. I read out the SANROC report here yesterday; they organized against us.

But I want to come back now to the hon. member for Pinelands, The hon. member maintained that I did not place the right interpretation on the statement made by the English Cricket Council with regard to South Africa and cricket tours.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

I said I could not believe that that was right.

The MINISTER:

When I did not have the quotations at hand immediately, the hon. member for Durban Point challenged me to quote it, and you will remember, Sir, that the hon. member for Pinelands was good enough to read it out from Die Burger.

Mr. H VAN Z. CILLIÉ:

Leave Durban Point out of it.

The MINISTER:

That is what the hon. member always does; we know his tactics. I have had experience of that hon. member for nearly 20 years.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

We want the facts.

The MINISTER:

We do not want the hon. member's boisterous nonsense.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order!

The MINISTER:

The South African Cricket Association …

Mr. W. V. RAW:

After what you did with my Hansard, I want the facts.

An HON. MEMBER:

He is getting under your skin.

The MINISTER:

The Cricket Council's statement of that date read—

The South African Cricket Association had been informed that no further tours between South Africa and England will take place unless South African cricket is played and teams are selected on a multi-racial basis in South Africa.

The hon. member said that my interpretation of that was wrong or that my view of it was wrong; that he could not believe it, but this was the statement. I ask the hon. member: If he is so sure that his facts were right, and that his view is right —he knows members of the English Cricket Council—let him write to them and ask them if they only meant that it must be a multi-racial game only at the top level. The hon. member for Houghton knows because that statement has been repeated. Mr. Billy Griffiths three weeks ago again said in the Press that the conditions with regard to multi-racial cricket still apply.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

Why did the hon. the Minister conclude from the words read out by him that multi-racial cricket must be played at all levels?

The MINISTER:

He did not say that it must be multi-racial cricket for the purpose of picking an international side. He simply said “multi-racial”. I will read it out. [Laughter.] Sir, this cheap laughter makes no impression upon me. I will read it out; he said—

Until South African cricket is played and teams are selected …

Not a team representing South Africa …

… on a multi-racial basis in South Africa …

Let the hon. member get hold of the English Cricket Council and then come back to me next year and say: “I have this official letter from them; this is not their interpretation."

Mr. W. V. RAW:

Will you agree to a mixed trial?

The MINISTER:

The hon. member must dry up! I am speaking to the hon. member for Pinelands. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order! I appeal to hon. members to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to make his speech.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

Could I ask the Minister something? I would like to ask two questions: Would the hon. the Minister agree to such a trial at top level? Secondly, would he just kindly, in the interests of South African sport, see if perhaps their attitude is not as he believes?

The MINISTER:

The Prime Minister told this House that we made enquiries. We asked, “Does this mean multi-racial or inter-racial?", They said, “No, absolutely multi-racial”.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

That is right

The MINISTER:

But what I am trying to get at, is that they want multi-racial cricket, not for one game to pick a trial team for South Africa—it was multi-racial cricket in South Africa. Let the hon. member go back and find out the position. I say they are misleading the country. The hon. member for Houghton did not mislead the country; she said multi-racial sport is what they demand. [Interjections.] It is not a matter of who is supporting who; it is a matter of the facts as they stand. I want to ask hon. members who are not biased by this political line that these people have taken, who look at the matter objectively, whether this is not the case, and whether in fact we have to face up to it that, unless they change that, unless they say “No”, they are not prepared to insist on multi-racial cricket, South Africa does not have a hope of getting a British tour.

Mr. D. I. MARAIS:

May I ask a question?

The MINISTER:

No, I want to finish one member at a time. You see, Sir, last night I must have answered 50 questions, and I do feel that this is not the way the debate should be conducted.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

But we cannot speak again.

The MINISTER:

hon. members can speak as long as they like. [Interjections.] Yes, they can. There is no guillotine on this Vote.

An HON. MEMBER:

Of course there is.

The MINISTER:

The hon. member for Pinelands can get up again and speak. Who said “Of course there is”? [Interjection.]

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Ask your Chief Whip.

The MINISTER:

If hon. members want to talk, they can keep on talking. They made the timetable for the debates, not me. I told the hon. member, he can make arrangements with his Whip and he can get up again.

Mr. D. J. MARAIS:

May I ask just one question?

The MINISTER:

I will give the hon. member his chance. This is the situation.

Now I want to refer to some other aspects of the discussion. The hon. member for Bethlehem spoke about the paraplegics and said he hoped the department would help them financially. I attended the paraplegic swimming contest the other evening. I was most interested in them. I met them here at Parliament. I have always shown interest in them. I am pleased to say to the hon. member that if he will look up the amounts of money stated in the report, he will see under “Tours abroad by S.A. teams” the item “S.A. Paraplegic Games Association—R3 000”.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

He cannot read!

The MINISTER:

You see, there is the old game the hon. member for Durban Point plays. I want to say to the hon. member for Bethlehem: I am sure the sentiments he expressed axe sentiments which I feel as well. I am sure lots of other people feel the same. The hon. member, I am sure, has the right attitude towards people whose hope in life is to be allowed to try and develop as far as possible with the natural sport and recreation of the ordinary person. I give them full credit for it, and I go out of my way to assist them wherever I can. [Interjection.] There you have it—a wisecrack while one is talking about something concerning the paraplegics.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Nonsense!

The MINISTER:

Yes, but it is typical of the hon. member. I want to tell the hon. member, he is the biggest asset in the United Party for the Nationalist Party. As a recruiting agent we could not get a better one.

The hon. member for Pretoria District, who told me he had to be in Pretoria today, also asked me about the Olympic Games and problems in that connection, for instance problems with funds, and asked whether we could help them. Well, we have assisted them all along. As a matter of fact, an amount of R5 150 was set aside for them during the last financial year. The department is assisting them in this way, and yet this is the department which was condemned by that side of the House at its inception. I can well remember the speeches. One of them even went so far as to say that only the Nazis had a Minister of Sport.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Only they had a much better Minister.

The MINISTER:

Who was that? The hon. member for Port Natal … [Interjections.] That was not the issue. Meanwhile this Government has carried on assisting sport and has done its best to assist sporting bodies through their own administrations. The United Party said we were going to take them over, that we were going to do all sorts of things, instead of which sport has been advancing in this country tremendously year after year under their own associations. They can argue as much as they like for political reasons. That won’t get any further.

To hon. members on this side of the House I should like to say that I appreciate the fact that they were interested in the various aspects of sport; they were not making a political issue out of it but tried to make a contribution which could assist me. That is why I said yesterday that when I wanted to discuss questions of sport I would come to this side of the House because there is no help for me from the other side.

Let me deal with this question of politics in sport. I know the hon. member for Johannesburg North called upon people who wanted a change in the country’s sport policy to vote for the U.P. in the provincial council elections.

Mr. D. J. MARAIS:

That is the democratic way.

The MINISTER:

They talk about politics in sport and here we have a person who says he is a sport administrator, and he is. But then he adopts a political line. There is also the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He amazed me because I know the family. He said we were insulting the Springboks because the Prime Minister is supposed to have said that no Springbok represented South Africa. That, of course, is absolute nonsense. One of them said to me: “Frankie, you were a Springbok but you never represented South Africa”. Of course, that is absolute nonsense. I was a Springbok and I represented South Africa as a White South African in rugby.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Not according to the Prime Minister.

The MINISTER:

Oh yes. If the hon. member likes that better, let me say that I represented White South Africa in rugby. [Interjections.] I did not represent non-White South Africa. They can talk as much as they like. To the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central I should like to say that their idea is that the Springbok emblem ought to be one that is common for Whites, non-Whites and in those directions. That is what they want. They talk about a Springbok cricket team with two non-Whites in it, not a South African cricket team.

An HON. MEMBER:

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order! No, I am not allowing any more questions. Hon. members may address the Committee afterwards.

The MINISTER:

You see, Mr. Chairman, these are the political lines on which hon. members opposite try to score points. I appreciate that there are some people who are more subtle. (Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order! I am disallowing all questions at this stage.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

Could you give us guidance, Sir, as to your reasons so that we can know at what stage … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. the Minister has already indicated that he is not prepared to reply to any questions. The Minister may now proceed.

The MINISTER:

Mr. Chairman, I said that there are other members who are more subtle with their politics than the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I have been to some sports writers’ dinners. I have been there when the hon. the Prime Minister addressed them, but I have never ever heard a political word at those dinners. However, there is Dr. Jacobs, the member for “Highbrow" …

HON. MEMBERS:

“Hon.” member, please.

The MINISTER:

That hon. member went, as a guest speaker, to a sport writers’ dinner and proceeded to make a political speech.

Dr. G. F. JACOBS:

And they gave me a standing ovation.

The MINISTER:

Yes, of course! His whole object was to get a standing ovation, because he is such a vain individual. I say to the leader of the Opposition: Of course, making a political speech at a social function of that nature is not politics! We in the United Party do not do that sort of thing! Only the horrible Nats do that. But let me come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself. He and I have played in many games. I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition as a fine cricketer, a fine rugby player and a fine swimmer.

Mr. G. D G. OLIVER:

And a fine politician.

The MINISTER:

But I must say that I did not think his politics very fine when he went to a social function, a Western Province Cricket Club dinner, and made a political speech. He may have been applauded and received all the praise, but I say that he was completely playing politics with sport. What I object to is the holier-than- thou attitude of those hon. members. They attack us and accuse us of making politics of sport, but with every opportunity they get, do they do it! They do it subtly whenever the opportunity arises, even though it is a social event.

Mr. G. D. G. OLIVER:

Where was the D’Oliveira ban announced?

The MINISTER:

No, try something else.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

The Nationalist Party criticizes people for playing politics!!

The MINISTER:

I will give hon. members an example of our attitude towards sport. We ran separate sporting functions, such as the South African White games and the South African non-White games. The South African White games were held at Bloemfontein and were opened by the State President. The South African non-White games were held at Soweto and were also opened by the State President. If one had had what is called mixed or multiracial games—and I put this to the hon. member for Houghton …

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

Which we are going to have.

The MINISTER:

Wait a minute. We are talking about South African White and non-White games.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Are you going to have them at club level?

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

Under your Government we are going to have. We are not governing.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Surely you have an attitude towards it.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

You just do not want to hear the truth.

The MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION:

Just like the cricketers there would probably be one or two non-Whites included, but in the case of multi-racial athletics we can say there would have been a hundred. Do hon. members know how many non-White participants took part in the games at Soweto? There were 4 500 participants.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

And very nice too.

The MINISTER:

I agree with the hon. member, it is very nice. I am very happy to agree with her, although she must not agree with me too much. But there was the example, I was wondering why the Cricket Association came with this basis of nomination. It was not a question of selection on merit but nomination. I want to say to the hon. member …

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

You did not give them any option.

The MINISTER:

Let me first make my point. I think that one of the points that worried them was that if it were on merit no non-Whites would have qualified. Then there would have been an uproar. Can you imagine the friction that this would have brought about? I can read from Howa’s statement. He said what right have they got to say two, we have six that would get into the Springbok side on merit. These are the points hon. members do not want to face up to.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

But you will not answer the question.

The MINISTER:

The point is that this is the situation. I would rather see 4 500 non-Whites participating in sport than 50 or 100 who may qualify on merit. [Interjections.] We are only doing it for the Olympics because those are the world conditions. [Interjections.] hon. members can talk as much as they like; I do not know why they scream about it. I told the hon. members last night that we said to the I.O.C. that we would rather send two sides, namely a White and a non-White side. They said “No”. [Interjections.] Wait a minute.

Mr. G. D. G. OLIVER:

Did they just want a South African team?

The MINISTER:

I know the hon. member for Kensington is a great man in his own opinion, but not in ours. The Olympic Committee says that no country could have two teams. They said that there must be one team and that we cannot have a White team only to represent our country.

An HON. MEMBER:

What about Beauty Queens?

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Do not waste your time on interjections like that.

The MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION:

hon. members on that side of the House just want to play politics with sport as hard as they can go. When Ashe is not allowed into the country and they see a few leaders in the newspapers they jump onto the bandwagon. Then they are all for Ashe coming in. Now you hardly hear thorn whisper for Ashe. And do you know why? Because they are ashamed of the line they took. That is the United Party. But we will go on. We will carry on with the work of South Africa as we know it should be done without the help of the Opposition. Now the hon. member for Johannesburg North can put his question.

Mr. D. J. MARAIS:

Will the hon. Minister for Sport agree that the staging of the Mini Olympic Games at Bloemfontein using the three-ring Olympic emblem …

The MINISTER:

How many rings?

Mr. D. J. MARAIS:

… the five-ring Olympic emblem helped to get us expelled from the Olympic movement?

The MINISTER:

No.

Mr. D. J. MARAIS:

It is quite true.

The MINISTER:

We did not have five rings. I think we had six rings, [Interjections.] There we have a Deputy Shadow Minister of Sport and he talks about the three rings of the Olympics. It was not run by me. I did not pick the rings. You go and argue with the Olympic Council of South Africa. They were the ones that did it. I did not do it. I did not sponsor the rings. The hon. member will try anything to score a point. That was all decided upon by the South African Olympic National Council. If he has any complaints to make I suggest he makes them to them.

Mr. D. J. MARAIS:

But it had your blessing.

The MINISTER:

It was not my blessing. It had nothing to do with me. All I did was to assist the South African Olympic National Council financially to stage the Games. All these administrative matters to which the hon. member for Johannesburg North referred, had nothing to do with the Government. Therefore, I think that this is enough. We will carry on as we think we should carry on.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No, 21.—"Indian Affairs”, R30 732 000:

Mr. R. M. CADMAN:

Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that one must again open this Vote by commenting upon the regrettable fact on this occasion also that we have not received a report from the Department of Indian Affairs. Mr. Chairman, you have just read out that this department is concerned with the expenditure of more than R30 million. We are dealing with a department that should have the welfare of over half a million people within its ambit. The department has been in existence for nearly a decade. I believe it was established in 1962. Not once since the department came into existence, has Parliament had a report indicating to us the details of the manner in which it carries out its functions as a Department of Indian Affairs.

Last year we had from the hon. the Minister during his speech on this Vote a statement that the department was at that time—that is nearly eight months ago— preparing reports for the years 1968-’69 and 1969-’70. Where are these reports? I do not believe there is any other department of State that over a period of a decade, throughout its existence in fact, has administered its affairs without once reporting to Parliament. The responsibility is of course not with the department, but with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. We expect from the hon. the Minister in his reply cogent reasons as to why this has been allowed to continue for so long.

The department obviously does something. It administers education; it administers welfare services; it administers a university; it advises other departments in respect of the Indian community. We, as members of Parliament, particularly when it comes to the discussion of the Vote, are entitled to know what is going on. We can only do that by means of a report.

The other point which emerges is the difficulty we have in deciding on the function of the hon. the Minister. Last year throughout the debate on this Vote, I and others attempted to find out from the hon. the Minister what his views were, what his thinking was, what his function was in regard to the Indian Representative Council. Although the hon. the Minister spoke only at the end of the debate and one must now refer back to that speech to he able to discuss it, what emerged was that the hon. the Minister is nothing more than a post-box. His function is that of a well paid post-box. I want to refer to one or two extracts from his speech which illustrate, I believe, what I have just said. We were trying to extract from the hon. the Minister his policy in regard to the Indian Council. What did the hon. gentleman say? He started off by saying:

My attitude towards the Indian Council is that it is a body which my department consults. The Indian Council has consulted me.

That is very revealing. He consults the council and the council consults him. Then he went on to say:

The Indian Council has consulted me. I have on various occasions attended the council meetings. I have obtained the minutes of their meetings regularly and I know exactly what takes place at these meetings. Although I appreciate that they have no executive power, only purely consultative, I do feel that they have through me, as a Minister, at least an avenue by way of which they can submit their case.

In other words, he is a conduit pipe between other Ministers and the Indian Council, The hon. the Minister went on to refer to certain other questions that had been put to him and then said:

… I have personally arranged meetings of deputations from the Indian Council with a number of Ministers. Every Minister was very willing to speak to them and to hear what they had to say.

The hon. the Minister arranged meetings. He then went on to say:

I remember off-hand, for instance, that they talked to the Minister of Labour about apprenticeship difficulties. They talked to the Minister of Community Development about a housing scheme. In every way, therefore, the opportunity for consultation with a Minister is available to them. I have gone out of my way to see that that avenue is there and that it is an effective one.

Any senior clerk, Sir, can arrange meetings with Ministers. What we want to know is what influence the hon. the Minister has on his colleagues in regard to Indian Affairs. Then he went on to say that the meetings of the Council were attended by officials of his department, and then he says:

The reports come through to the secretary of the department. If there is any matter in which he thinks I should intervene …

If the Secretary thinks the hon. the Minister should intervene—

… he does not hesitate to ask me to do so.

Sir, what is all this? He is no more than a conduit pipe or a postbox, and what we want to know from the hon. the Minister is not what consultations he arranges, but the influence he has on affairs in the interest of the Indian community. That is his function.

Now, what is one of the most important issues in the lives of any member of the Indian community? I know that the establishment of group areas is not this Minister’s function, either before its establishment when it is the function of the Minister of Planning, or after its establishment when it is the function of the hon. the Minister of Community Development, But what we are entitled to know is what part the hon. the Minister plays in bringing about those group areas, the part he plays in advising his colleagues in that regard. Because one has only to look at any series of newspapers to realize that that issue, the question of group areas, is one of the most important issues to the Indian community. We had a revealing example from the hon. the Minister in his speech last year. In dealing with this very issue he was asked what part he played when it came to group areas, and the hon. gentleman said this (col. 3104)—

My Department makes representations to the Group Areas Board on the basis of any removal scheme that is contemplated. It makes representations whether it is Grey Street or Park Rynie that is involved. I do not say for one moment that those representations are accepted by the Group Areas Board. Nevertheless, the Department and myself as the Minister have access to the Minister concerned …

The hon. the Minister has access to the Minister concerned! Sir, I have never read anything more regrettable than for the Minister who is concerned with the welfare of over half a million people to say, when it comes to this important issue; “I do not say for one moment that those representations are accepted”. You see, Sir, anywhere else a Minister in the position of this hon. gentleman, if he has the welfare of the Indian community at heart and he finds himself in a Cabinet where his representations and his recommendations as the Minister responsible are ignored—what does he do?

Hon. MEMBERS:

He resigns.

Mr. R. M. CADMAN:

He will immediately resign from the Cabinet. [Interjections.] Because this is not just anybody making representations to the Group Areas Board or to the Ministers concerned; it is the Minister of State charged with the welfare of the Indian community, and when he puts forward a point of view, it is the most weighty point of view which could possibly go before that committee or before the Minister concerned. What are we to infer from what has taken place in towns like Ladysmith? That no attention whatsoever is given to the representations of the hon. the Minister for Indian Affairs. Because what has happened in Ladysmith? Within two or three years of a group area for Indians having been proclaimed—whether it was in conformity with the advice of the hon. the Minister or against it, we do not know, but we would like to know —that proclamation is done away with, Indians, having established themselves in a proclaimed residential area, have to move to the other side of the Klip River, and this despite a joint statement by this hon. Minister and the Minister of Planning in February, of this year, to this effect:

We wish to reiterate the assurance given to the South African Indian Council by the Minister of Indian Affairs last year that the utmost care is taken in the planning of group areas, for it is intended that such planning should be final, and that the deproclamation of an area or the alteration of the boundaries thereof is considered only in exceptional circumstances and then with the utmost circumspection.

Sir, nothing that has yet been revealed to the public, either by the Minister or by anybody else, has led us to believe that there were exceptional circumstances which demanded the uprooting of a great many Indians from a proclaimed group area in Ladysmith. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister what part he played; whether he supported this proposal when it came about, in his capacity as Minister of Indian Affairs, or whether he was against it; and if he was against it, after the considered opinion of his department, how he can continue to sit in the Cabinet when his views in such an important matter are disregarded. [Time expired.]

*Dr. P. J. VAN B. VILJOEN:

Sir, we are very grateful to the hon. member for Zululand for having adopted this courteous attitude, particularly with a view to the fact that for several hours we have had to listen here to the most discourteous conduct, on the part of the Opposition towards a Minister, that I have ever witnessed,

*HON. MEMBERS:

It is a disgrace.

*Dr. P. J. VAN B. VILJOEN:

The hon. member for Zululand touched on several administrative matters concerning the Department, and I believe that the Minister will furnish his reply in due course, as well as a reply with respect to the report of the Department of Indian Affairs. But I think that we can give the hon. member the assurance that the constitutional development of the Department of Indian Affairs and of the Indian community will come into its stride in time, as soon as this machinery, which has already been established, has taken full shape. I think that the Indian council can do a good enough job looking after the interests of their own people and that it is not necessary for the Opposition to now act as champions of the Indian.

Sir, I think that if one makes a special study of the Indian population in South Africa, quite a few interesting facts come to light. However, before I give a review of these aspects, I should like to formulate two norms: these norms are, in my opinion, also very important in the viewing of our political dispensation. A study of psychology indicates that cultural hybridization is one of the chief sources of conflict. I quote—

Cultural hybridization is one of the main “etiological” factors in the causation of conflict.

The second point I want to mention is that family life always remains the basis of a sound society, and I think that the Indian population, in particular, complies with both of these concepts. In spite of moderate westernization, in respect of the clothes they wear, their language and other habits, virtually no cultural hybridization has taken place among the Indian population. That is why we find that they are very seldom prone to conflict, except perhaps for a moderate form of conflict in their own ranks between the Moslems and the Hindus. The preservation of their identity is strengthened further by the Indians’ cast system which, of course, has the adverse consequence of intermarriage, but which nevertheless supports that idea of unity.

It is then also dear why these strong family ties have such a particular effect on the Indian as far as their involvement in society is concerned. Let me mention, for example, the fact that the Indian population has the lowest juvenile crime rate in South Africa. This agrees with certain social studies carried out in America, where the Asiatics also have some of the lowest crime rates. I ascribe this to these two principles that I have already mentioned. If we compare the Indian with the Coloured, for example, there is a tremendous difference. The Bantu occupies a place more or less between the Indians and the Coloureds, and in the case of the Whites the figure is slightly higher in certain cases, and slightly lower in other cases, than the figures for the Indians,

Sir, there is also a great misconception about the general idea of occupational diversification among the Indians. The general idea is that the Indian chiefly confines himself to commerce. I should like to point out that this is not so. I should like to mention a few statistics; 8,6 per cent of the Indians are involved in agriculture, as against 10,4 per cent of the Whites; 0,5 per cent of the Indians are involved in mining, as against 5,3 per cent of the Whites; 25,3 per cent of the Indians are working in the manufacturing industry, as against 18.3 per cent of the Whites; 6,9 per cent of the Indians are involved in construction work, as against 6,3 per cent of the Whites. We could go on in this way and refer to transport. 3,1 per cent of the Indians are working in transport as against 10,1 per cent of the Whites. There we can see a slight difference. As a result of this scattered occupational diversification the Indian will have to play a big role in the development of Natal. They are already playing a specially big role in the coal industry, the building industry and also, to a greater extent, in the professional and industrial occupations. With the great industrial development we shall, of course— and this applies to the platteland in particular, to places such as Ladysmith, Newcastle and Richard’s Bay—have a considerable increase in the Indian population.

As a result of this fact it has become necessary for ordered planning to take place in respect of residential areas. Since the hon. member for Zululand referred to that, I want to point out to him that this Act is difficult to implement. However, that opposition tries to seize every opportunity to make it even more difficult for us. In respect of this matter I should like to call the Opposition to account today. I want to do so because the Indian population is quite frequently affected by group area provisions. I should like to focus the hon. member’s attention on the fact that many other races are also affected by these group area provisions and that the sacrifices therefore do not only come from one particular group. That is why it is also necessary for us to put a few aspects in connection with the implementation of the Group Areas Act into the correct perspective. I do not think that the spirit of the Act involves discrimination; on the contrary, the main purpose of the Act is to establish the ordered arrangement of the peoples in South Africa. In the long run this would be to everyone’s benefit. If any group has to make small sacrifices, these ought to be made in the interests of South Africa. In this way there is, for example, the other provision to the effect that no one must be deprived of his livelihood in the implementation of the Group Areas Act. The third aspect is that no one will be evicted from his house unless alternative or better accommodation can be established than the accommodation he previously had.

The implementation in this case does not take place overnight; it is a gradual implementation. For that reason it can be done with the utmost circumspection. I should also like to mention the fact that in certain areas, where development is taking place, consideration should nevertheless be given to deproclamation. The fact remains that the deproclamation of group areas, particularly with respect to the Indians, will only take place in the most extreme cases. And it will only be done during a growth point’s initial development stage. I therefore think that we must satisfy the hon. the member opposite by saying that this deproclamation is not something that will be considered very lightly by the Department. It will only be done in the most extreme cases. I think that today it is necessary for us to appeal to the Opposition not to continue with these methods they are applying. I am referring to the methods of continual agitation in respect of the implementation of the Group Areas Act. They will have to stop applying these methods, because these methods are going to boomerang on them. [Time expired.]

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. member for Newcastle, let me say to him that in future debates we will be dealing with Newcastle specifically and that when he makes the claim that Indians being moved under the Group Areas Act are moved to better housing and better conditions he and the hon. Minister of Community Development, who is also sitting here, are both talking nonsense when they repeat this time and time again.

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

I challenge you to bring me one case where it is not so.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

I will. Every time I get up to speak in this House I am continually interrupted by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, and I want him to know that I am getting particularly sick and tired of the statements he makes out of this House about how well these people are being treated. I will show that that is so much nonsense. But we are dealing with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs today. [Interjections.] Just keep quiet, your turn will come. I want to deal with the Minister of Indian Affairs today and I want to lay the blame at his door just as much as I do it with the hon. Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Planning. We have had a Department of Indian Affairs since 1961. Since 1961, the position of the Indian group, probably as no other group in the country, has deteriorated considerably. I can show that this is so. Let us take Durban particularly, because Durban is the mirror of the Indian community in South Africa. Let us look at Chattsworth, the biggest Indian area in Durban. Today Chattsworth is already overcrowded and slum conditions are beginning to appear. In a few years’ time the Government will have to move in and do some slum clearing in a new area such as Chattsworth. Yesterday, the rains in Durban again caused havoc in Chattsworth.

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

It happened in Port Elizabeth as well.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

But this is supposed to be the ideal suburb of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I will, however, leave him aside for the moment, because his turn will come. As I have said, I want to deal with the Minister of Indian Affairs and I have never heard such a misnomer in my life. Here we have a Minister of Indian Affairs who knows absolutely nothing about the Indian community at all. Why is it that since 1961, when this department was formed, the number of people affected by the poverty datum line has risen and not decreased? How is it in this modern age of medicine that the infant mortality rate amongst Indians is growing each year?

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

It is not true.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

It is true. I can quote figures to show that this is so. In 1966, 42 out of every 1 000 Indian babies born died. By 1968 the figure had risen to 53, and this in a modern society with the better housing the hon. the Minister of Community Development talks about, better diets, and so on. How is it that while in 1936 one-third of the Indians owned the property they occupied it is now estimated that when the Group Areas Act has been implemented to its harshest and fullest proportion less than 10 per cent of the Indians will be occupying their own property?

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

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

No, I am not prepared to answer questions from people who know absolutely nothing about Indians at all. In any event, I do not have the time to do so. It is estimated that by 1980 less than 10 per cent of the Indians will own their own property. Is that an improvement for the Indian community? I raised the matter of provincial permits with the hon. the Minister in a previous debate. In 1962 they issued 12000 provincial permits and in 1970 the figure was 23 000. Is that an improvement for the Indian community? The hon. member for Newcastle talked about the family unit in the Indian community and that is perfectly true. But does the hon. member for Newcastle know that since the implementation of the Group Areas Act the family units among the Indian community have been destroyed and that the number is getting less each year? If he does not know it, he does not know anything about Indians and is not worth talking to. 24 900 families have been displaced under the Group Areas Act in Natal. In fact South Africa is fast becoming a land of refugees as far as the Indians are concerned. If the hon. the Minister feels proud about that, let him do so. The Minister of Indian Affairs sits there. What is happening? At Benoni a scientific survey was done by professionals as to what should be done with the Indian group, and what happened? That stout Minister of Indian Affairs allowed this Minister and the Minister of Planning to go ahead and move them anyway. What happened at Grey Street, which is the lifeblood of the Indian economy in South Africa, certainly in Natal? For 12 years they have been waiting for an answer. What happens? This Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Minister of Planning, said: “I shall give it urgent attention.” Since he made that statement, that he would give it urgent attention, nearly another 12 months have gone past, and the Grey Street area is getting more depressed by the day. If this hon. Minister and the Government think that it is fair and human, all that I can say is that this is a scandal. It is heartless and a blot on South Africa and the White people in South Africa that they allow it to continue.

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

What is your provincial council’s policy with regard to Greytown?

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Your turn will come. Mr. Chairman, what has happened? Wyebank has been waiting since 1957. The hon. the Minister sits there and laughs. He has no influence at all. Stop- forth has been waiting since 1963, Grey Street for 12 years. This is allowed to continue. How many meetings of the Indian Council does the Minister of Indian Affairs attend? My friend from Zululand said he consults with them. It is no longer a joke in South Africa, that we have a Minister of Indian Affairs who cannot stand up to the other Ministers in his Cabinet in trying to protect the people he represents against the harsh and heartless treatment of the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Planning.

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

You bring me one Indian …

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Oh, you’ve said all this before. What has happened at the reproclamation of Newcastle, Dannhauser and Ladysmith? What has happened to the literally thousands of Indian traders who have lost their livelihood because of the Group Areas Act?

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

They all died of hunger!

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Yes. It is a pity that you didn’t. The time has come when we should analyse this department in a manner in which we certainly cannot do in the time that we have in this debate. At a time when all over the world race groups are being brought closer together, this department sets out to deliberately destroy the economic life of the Indian community. How is it that the poverty among the Indians has grown? This Minister two years ago talked about the 150 Indians in the Huntonsville area in Durban that had been moved. Those Indians are still in that area and they are in dire poverty at this very moment. Yet this Minister said that they did not even exist; they had already been moved! This is not a matter that can be lightly dealt with. In the 300 years of South Africa’s history, I submit, we have never treated a race group the way we are today treating the Indian community. Sir, do you know that in the last five or six years in Durban they have not built a single house to take care of the population increase among the Indian people? They are so busy resettling the Indians that have moved under the Group Areas Act that there has not been the time to do anything about rehousing and taking care of the population increase. Why is it that disease and crime among the Indians is today higher than it was 10 years ago?

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Who told you that?

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Perhaps the Minister of Indian Affairs would be able to provide this House with some figures for a change to indicate just what is the position in regard to the Indians. 60 per cent are living below the poverty datum line. The family unit is being destroyed.

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Ha! Ha!

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

All you can get from the hon. the Minister of Community Development is “Ha! Ha!”. That is all he thinks of this particular problem. When did the Minister of Indian Affairs have a professionally conducted survey done as regards Indian life in South Africa today? It has never been done The hon. the Minister knows, as everybody else knows, that today the Indian Council is a joke among the Indian people. [Time expired.]

*Dr. J. C. OTTO:

The hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, made so many emotionally absurd remarks here that I am not even going to waste my time replying to them. What he had to say here he could just as easily have said under any other Vote, particularly under the Community Development Vote. He said virtually nothing about Indian Affairs.

The hon. member for Zululand criticized the hon. the Minister about his handling of this Department. But the hon. the Minister handles this Department in accordance with the Government's policy, and although any Opposition member has the right to criticize the way in which the Department is administered, one could ask them what, then, is their policy in respect of the Indians. Do the Indians have confidence in their policy, if they have one? What contact do they have with Indian leaders? And if there is contact, does this take place in public? When all is said and done, what Indian leader has so much confidence in the United Party's policy that he has expressed his agreement with it? I trust that we shall receive replies to these questions.

I should like to make a few remarks about the participation of the Indian population in the Republic Festival. It is encouraging and praiseworthy that the Indian population also intends to participate in the Republic festivities. In fact, they already have an Indian National Festival Committee, the chairman of which is also a member of the Indian Council. He is Councillor A. M. Moolla. As chairman of that Indian Festival Committee he made an appeal to all Indians to co-operate “to make this occasion worthy of our community and an expression of our love and loyalty to our country”. He also wrote an article in the monthly journal on Indian affairs, Fiat Lux, of February, in which he referred to persons, whom he did not mention, in the Indian community who do not want to participate in the Republic Festival and even requested the Indian Festival Committee to boycott the Republic Festival. This is how he put it—

Little do these men realize that boycott of the Republican Festival can do our community tremendous harm, whereas participation can bring nothing but goodwill as indeed it did bring our community by the impact of the 1966 celebrations.

Presumably these are still the remnants of the kindred spirits of the Indian Congress, which urges the people to adopt this kind of attitude. Moreover, they are also prompted to that action by a certain Indian newspaper, and unfortunately even by certain Whites as well. They are the ones who are trying to put a spoke in the wheel of the Indian National Festival Committee which, with its regional committees, has already held many meetings in connection with the organization of festival functions at various places. In order to illustrate that perverseness, the chairman said—

Despite the very casual note of opposition to the festival, about which we read in the papers, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the festival in May, 1971, will be celebrated by all racial groups as effectively as it was celebrated in 1966.

On Saturday, 1st May, the Indian community of Pretoria, Laudium, participated spontaneously in a big Republic celebration. According to reports, 6 000 Indians were gathered for the occasion and were addressed by the mayor of Pretoria, the Rev. G. J. Davidtsz, who was threatened, a day or two before, with death if he addressed that Indian community. However, the mayor did not pay any attention to that and he attended the celebration. On that occasion he praised the Indians for their spontaneous co-operation and for their nation-wide participation. He also expressed the wish that the example would be followed by other Indian communities.

Unfortunately a few discordant notes have now also crept in. One jarring note crept in, of course, from a quarter where there is the greatest concentration of Indians, i.e. Natal. I should like hon. members to listen. The first discordant note came from a Natal M.E.C., who said that the Republic Festivals are sentimental and that they ought not to be held so frequently. He said, in addition, that it is no wonder that the non-Whites want to boycott the Festival. That is a very unfortunate utterance, and that coming from a Natal M.E.C., and therefore not an everyday person. That was exactly grist to the mill of the perverse individuals among the Indian population.

There was also an incident in connection with Johannesburg students. I read the report as it appeared in the Burger of 8th May (translation)—

Students at the Transvaal College of Education for Asiatics are determined to oppose the demands of the college authorities that they take part in the Republic Festival. According to the students they were threatened with expulsion if they refused to take part in the Festival. They will not take part in a celebration of “the victory of Afrikaans nationalism and the oppression of the Black man” the students said.

These are very unfortunate utterances. These discordant notes are only a hindrance to the co-operation that has already taken place in connection with this celebration. These people, whether Whites or Indians, who caused the discordant notes, are doing the Indian community no service. This type of person is only clouding the spirit of friendly co-existence which is positively and conspicuously developing. Moreover, they are complicating the task of the Indian Council, which co-operates harmoniously with the Department. The hon. member for Port Natal said a moment ago that the Indian Council is worth virtually nothing, that they are the Government’s “stooges”. At present they are the representatives of the Indian community. What people does the United Party have that they consult? These people are at least the leaders of the Indian community consulted by the Government.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Give them some rights and see what happens.

*Dr. J. C. OTTO:

These members of the Indian community, who do not want to co-operate, who want to disrupt the harmony that has been created, ought to be told that in the Estimates each year, under the Department of Indian Affairs, an amount is voted that can be used for Indian emigration. They can apply to emigrate. The money can be used for that purpose, and they have the fullest right to do so if they are not satisfied to fall in with the other Indians who want to co-operate in creating harmony in this country.

In the few minutes that are left I should like to make a few remarks about Indian education. These are members on our side who will elaborate further about Indian education. [Time expired ]

Mr. P. A. PYPER:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Koedoespoort wanted to know whether we had contact with Indian leaders. I can assure him that we on this side of the House are definitely in contact with the leaders of the Indian community. I believe that we are better informed than hon. members opposite. Listening to that hon. member made me think that we were back in the days of repatriation.

I am sorry the hon. member did not speak about education. I intend to do so because it is no secret that the Government has decided to concentrate upon this aspect as the shop window of separate development among the Indians. This is why it is always mentioned as one of the so-called positive results of separate development, I find this attitude extremely interesting. The very fact that such great emphasis is placed on education as a positive result of separate development, surely implies that there are many negative results of separate development as well, and that the Government is in fact trying to use education in order to escape from reality.

My sympathies are with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, because separate development is after all basically a political concept. The Minister of Indian Affairs is in the unfortunate position that, unlike his counterpart, the Minister of Bantu Administration, who can create artificial political shop windows for separate development, he is unable to do so as far as the Indians are concerned, unless of course he wants to give substance to the policy of multi-national states. It is open to him and he can advocate with great conviction, if he wishes, the creation of separate and independent Hindustans, Muslemstans, Tamilstans and Zanzibaristans but. I am afraid, this will never happen. It is for that reason that I do not blame him for trying to use education as a shop window. I am afraid, however, that I must also disillusion him because, bearing in mind the stage we have reached today, this shop window still needs a great deal of improvement. He cannot, of course, say that the advances and the progress that have taken place in education have been due only to separate development. The advance of a minority group, such as the Indians, rests primarily on the financial assistance rendered to that group by the State. For that reason the Government, one way or the other, could have made such an advance possible many years ago.

Sir, if we look at this particular shop window, what do we find? We still find an education department in which there was a 40 per cent failure rate among matriculants last year—1 084 out of 2 605 matriculants failed.

Dr. J. C. OTTO:

Is it better than before?

Mr. P. A. PYPER:

It is perhaps art improvement, but in this shop window we still find only 60 per cent of all matriculants passing. Let us take a further look at this shop window. Only 31 pupils out of a total of 2 605 obtained merit passes. One can hardly work it out. I think it is 0,05 per cent of the total. 31 is what a normal high school with an enrolment of 100 or more pupils can expect. I must add that the 31 came from Natal and none from the Transvaal. And in spite of what is done at Springfield Training College, you still have something like 1 431 Indian teachers with academic qualifications equivalent to Std. 8. No, I think that this particular shop window still needs a lot of improvement. But if we go further and if we really try to analyse Indian education, we are absolutely disturbed by the unnatural tendencies we discover, not only unhealthy educational tendencies but unhealthy tendencies as far as the requirements of a stable community are concerned. You first of all find that it is completely academically orientated, and here I can do no better than to quote what the chairman of the Executive Committee of the S.A. Indian Council said—

Too many people, for instance, still feel that an academic career is what their children should strive for, despite abilities and aptitudes which indicate that the child would be happier and more productive and more successful in what is regarded as a less desirable job.

I am not just going to blame poor guidance for this type of thing; neither am l going to blame the ignorance of the Indians. Apparently in the set-up of the Indian community there is only one direction in which they can move, and that is to put the emphasis on academic development, it therefore becomes completely educationally-orientated.

One finds there is a virtual obsession to enter the medical profession, and obviously many Indians are disappointed because they cannot enter that profession with the type of qualifications they have. So what happens? They proceed to the university, where they show a clear preference for raking B.Sc. with a medical bias and they consequently qualify in zoology and botany as their major subjects. Even for a White person with that type of qualification, it is very difficult to find useful employment. The result is that they are forced to enter the teaching profession, and when they enter the teaching profession they find that their qualifications are so specialized that they can only become biology teachers. If anybody wants to boast about the virtues of separate development and say it must be applied to a minority group and you will produce more biology teachers than you require, then let him do so.

I am not blaming the universities for providing these specialized courses. You also find that they enter the field of librarianship, and once again they find that there are limited opportunities. The same applies to the pure scientists. Unless they enter the teaching profession, it is absolutely futile for them to enter other fields. We know of people who have qualified in the pure sciences and have a B.Sc. and who are forced to become laboratory assistants. Another thing the Minister has to be aware of is what I would like to refer to as the perpetual student, the one who continues staying at the university accumulating degrees. I am glad the hon. member for Newcastle touched on the subject of commerce. One of the fallacies as far as the Indians are concerned, is the belief that they are highly commercialized people. They are not. What you do find among them is perhaps a high degree of family businesses, but for a person with a B.Comm. degree there are very limited opportunities. It is not unusual to find graduates working as clerks.

I do not know whether this is still the position, but perhaps the minister should have a closer look at the staff of the University of Durban-Westville and he may find that on the administrative staff there are persons working in clerical jobs when in fact they are graduates. That is why it is so important that we must see it in the wider concept and why it is so important to the Indians to diversify, but they cannot diversify unless they have a capital generating centre; and as far as Durban is concerned, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs should definitely use his influence in order to secure Grey Street, for the Indian community. This will provide them with a capital-generating centre which will make diversification possible.

I would also like to know how much substance there is in what we have read last week in the Sunday Tribune, about the threat of angry Indian staff to resign from the University of Durban-Westville. All I know is what is in this particular report. I wonder whether the Minister is in a better position to tell us more about it. Sir, they can try to run away from the facts and the realities of South Africa, and they can have an education system which perhaps one day will be 100 per cent perfect. But where do we go from there? This is my charge against the particular policy of separate development as it is being applied today by this Government. The responsibility for it rests on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. [Time expired.]

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

Sir, I should like to reply to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and to the hon. member who is now walking out. He is free to go; I shall speak about him in his absence. However, I must say that I am surprised that a man who made so many accusations is now walking out. I want to tell the hon. member for Zululand that I am very sorry for him because in a debate such as this one, which is a very important debate because in South Africa one is dealing with a diversity of populations and race groups, with White affairs, Bantu affairs, Coloured affairs and Indian affairs, one ought to give close attention to each of these departments, whether one’s orientation is towards the United Party, the National Party or the Progressive Party. I am amazed that the two younger hon. members who spoke here are altogether ignorant of the basic, elementary facts concerning the Indians. I am amazed at the knowledge those two hon. members displayed in respect of what the National Party is doing among the Indians. Sir, the hon. member for Durban Central wanted to cover the field of education, and I can understand this. He is a man with a Master’s degree, obtained at Potchefstroom. He was also in education, and therefore I at least expected him to be able to give us a proper analysis of the number of schools there are, the number of children in primary, secondary and tertiary education, that he would tell us what the position was under the United Party Government, that he would indicate what growth there had been in the past ten years since the establishment of a full Ministry, and that he would then only come to his criticisms. However, the hon. member just fired a few random shots here that were absolutely insignificant. For example, take the University College at Westville in Durban. Did the hon. member find out what the growth figures at that university were?

*Mr. P. A. PYPER:

Numbers do not count; it is the policy.

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

Now the hon. member says that numbers do not count. Sir, the numbers at a university at least indicate to one whether there is any growth or not. Does that hon. member know that in 1961 there were 103 full-time students and that in 1970 there were 1 107? And then the hon. member has the audacity to come to this House and say that as far as education is concerned, there has been no growth. The hon. member proves, does he not, that he has not made a study of the matter, and then that hon. member comes and says that this side of the House knows nothing about these matters. Sir, I do not want to blow my own trumpet, but for quite a number of years I gave classes at the university specifically about the Indians. I want that hon. member to tell me of any book about the Indians that I personally have not yet read. I am not boasting …

*Mr. P. A. PYPER:

I spoke of the present situation.

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

The hon. member complained that there are no reports in respect of this Department. Sir, there is a magazine about these people, Fiat Lux, containing a wealth of information, but the hon. member quotes to me from the Sunday Tribune. The problem with that side of the House is that they are unscientific in their approach to their politics. They make use of quotations out of newspapers to take up the time of this House. Sir, the modern newspaper is superficial and unscientific. One cannot debate here on the basis of newspaper reports. I actually wanted to begin my speech by referring to the problem in this connection. I wish I could again give classes at a university, with a few of the hon. members on that side of the House in that class. I would have failed them for three consecutive years in the hope that after such time I could at least have got something into their heads.

I now want to make a few observations about the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. This is now the third portfolio discussed in this House and handled by the hon. the Minister. The previous two Votes were Tourism and Sport. The longer I sit in this House, the clearer it is to me that the hon. members on that side of the House have a vendetta going against this hon. Minister. I have no doubt about this. There are two reasons for it. Firstly they do so because the hon. the Minister is an English-speaking individual who had the courage of his convictions to join the National Party and to say that the National Party is right. That was in conflict with the imperialistic thinking of that side of the House which regards the National Party as consisting only of Van der Merwes and Bothas from the backwoods. They cannot believe that the product of an English community can say that in South Africa no policy can succeed other than that of the National Party. But as long as this hon. Minister sits in the front benches, English-speaking people in South Africa will realize that there is ample room for English-speaking people in the National Party. There is room for them in this party, and this will place them in a position to make a great contribution to the problems we are struggling with in South Africa.

The other reason is that that side of the House realizes that this hon. Minister is a competent person. [Interjections.] hon. members on that side of the House may laugh about that as much as they want to. But I shall furnish proof in this connection, and my proof is much more scientific than the proof furnished by that hon. member.

Let us take a brief look at the hon. the Minister’s record. There is nothing that he has ever tackled in his lifetime that he has not made a success of. As a sportsman the hon. the Minister had a brilliant career. The hon. member for Pinelands can agree with me in this respect. He also had a successful academic career. He qualified well in the human sciences and the commercial sciences. There were also achievements in the military sphere. In the Second World War he was a pilot. He did excellent work as a pilot. But the hon. the Minister was also successful in the commercial world. But let us come to politics. This hon. Minister was so useful to that side of the House and they employed him to such good advantage that in the years 1943, 1948 and 1953 he was nominated unopposed as a candidate in the Orange Grove constituency, hon. members on that side of the House do not attack the hon. the Minister’s policy; they make a personal attack on him. The hon. member for Zululand has recently ventured onto the same ground as the hon. member for Simonstown. This is a pity. He said that the hon. the Minister was just a post box. I want to say again that hon. members on that side of the House do not attack the hon. the Minister’s policy and analyse it. Whether it be policy on sport tourism or Indian affairs, the hon. the Minister does not formulate a policy on his own; he does so in co-operation with the Government.

Now the United Party comes along and makes a personal attack on this man whom they allowed to be their unopposed candidate three times. Is that fair? Can we in South Africa, with the big problem we are struggling with, allow a Minister to be attacked like this? But that side of the House does not only do it to this hon. Minister, they also do it to other Ministers. If this side of the House were not to stand up and give personal analyses of hon. members on that side of the House, and reveal, magnify and attack in them the weaknesses common to all people, where would we get with our debates? Then we get the kind of debate which the hon. member for Durban Central has just conducted. He is a young fellow, like myself. His years still lie ahead of him. While we are debating an important matter, that hon. member comes along with incomplete and unscientific facts. I want to mention an example to hon. members.

I just want to refer to tertiary education, because we cannot deal with everything in this short space of time. Hon. members know, surely that this is the stage subsequent to the period of primary and secondary education. The hon. member for Durban Central must now go back and look at what his party said in past years about Indians. He must look at that to see what position those hon. members wanted the Indians to occupy in society, not only in the political sphere, but also in the economic and educational spheres. The hon. member may look there at how they wanted to link the Indians up in the university sphere. When the National Party came and, true to its principles, said that there is a diversity of national groups in South Africa, that it wanted to maintain that diversity and to handle it in such a way that the least amount of friction would develop, for example by the establishment of separate universities, what was their standpoint? [Time expired,]

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Mr. Chairman, the major part of the speech of the hon. member for Rissik was devoted to an unsolicited testimonial and biographical details of the hon. the Minister, and therefore I will not follow him in that regard. I must say, however, that he has mentioned, with some justification, that there has been some improvement in the amount of money which has been voted for Indian education. I think I must give some credit where it is due. In fact, the amount of money which has been voted for Indian education is much more than the amount which had been spent when Indian education remained under the Provincial Council of Natal. That is factual, and I think one must give credit for this fact. However, the unfortunate fact still remains, that far too many Indian children are leaving school in the primary school stage. Of the number of Indian pupils who start school, something like only 1,57 per cent get to the final class. That is, of course, far too low a figure if Indian children are to be trained to take their place in the economy of this country and get technical training in particular. Not nearly enough attention has been given to this factor.

Dr. J. C. OTTO:

There is a big improvement.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Yes, and I have given credit for the improvement, because I believe in giving credit where it is due. However, the hon. member for Newcastle may believe that the Government’s policy, as far as the Indian people are concerned, is an idealistic policy and that the Group Areas Act was an Act which was introduced on an idealistic basis. I must point out that in the practice thereof, the sacrifices which have been made in South Africa in the name of the Group Areas Act have devolved very heavily indeed upon the shoulders of the Coloured people and the Indian people, and less, very much less, on the shoulders of the White people If you look at the number of families which are destined to be moved under the Group Areas Act, you will see that there are 59 000 Coloured families, 39 000 Indian families and only about 1 500 White families who are to be moved. Therefore I think one must not talk in terms of equal sacrifice, because this does not exist. I will not go into the question of the deprivation of livelihood, because I think that should be obvious to everybody. It is all very well to say that the people are not deprived of their livelihood, but they are certainly deprived of an equal livelihood in relation to that which they enjoyed before they were required to move because of the Group Areas Act. The result of this was that Indian traders who had been moved from the main streets of the platteland towns had to go to areas three or four miles outside a town.

The Indian traders of Fordsburg and elsewhere in Johannesburg are now all to be concentrated in one Asiatic bazaar, and are certainly not going to have the same economic opportunities they enjoyed before. As regards the Indian traders who have already been moved to Lenasia, according to figures which I received just the other day, there are 130 traders who are licensed in Lenasia and they have to serve 4 500 families, that is the population of Lenasia. This works out at an average of one trader for 34,6 families. This is the position at present, but I believe that the numbers are going to increase eventually in Lenasia. Then it is going to accommodate about 50 000 to 60 000 inhabitants. This, however, is taking in each other's washing, and it cannot for one moment be compared to the opportunities these people had when they were trading in the central area of Johannesburg. The hon. the Minister is very well aware of the Diagolan Street area of Johannesburg which used to be occupied by Indian traders. Since time immemorial and if ever there was a tradition, it was that the Indian trading area of Johannesburg was there. Now everybody is to be packed into a small area where they cannot hope to maintain their standard of living.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister two questions. It is always difficult under this Vote to know exactly what authority the Minister has because something either falls under the Minister of Community Development or under the Minister of Planning and one is left high and dry. But there is the question of the elected of partly-elected Indian council. This has now been the concern of the Minister for a considerable time. I asked him a question in this regard earlier this year and he told me that the matter was still under discussion. This matter must be resolved. The Indian community of South Africa, consisting of 500 000 people, constitutes in fact the most culturally advanced non-White section of the population. It is an absolute anachronism that this well-educated and, as I say, well advanced, non-White section of the population is the only section that has no representative council whatsoever. The Coloured people have a representative council; I do not for one moment say that that council compensates for the loss of rights in this House, but it is at least a representative council with some of the members elected by the community itself. The Africans in the case of their own territorial authorities also have partly elected territorial authorities. The Indian people are still without any elected representation whatsoever and I think this matter must be resolved. I cannot understand what is holding it up. Such a council could then take over the responsibility of welfare and education at least, which are two of the portfolios which are run by the Coloured community and by the African people in their own areas. We know that the Indian people have done an enormous service for their own community as far as education is concerned. They have built schools and they have provided money for higher education. It seems absurd that at this stage nothing has yet been done to give them more authoritative control over their own affairs. They have lost faith in the nominated council. The hon. the Minister should take note of this because it is one of the reasons why they are feeling as they do about participating in the Republican Festival.

The other matter I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister is the question of Lenasia. May I ask the hon. the Minister when he last visited Lenasia?

The MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:

I should say about six months ago.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Then he ought to be very familiar with conditions which prevail there. As he knows, Lenasia was established in 1958 and was taken over by the Johannesburg City Council in January, 1970. The conditions prevailing in that township are really abysmal. There are some very grand houses in the first few streets one visits. They are the houses of the Indian millionaires, the show places. They are very atypical and the Minister knows this. They do not even have a proper management council elected by themselves there. They only have a temporary ratepayers’ association. What has happened to all the money which the periurban authorities received all these years from rates and taxes and from the 15 per cent, I think it is, on the actual purchase of land which was supposed to have been used for the provision of amenities in Lenasia? The roads are in a disgraceful condition and so is the storm-water drainage system. After the rains people …

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Why do you say that?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

But this is true.

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

I visited Lenasia not more than four months ago and I did not see that.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

All I can say is that hon. members always manage to visit these areas when they are dry or else they only stick to the more developed parts and do not visit …

Mr. P. Z. J. VAN VUUREN:

When were you there last?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I was there just before the session.

Mr. P. Z. J. VAN VUUREN:

I was there too.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Perhaps we all ought to go together. Are there recreation centres, community centres …

Mr. P. Z. J. VAN VUUREN:

Yes.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

All I can say is that they must have been constructed very quickly. I did not see them, but may be I missed them.

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Are there not enough sporting facilities?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

There is one good stadium which went up almost overnight when there was some question of an international event. The Indians are very pleased with it but they need other facilities as well. Are there any creches? Is there a clinic yet? I know that the ambulance service was provided by the Indians them selves. The nearest hospital is Coronationville, which is many miles away. Lenasia is about 17 miles from Johannesburg. Coronationville, which is mainly a Coloured hospital, is the only hospital available to them. I do not think that one can take people out of what was the centre of Johannesburg where admittedly many of the buildings were slum buildings …

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

All of them were.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Well, they were not all slum buildings. The Indians were deprived of the opportunities which they enjoyed of participating in the amenities of Johannesburg and of the nearby entertainment like cinemas and other recreational facilities that they used to enjoy. They were part and parcel of the Johannesburg life. They used to live in flats above their stores and other business premises. It was a completely different way of life. They have now been shoved out off on to the veld …

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

It was a dirty way of life.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

It is not for the hon. the Minister to say it was a dirty way of life. Let him go and look at Tomsville and tell me that that area is not developing into a disgusting slum.

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Which one?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

You were in Lenasia four months ago and you do not know Tomsville? It is part of Lenasia.

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Which part?

Mrs H. SUZMAN:

It is the part where the sub-economic houses are.

The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Then why do you call it a slum?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Because that is what it is. [Time expired ]

*Dr. W. L. D. M. VENTER:

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go into what the previous speaker said in too much detail, but I gained the impression that her facts are not altogether up to date, that many improvements have been made and facilities created that she has no knowledge of.

In the short time at my disposal I should very much like to refer to the big development that has taken place as far as welfare services in the Indian community are concerned. I want to say that we must remember that we are dealing here with a very young Department, This Department of Indian Affairs was only established in 1961, l think that in 10 short years this Department has done tremendously well in the welfare sphere, I am not going to elaborate now on education, etc. I want to confine myself to the development in the welfare sphere. Then I just want to emphasize a few matters. I heard someone saying on a certain occasion that the Indians are a national group that is tremendously welfare conscious. I now want to say that a study of the development in the welfare sphere among the Indians has also proved and emphasized this. There is, for example, indisputable development that we can point to as far as the welfare services are concerned. We can say, moreover, that this was made possible by the Government in the way in which it not only protected this growth, but encouraged and assisted it by means of subsidies.

The young Department of Indian Affairs has acted with great enthusiasm during the 10 years of its existence. Let us, for example, just take note of the take-over that occurred. The Department had to organize itself from scratch and prepare itself for taking over the work that was previously done by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. We must now remember that this began in 1961. In 1963 it took over the administration of social pensions Acts as far as the Indians are concerned. In 1964 it took over the administration of the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act. In 1967 there was the takeover of all professional welfare services. On 1st September of that same year there was the opening of the place of safety and detention for Indians in Durban. And that very same year an industrial school for Indians was erected at Newcastle. In 1969 there was the take-over of professional welfare services for Indians in the Transvaal. I can now say that it was the Department’s endeavour to make the Indians welfare conscious. They liaised, inter alia, with alt the various national welfare boards, i.e. the boards for cripple care, child care, the blind and deaf, alcoholism, etc. The fruits of that liaison were that a very good relationship also developed between the Department and the various boards. Those various boards established committees that devote themselves solely to Indian affairs. The members of those committees are themselves Indians, I say that it is a very big step forward as far as welfare services are concerned, so that we can say with certainly that it should be mentioned that welfare work in all its facets among the Indian population takes place more efficiently and with greater co-ordination than at any stage in the past. Let us go a little further. We know that today the Indians are coming into their own in the sphere of welfare to a greater extent than they did in the past. Committees of the various welfare boards were constituted and they consist of Indians. There are male and female Indian social workers and probation officers who make a particularly important contribution in the professional sphere. Their value lies in the fact that they are not only well educated and academically trained, but that they work among their own people. Another social worker could never win the hearts of the Indians to the extent that these people can. Let us look at the statistics in connection with the scope of the work that these male and female social workers are doing. In 1967 they wrote 595 reports and in 1970, 1 126. While in 1967 they contacted 3 628 persons, this number increased by 1970 to 8 089. The number of clinical investigations they undertook amounted to 727 in 1967 by comparison with 983 in 1970. In order to do all this work they covered 24 885 miles in 1967 by comparison with 52 062 in 1970. These figures indicate to us how imbued these workers are and how they encounter an increasing number of cases and can track down these cases that need their help. Let us look at the contribution which the State made by way of subsidies. For children’s homes this amounted to R7 732 in 1963 and to R25 137 in 1970. As regards accommodation for the aged, the subsidy in 1963 was R1 627 by comparison with R2 508 in 1970. Another important step the Department took was in the establishment of an industrial school where Indian boys can be trained. In 1969 that school began with one, and at the end of the year there were already 39. In 1970 the number had grown to 60. Among them there was not a single absconder, and the first batch that were trained are now beginning to furnish their services.

There are, however a few questions that arise when one looks at all this work of the Department, For example, has it been the Department’s experience that the number of persons offering themselves for training as male and female social workers is increasing? Do they come along readily? Can we say that the Department can feel happy about the way in which it has already effected co-ordination? The National Welfare Board is delighted with its progress. Can the Department say the same at this stage, or is that expecting too much? Is there a greater need for housing for the aged, or does it clash with the Indian’s view of life to care for their aged in such homes?

I just want to say in conclusion that this is a young Department, but a Department full of enthusiasm, arid particularly in the sphere of welfare we want to wish them well and hope they will succeed in overcoming all the challenges.

Mr. G. N OLDFIELD:

The hon. member for Kimberley South has dealt with the question of the welfare services among the Indian community and I wish to deal with the same subject. The hon. member quoted a large number of statistics and figures to indicate the growth of the welfare services among the Indian community, which no one can dispute. However, it does indicate that there is a tremendous field of work to be undertaken as far as these welfare services are concerned. I would also like to indicate that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is obviously the Minister to whom the Indians look for the upliftment of their general standard of living and to make their position in South Africa a happier one. We on this side of the House, as member of the Official Opposition, see it as our duty from time to time to consult with various responsible persons in the Indian community to discuss their various problems The hon. member for Newcastle suggested that the Indian Council should be left to administer these matters and should rather approach the Minister direct, and that we as an Opposition should stand back and leave it to the Indian Council. However, we are at this juncture called upon to vote a sum of money to administer the Department of Indian Affairs under the policy of the Minister, and therefore we are fully entitled to investigate all aspects of the Department of Indian Affairs.

I think when one discusses their problems with responsible members of the Indian community, one soon realizes that there are a number of problems which worry them and cause a great deal of concern. Many of these problems are, of course, outside the ambit of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. The question of group areas and the problems affecting the determination of group areas, and job reservation, and the limitation of avenues of employment for many Indian youths, some of whom have high qualifications, and many of whom have a high standard of education, are some of these things. Then there are the aspects of housing and the difficulty as far as housing is concerned, the shortage of housing, and generally speaking the socio-economic problems that face the Indian community as a separate community.

As far as the welfare services are concerned, we know that the Department of Indian Affairs has assumed responsibility for the administration of the social grants and pensions since 1963, and the professional officers and professional services in regard to welfare services came under the department in April, 1967. There is also legislation which provides for the administration, as far as the Indians are concerned, of the social legislation, which is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister’s department. However, there are matters concerning the administration of these welfare services and the payment of various grants which have caused some concern. I refer particularly to the fact that during the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Finance listed various concessions as far as social pensions and grants were concerned, as well as other allowance in terms of the Children’s Act, which were to be applicable to the White group. The hon. the Minister of Finance also said: “The abovementioned proposals relate to Whites, but in most cases similar concessions to non-Whites at the applicable scales are proposed”. Here is where the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs comes into the picture, namely the administration and the extension of those concessions and privileges as they affect the Indian community. I asked the Minister a question following the Budget announcement as to what amounts of increase would be afforded to the Indian community and what concessions to social pensioners and other concessions announced in the Budget would be extended to the Indian community. The hon. the Minister’s reply was that an increase of R1-50 per month would be paid to those receiving social pensions, in other words old-age pensioners, war veteran pensioners, disability grants and pensions for blind persons. In reply to the second question as to which of the concessions announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance for Whites would be extended to the Indian community, the hon. the Minister said that these concessions would not be extended to the Indian community. One would expect, Sir, that the hon. the Minister would be in a position to extend some of these concessions to the Indian community as well instead of confining them merely to Whites. When we look at the number of social pensioners, we find that there are 9 961 Indian old-age pensioners, whereas the number of Indians receiving disability grants is 8 013. The number of Indians receiving maintenance grants in terms of the Children’s Act is 8 557. The vast majority of Indians receiving allowances are people receiving disability grants and maintenance grants. Sir, here the question of the ratio that is applied is also important, because it appears that the hon. the Minister is still continuing to give the Indians only 50 per cent of any increase granted to the White group. Sir, the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite have mentioned the question of the upliftment of the Indian community. I believe that the time has arrived when the hon. the Minister should review the ratio according to which increases granted to the Whites are passed on to the Indian community. I believe that the present ratio under present-day circumstances is unrealistic when one considers the tremendously high oost of living which is also felt by many members of the Indian community.

A considerable number of the Indians have a great deal of difficulty in making some provision for their old age. There are many insurance companies, for instance, which refuse to insure Indian lives. Others which are prepared to insure Indians load the premiums, and this makes it even more expensive for an Indian to obtain some form of life insurance. In addition the Indians have large families. We know that it is a tradition amongst the Indians to have large families, and they find it difficult to support these large families. This makes it all the more difficult for them to make provision for their old age. In spite of this, however, the concessions announced for Whites by the hon. the Minister of Finance are not going to be extended to the Indian community. Here I refer particularly to the concessions that were announced concerning property and the concessions in respect of maintenance grants paid in terms of the Children’s Act. It would appear that the increase granted to Whites is not to be extended to Indians receiving maintenance grants for children supported by them in terms of the Children's Act.

Then there are also further concessions which were announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. For instance, the earnings of a woman remaining in employment after the age of 65 are not taken into account in applying the means test. It appears that the hon. the Minister intends to leave the means test exactly as it is as far as the Indian community is concerned, whereas in the case of the other groups it has been decided they will benefit by the concessions announced in the Budget. There are many Indians who have great difficulty in maintaining themselves and yet they are precluded from receiving any sort of social assistance because of the application of the means test. In this connection I should like to draw attention to certain Indian customs. I have brought it to the notice of the hon. the Minister’s department before that it is an Indian custom and tradition that all the assets of the family are registered in the name of the head of the family. This is an old Indian custom which particularly Indians born in India have maintained. This custom, however, is not taken into account in applying the means test regulations as set out in the Government Gazette of the 8th November, 1968, as far as the care of the aged amongst the Indian community is concerned. It is an Indian custom, both amongst Hindus and Moslems, to maintain the family unit and to take care of the aged themselves. In some cases today that custom is breaking down due to the fact that they are unable economically to assist the aged in their community to the same extent. This means that these people now are dependent on the Government for some form of relief and assistance. That is why I believe it is a pity that the hon. the Minister does not see his way clear to review the whole situation as far as the means test is concerned for the Indian community. He should consider consolidating the increases into their basic pension, whereas at present the increases are merely paid as bonuses, which means that the means test limits remain unaltered. [Time expired.]

The MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:

I want to reply to this debate, but first of all I should, of course, refer to the hon. member for Port Natal. Earlier on this afternoon I said he was the best political agent for the Nationalist Party.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Shall we change places?

The MINISTER:

I want to say to the United Party today that he has proved it by the manner in which he has discussed this Vote. I would point out to hon. members on that side of the House that we have had many responsible speeches. I thought that the speech made by the hon. member for Umbilo was a responsible speech. It may be that I am unable to agree with regard to certain things, but at least he mentioned matters which I should follow up and discuss with my department to see what could be done in that connection. Concerning the hon. member for Port Natal, I will tell him why I say he is our best agent. It is because he shows such an anti-South African attitude. Even the hon. member for Houghton, whom we know is a tough customer when it comes to debating in this House, was prepared to admit that there has been an improvement in the position of Indians in South Africa since the department took over.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

In education.

The MINISTER:

Yes, in education, but in other fields as well. I went through Lenasia and went to the Tomsville township, where people are living in sub-economic houses adjoining one another. From the outside these houses did not look wonderful, but I went into the houses and asked the occupiers whether the conditions they were now living in were better than those they lived in before. Everyone of them said that the conditions were far better than those they had lived in before. The hon. member knows that it is not a very long street. There had been rain and I also came to streets which had flood water in them. I quite agree, but these matters will be rectified. I remember when I was a boy here in Cape Town. Many of the streets in the area where I lived were flooded with flood water during the rainy season.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

[Inaudible,]

The MINISTER:

Well, I stayed there and managed to bear it. I suppose that improvements will gradually be made. Where the streets were untarred and without drains, they are now tarred and have drains. The same will eventually happen in Lenasia,

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

It is a long time since 1958.

The MINISTER:

Maybe, but what I wanted to say to the hon. member for Houghton is that, I think, at the back of her mind, she at least felt that conditions generally had improved. She mentioned particularly education …

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

That is all I mentioned.

The MINISTER:

Yes. All right, I say that there is a general improvement.

The hon. member for Port Natal said “Infant mortality has gone from bad to worse in South Africa for the Indian section”. The hon. member quoted figures. I want to tell him straight out that his figures are incorrect and that I do not believe them. The hon. member mentioned “family units destroyed”; “disease and crime growing”; “starvation”; “scandalous, heartless Government”; referring, I think, to my colleague the hon. member for Community Development. He said “a blot on the face of South Africa”. I want to tell the hon. member that his speech, which will be printed in Hansard, will be taken up in the anti-South African lobby at the United Nations. That is why he made the speech. He made a vicious, anti-South African speech.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. the Minister is not entitled to say “vicious”. He must withdraw that word.

The MINISTER:

I withdraw the word “vicious”. Sir, but he made an unpleasant, anti-South African speech. Whether he likes it or not, that is what he did. I want to tell hon. members that my years in politics will not be much longer and probably they hope they will be short …

HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The MINISTER:

Yes, those hon. members hope that I shall not be here much longer. I am getting on in years but let me tell them that the type of persons they are bringing into Parliament will prevent them from ever sitting on the Government benches. They try to put across a South African image, but they cannot do so with a member like the hon. member for Port Natal. Sir, it amazes me that those hon. members talk of all the terrible things that are happening to the Indians in Natal, when the Provincial Council and the City Councils in Natal, are run by the United Party. If things were so bad and if all these terrible things were happening, would the Provincial Council and the City Councils in Natal not demand tremendous improvements from the Government in this regard? Only that little member from Port Natal makes these demands. I want to tell the hon. member that we in this House know him; and he would not like to know the name we call him.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

I could not care less what you call me.

The MINISTER:

Let me read to those hon. members what was said by an Indian, a man whom I know and who is on the Indian Council.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

That is why he said it.

The MINISTER:

Is that so? I want that to be recorded. Mr. Chairman. I want it recorded that the hon. member said that this man said what he did because he was on the Indian Council, and that he is a Stooge of the Government. I Want them to know that, and I want to see the reaction of the Indians to that sort of accusation. I quote from what was said by this man—

Casting aside the negative aspects of the Group Areas Act …

Are these the words of a stooge?—

… despite the hardship and the stress that the Indian community has suffered, they have resolutely put behind them all feelings of bitterness and have looked at the positive aspects of official policy, and have built on that.

The article from which I quote continues—

This is the view of Mr. Rajab, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Government nominated S.A.l.C. Speaking at the psychiatric nurses’ graduation ceremony at the Pietermaritzburg City Hall …

I was not present at that ceremony.—

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

You never are.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order!

The MINISTER:

Sir, I was at a nurses’ graduation ceremony in Durban. That is typical of the hon. member. He can laugh as much as he likes, but what I am telling him is the truth. Mr. Rajab continued as follows —

Look at the magnificent homes in Westville, Reservoir Hill, Laudium and other places and judge for yourself the difference between the over-crowding and the slum conditions of the past with the new developing, bustling, beautiful Indian areas of the present. Before 1961 Indians as a people did not know who they were and where they were going, but after 1961 they received a brand new deal. The policy of non-acceptance was replaced by a policy of full acceptance. The pendulum has swung completely the other way. Ours is the greatest success story of recent times. We have achieved notable progress in all directions. Look around you and see for yourselves.

He is talking to the Indians. When one listens to that hon. member, one sees the most terrible picture being painted of the Indian community in this country. He said further:

Progress in local government was the most significant change that was coming about and it would lift the Indians into a position of power in so far as civic and political rights are concerned, in our own areas we will be given complete control of our own affairs through independent, autonomous Indian local authorities elected by the Indian people themselves.

That has already happened. They have an Indian Mayor in Verulam. The article reads further:

You will be in full charge and completely responsible for your own affairs. The Indian Council believes that this is the most fundamental change in the whole new policy and perhaps it is the most meaningful aspect of the Indian people as well.

I have said before that I attended meetings and that I received the minutes of those meetings, it is laid down in the Act that the Secretary to the Department must send me the minutes which deal with aspects which, in his opinion, should be handled by me. They can smear as much as they like. They can call me a post-box, a drain-pipe or whatever they want to, but this is the way in which we will run this department. I will listen to the Indians. I prefer listening to the Indians to listening to the hon. member for Port Natal any time. I want him to know that.

There was also reference to the stooges on the Indian Council. I remember the suggestion was made to me that Mr. Moolah should be appointed on that council. I wanted to know who he was. He was a man who had opposed the Government on a number of major issues. He is a very rich and able man. I agreed to accept his nomination. I want a man on that council to whom I can listen.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. the Minister must address the Chair.

The MINISTER:

Mr. Chairman, I was addressing the Chair, but my back was turned to you. I apologize.

What I am trying to say, is that I learn from that body and I have appreciated certain aspects of the Indian community far better than I have ever done before. When I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Port Natal and all the terrible things he referred to, I was really depressed, but I knew that he was not telling the truth. I say that as a categorical statement and I have no intention of withdrawing it.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Zululand, First of all, I want to say that I am sorry that the report of the Department of Indian Affairs has not been tabled. I did promise that it would be tabled. All I can tell hon. members is that the report has been completed. It is now in the hands of the printers and I hope to table it shortly during this Session. However, at the moment I have no control over it. I can also give the hon. member for Zululand the assurance that from now on a report will be tabled annually before the Indian Affairs Vote comes under discussion.

The hon. member also said that no information is made available. All I can say to the hon. member is that basically that is not quite correct. I agree that there is no report from the department, but the department issues a monthly publication called “Fiat Lux”. The hon. member for Durban Central also referred to it. This publication contains aspects of the operations of the department in every field. This is a very attractive monthly publication. I read and study this publication and from it I can see what is going on. Although I appreciate that it is not drawn up as an annual report of a department should be, it nevertheless contains a considerable amount of information.

The hon. member for Umbilo said that there is a sum of money to be voted and that they would like to know how it will be used. I appreciate that. I am not unaware of the fact that this is the Parliament that votes this money. In respect of many of the matters which concern the Indians, I have an Indian Advisory Council nominated by me. This council together with my department handle all the financial aspects. We spend this money on education and so forth and we carry out the functions of the department of Indian Affairs.

On a previous occasion the hon. member put a question to me in regard to the Indian Council. He will remember that he talked about an elected body. The hon. member for Houghton tabled a question on how it was to be changed into a partly elected body. I said that there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss this matter in this House. Before that could happen, numbers of Bills will have to be introduced and discussed. Plenty of opportunity will be given for the Opposition to do that. They will have the opportunity in the Second Reading, the Committee Stage, the Third Reading and in the Other Place to discuss every measure which has to be brought in to cover this aspect of the Indian Council. The hon. member for Houghton quite rightly asked what is going to happen to the Indian Council. I told her in reply to her question that I am discussing the matter with the Indian Council. These discussions are still going on. I want to tell hon. members that this did not happen because I put a brake on it, but the Indian Council want to be sure that what they put forward is something which is going to help them in South Africa. They want to be sure that it is not a body which is going to break down all the good they themselves have done in collaboration with the department. They themselves have not finished their discussions yet and therefore the hon. member must understand that I prefer to hear what they say. I understand their language and I am prepared to listen to them and not to the hon. members who know nothing about Indian affairs.

Mr. A FOURIE:

You have no policy in regard to the Indians.

The MINISTER:

I have a policy, but my policy is the one that I talk to the Indian Council about. I am most definitely not going to talk to the hon. member about it. This is what I have said and I mean it and I will not depart from it. I will discuss matters with the Indian Council … [Interjections.] The hon. members can vote against this money but this is how I am going to deal with the Indian Council. I am going to do this, because I do not get any satisfaction from a speech like that of the hon. member for Port Natal. I much rather want to handle matters in a different way. When the Opposition make positive statements, a statement such as that of the hon. member for Durban Umbilo, I tell my department to note it. Then they go into the matter and report to me because I want to know the position.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

Do you not reckon that you are responsible to the country?

The MINISTER:

My responsibility is to run the Department of Indian Affairs to the best of my ability and it is not as the United Party wants it to be done. Therefore, I will run it accordingly. These hon. members can vote against the money which is provided for this department if they do not want it to go through. In fact, I challenge them to vote against it. However, I shall carry on to run the department as it should be run and I shall do this with the help of the Indian Council. [Interjections.] Yes, you can vote against my salary.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

It is not under this Vote.

The MINISTER:

You could have done so in the first instance. You made a big fuss about tourism and why did you not do so then? That is just a complete bluff.

Mr. S. EMDIN:

Can’t you behave yourself?

The MINISTER:

Well, under the Tourism Vote you told me that I did not behave myself. Anyway, I have no intention to behave as the hon. members want me to behave.

The hon. member for Durban Central spoke about educational matters. I am quite prepared to admit that my knowledge of teaching and education is completely limited. I am not an expert as the hon. member may be, and as I know the hon. member for Rissik is. However, there are experts in the department such as the Director for Indian Education. All matters of education are handled by the appropriate staff; they handle it administratively, but if there is anything needing my approval they submit it to me for my approval. There is no clash. When they have a suggestion I do not turn it down. I accept the fact that they are experts in their particular jobs. The hon. member referred to resignations from the university. The only evidence he has to prove it is the newspapers and he should know by now that you cannot always believe what the newspapers say.

Mr. P. A. PYPER:

I just asked.

The MINISTER:

I can assure him that the university is making progress and that it will continue to make progress. I would say that the greatest credit to Indian education in this country is the manner in which they, as students, have enrolled at that university. I can quote speeches where people said when the university was started that it would have to close down for want of sufficient students. Instead, the progress exceeded even our greatest expectations. The process of education is gradual. It is not something which can be developed immediately; it develops gradually, and provided it is handled positively, progress can be made. This is exactly why my department is doing it. Some difficulties were experienced at the outset, but these were all gradually eliminated. I am sure that eventually Indian education as such will be a credit to the Indian community and to the Department of Indian Affairs.

I wanted to say to the hon. member for Houghton …

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Yes, I was called out. I am sorry.

The MINISTER:

That is why I come back to you now. I did not realize that the hon. member was out and I answered one aspect of her speech, that regarding the partly elected council. The hon. member will remember that in reply to a question, I said that discussions were going between myself and the Indian Council. If there has been a delay, it is not because I wanted it, but because they themselves were not prepared to put forward a proposal that they considered would not meet with what they require. That is one that would ensure the good relationship of the Indian community and the development of the Indian community and the Government as such. They wanted to ensure that. I think that they in their own minds had doubts whether a popular election would be the answer to their problems. However, this is something they must handle. One hon. member said that it is taking a long time, but I pointed out to him that I said that whenever the Indian Council wanted to discuss the matter, they could let me know and that I would have discussions with them. They themselves, however, are not sure how it should be done, and until they give me the pattern I will not be able to act or try to do something about it.

There were a number of matters I had wanted to talk about. The hon. member for Kimberley South mentioned the shortage of social workers; this is quite true. This shortage will be overcome as prospective social workers qualify at the University of Durban—Westville. It is a gradual process and one must not forget that we started almost from scratch. We are gradually making up leeway. The hon. member also talked about co-operation with welfare organizations and I can assure him that the co-operation between my department and these White welfare organizations is excellent. I myself have a great admiration for the work that is done by the Indian welfare organizations. My wife and I visited a number of them in Durban and I must say that I developed a great deal of respect for the way in which Indians are determined to see that those of their community who are suffering, like neglected children, are cared for. They take this special responsibility on their own shoulders and I think this is a great credit to them. They do not just accept that the Government must do everything. They themselves accept that this is a responsibility that they should also bear. The hon. member also referred to the two old-age homes and wanted to know whether these would be developed further. The hon. member for Umbilo was quite right when he said that it was part of the Indian custom for the young Moslem or Hindu family to look after older persons themselves. Although we have two old-age homes for Indians, they are not fully occupied. The reason for this is that the Indian accepts it as his responsibility, probably more so than all the other sections of our community, to look after the old people in his family. But I can assure the hon. member for Kimberley South that in the event of its being necessary to develop further old-age homes, we will definitely give this matter our consideration. But at the present moment it is not necessary.

I realize that the hon. member for Koedoespoort spoke on matters in which he was particularly interested, and I know that as an educationist education is one of them. I would say that at all times my department is available and they will be pleased to have any views that he has on matters pertaining to Indian education. Particularly do I say that to the hon. member for Rissik because I believe that you can only develop things properly if you are prepared to learn from advice. All I ask is that the advice we get is genuine. [Interjection.] Because your advice is not what I expect. I would say it must be advice that is sound and which is not based on political advantage, and that is where I feel so much of the so-called advice I get from the United Party is bad advice. Then there is, of course, also the advice of the hon. member for Port Natal. [Interjection.] No, I will not take anti-South African advice like you put over today, and neither will your colleagues. They will find you out, if they have not found you out already.

Finally, in regard to what was said by the hon. member for Umbilo, I understand the point he raised. He will appreciate that there are problems attached to his indications. There are three non-White departments, as he knows, and one has to formulate a basis which will fit in with those three. But I can assure him that I did not just dismiss the points he made. I realize that they were made with the idea of trying to assist the matter of social welfare and as such I can assure him my department will take note of what he said.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 22.—“Foreign Affairs’’, R9 252 000:

The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS:

In view of recent developments in Africa and as it is imperative that there should be no misunderstanding about the Government’s attitude and that there should be no unnecessary speculation which could confuse the issue, I have decided to open the debate by commenting briefly on South Africa’s attitude towards other African states.

Sir, we are part and parcel of Africa. We have as much right to be in Africa as any other people living on this continent, irrespective of their origin, whether it is Negro or Arab or anything else. As Africans we also have duties and obligations towards Africa, which we fully accept. The Government’s policy with regard to co-operation with the rest of Africa is well known and it is nothing new. It has been clearly and consistently stated over a period of years. I myself have done so for the last eight years. The objective of our Africa policy is and always has been friendly relations with other African states and co-operation with them in matters of common concern. We are prepared to render assistance to them, assistance without strings attached. We do that whenever we are requested to do so, provided in the first place it is a worthy cause, and provided, secondly, it is within our means, which are, of course, not unlimited. We try to help others to help themselves. We believe that progress, particularly economic growth, leads to greater stability, not only in the case of the countries concerned, but also in the case of others, including ourselves. An important prerequisite for co-operation is that the parties should first get to know each other. In the case of our three Black African neighbours and Malawi, we were not strangers to one another. With the first three of them we have been neighbours for many generations and in the case of Malawi there has been contact through the activities of missionaries, teachers, doctors and the movement of labour to this country for many generations. Yet even in the case of these four countries discussions at a high level were necessary before it was possible to co-operate with them. Such discussions were held with all the leaders concerned and continue to take place.

Dialogue with Africa is therefore not something new for us in Southern Africa. What is more. Sir, it has produced good results. Southern Africa is already reaping the benefits. It brought about better understanding and a realization that difficulties can be ironed out. It has led to useful cooperation in many fields. In other words, Mr. Chairman, considerable progress has been and is being made. I would like to pay tribute today to the heads of government, Ministers and officials in neighbouring countries, both near and further away, for the spirit in which they are already co-operating with us. I would also like to pay tribute to them for the way in which some of them have promoted the idea of a dialogue with South Africa on a wider scale. I am thinking, for instance, of Dr. Banda, of his statemanship, of his unequivocal policy statements, of the example set by himself and his Ministers, his invitation to our Prime Minister to visit his country and his proposed State visit to South Africa. Dr. Banda has certainly done pioneering work and has helped to pave the way for co-operation in Africa. Sir, Prime Minister Jonathan of Lesotho has also made important contributions. I want to refer, for instance, to the statement which he made in the General Assembly at the United Nations last year, where he made a strong appeal to African leaders to enter into a dialogue with South Africa.

Another outstanding statesman who over the years advocated and promoted greater realism in Africa is President Tsiranana of Madagascar. It is therefore not surprising that one of the countries with which we have successfully entered into a dialogue is the Malagasy Republic. Discussions held over more than a year led to my visit to Madagascar in November last, and the conclusion of agreements in connection with the promotion of tourism. I am convinced that this first step will lead to co-operation on a wider scale. I was accompanied by experts in various fields with a view to further co-operation. Moreover, in March of this year a senior official of the Department of Commerce and Industries of the Republic visited Madagascar in order to explore expansion of our two-way trade. This will be followed by an official delegation to South Africa from Madagascar next month. The leader of this delegation will be a Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. This delegation will no doubt provide information about the progress of the Malagasy Government’s project to develop a deep-water dry dock for the repair of giant tankers and also to develop a free zone area at the bay of Narinda. Various other matters of mutual concern will, of course, also be discussed.

But one of the most encouraging results of my visit to Madagascar, something which as far as I know—and I think I am right— has never happened before, was that the Vice-President and Foreign Minister of another State, an independent Black African state, informed his Parliament about South Africa’s internal policies. This happened a few days after my departure from Tananarive. In this connection I want to quote from an English translation of the report which appeared in a newspaper, Le Courier de Malgache, on the 24th November, a report on the debate in the Malagasy Parliament. I quote—

While denying that he was supporting it, the Vice-President tried to bring about an improved understanding of South Africa, noting especially the views expressed by Dr. Muller concerning separate development as explained to the Press on Saturday.

I may add, Sir, that I had also explained our policies to the Foreign Minister and some of his colleagues at their request. Something like this would have been quite impossible and was quite unheard of ten years ago—even five years ago.

Hon. members are no doubt aware of the fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Tourism of Mauritius, Mr. Duval, is at present on a private visit to South Africa. I hope to meet him tomorrow and to entertain him to lunch—that is to say, if hon. members do not detain me here too long. It is perhaps appropriate that ] should inform the House about our relations with his country. South Africa has, of course, for a long time had an honorary trade representative in Mauritius—in fact, since before their independence. But the contact between our countries has been closer since Mauritius became independent in 1967. Since then, two members of the Government visited South Africa and held discussions here. In August of 1969, the Deputy Minister of Development held discussions in South Africa, mainly about economic co-operation. His visit was unofficial. In February of last year, an official trade mission under the leadership of Mr. Ollivry, Minister of Economic Planning and Development, visited South Africa. On his delegation served officials responsible for finance, agriculture and tourism, as well as leading businessmen. Fruitful discussions were held. One of the results of these discussions was that it led to an increase in South Africa's tea imports from Mauritius, which today amount to over 3 000 000 lbs. The possibility of further expanding our two-way trade with Mauritius is constantly looked into. The under-secretary of our Department of Commerce recently paid an official visit to Mauritius, and his report is being studied. Their main problem is unemployment, and the communists are trying to exploit it. The agreement in terms of which Mauritius in 1970 undertook to provide facilities to Russian fishing boats is a cause of deep concern. On the other hand i must say that their Minister of Foreign Affairs has often expressed himself in favour of closer co-operation with the West including South Africa. This we appreciate. According to reports Mr. Duval, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, yesterday made a reassuring statement in Durban about his country’s relations with Russia. This we also welcome. Hon. members will probably remember that the Prime Minister of Mauritius indicated, a few months ago, that his country did not object to the sale of arms to South Africa.

I would like to mention something of interest in connection with Mauritius: A Mauritian newspaper recently conducted a Gallup poll about relations with South Africa. This poll showed that more than 60 per cent of those questioned were in favour of co-operation with South Africa. The South African Government has tried to cooperate with the Mauritian Government in their efforts to combat poverty and unemployment. We have tried to do that by assisting them in promoting pig farming on their small holdings, of which they have a large number inhabited by very poor farmers. The litters of the first consignment of pigs have already been distributed to indigent families and the project appears to have been received with acclaim by the local population.

The Government’s policy of co-operation with Black States is not confined to our immediate and near neighbours. We are also interested in the development of and co-operation with the rest of Africa and especially with Africa south of the Sahara. Apart from contributions we may be able to make, we can of course also learn and benefit from their experience. In passing, I may give one example of this: hon. members, I am sure, will be interested to learn that a delegation of senior White and Bantu officials engaged in Bantu Education in South Africa will shortly visit Malawi at the special invitation of President Banda in order to study the well- known youth organization Malawi Young Pioneers.

In view of what I have said, we welcome the growing interest in South Africa on the part of several African leaders in more distant countries. We particularly welcome the lead taken by President Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast and some of his colleagues in advocating a dialogue with South Africa with a view to better understanding and closer co-operation and in order to promote peace in Africa. Above all we appreciate the spirit in which this initiative has been taken. It is in accordance with our own declared policy to cooperate with Black African States in matters of common concern and on a basis of equality, for it is the South African Government’s earnest desire to bring about mutual understanding between ourselves and the rest of Africa. As in the case of President Houphouet-Boigny, our own desire is also “motivated exclusively by the spirit of peace and the welfare of Africa”. We believe that South Africa is able to make an important contribution to the development and security of the Continent. Moreover, President Boigny’s view that the communists constitute a serious threat to peace in Africa is also in agreement with the policy of the South African Government.

I have always believed that it would be most rewarding if all of us in Africa could concentrate on matters of mutual interest and common concern. I am convinced that it would be of immense importance and of enormous benefit to peace and progress in Africa if it were more generally realized that South Africa and many African countries are striving towards a common goal and that we are confronted by common dangers and common threats. We in the Government believe that the latest developments could have far-reaching results and far-reaching benefits for Africa. It is hardly necessary to emphasize that we are offering our full co-operation and that we will do everything possible to promote the idea of a dialogue. I sincerely hope that nothing will be done to impede it. In the meantime we are awaiting further developments with keen interest.

*Mr. Chairman, the Opposition press has quite a lot to say about and apparently delights in the fact that certain of the African leaders have stated openly or by implication that the dialogue with South Africa is aimed at breaking down apartheid. I want to appeal to hon. members not to he set astir by that. We must rather try to see matters in the right perspective. We must keep in mind the distorted image of our policy and the distorted image of conditions in South Africa, as they have been systematically and subtly twisted and presented to the world, and to Africa as well, over many years. I am not merely indulging in party-political talk now. One is left in speechless amazement by the shocking nonsense put out about South Africa, and one is even more amazed at how much of it is believed and accepted as the gospel truth. Many people in the world believe, for example, that we practise slavery in this country and that the Government’s policy is one of permanent domination and permanent suppression of non-Whites. Many people believe it is a crime to criticize apartheid. Many visitors from abroad stand amazed when they see the non-Whites walking along our pavements, going into the same shops as the Whites, and driving round in shiny motor cars. In season and out of season inflammatory films are shown about Sharpeville, which is still being represented as a typical example of the regular mowing-down of innocent non-Whites by us. The belief is held that South Africa is a police state and that there are concentration camps in our country. All of you know about the case of the Bantu children behind a barbed-wire fence along one of our national roads. That fence is a barrier to prevent pedestrians from being run over, but what do Ill-disposed visitors do? They often take photographs of such children behind the fences along our roads and then use these photographs to prove how Black children in South Africa are kept behind barbed wire in concentration camps.

We cannot blame anyone in Africa who has a bitter aversion to a policy which presents that appearance to them. This image cannot be destroyed overnight either, so give us a little time. Remember that the dialogue is being discussed now, and not the contents of that dialogue. At this early juncture we cannot expect a full indication to be given of everything that will be discussed. Only time will tell us that.

*Mr. Chairman, there is unfortunately no unanimity in Africa about this proposed dialogue with ourselves. According to reports some are opposed to it because— and I quote the words of the Emperor of Ethiopia from a newspaper report—

… it is unlikely to expect the minority regimé in South Africa to be sincere in any quest for talks with African countries since it has ruthlessly silenced interracial dialogue within South Africa itself.

This would also seem to be the attitude of the Nigerian leader, Genera! Gowon. The charge that the South African Government has silenced interracial dialogue within South Africa is of course without any foundation and I am quite sure every hon. member will agree with me in this respect. I should have said every single member of this House except one, for according to an article which appeared in the Argus on the 7th of this month, an important member of the Opposition, a front bencher, in fact a provincial leader, seems to have taken his cue from Emperor Haile Selassie. I am of course referring to the hon. member for Yeoville, who is so concerned about the lack of real dialogue with our own non-White peoples. I am very disappointed about this, because I have always had a very high regard for this hon. gentleman.

Let us for a moment consider the true state of affairs. It is commonly known that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, the Minister of Indian Affairs, the Minister of Coloured Affairs and their deputies, their officials and in the case of the Bantu peoples, the Commissioners-General, are engaged in almost constant discussions with the Bantu peoples, with the Indians and the Coloureds. But this is not all. Our own Prime Minister holds regular discussions with these leaders. The hon. the Prime Minister and other Ministers concerned held discussions with the Coloured Representative Council on the 1st March of this year. I want to give hon. members all the particulars. The Prime Minister and the other Ministers concerned held discussions on 3rd March with the Executive Council of the Tswana people, on 23rd March with the Executive Council of the Ciskei Territorial Authority and on 15th April with the Machangana Territorial Authority’s Executive Council. It has already been arranged that next month the hon. the Prime Minister will hold further discussions with members of the Basutu Territorial Authority as well as with representatives of the Zulu Territorial Authority. In other words, within four months the South African Prime Minister will have entered into dialogue with the representatives of all the Bantu people as well as the Coloured people. It should therefore be obvious that the allegations that there is a lack of dialogue in South Africa, are completely unfounded. The unavoidable conclusion is that such allegations are the result of either complete ignorance of the real facts, of the true state of affairs, or of a complete disregard for the truth.

There is one other matter to which I should like to refer now. That is the possibility of consular services in the case of Lesotho. In the light of changing developments, particularly over the last year, it has become clear that a growing need for consular services between Lesotho and the Republic is developing. Hitherto the consular and labour affairs of Lesotho in South Africa have continued to be conducted by the British authorities. However, it is now generally agreed that this is no longer appropriate. As far as the Republic is concerned, there has also been a growing need for consular services within Lesotho. In these circumstances we intend discussing with the Government of Lesotho the question of providing consular services and/or consular representation on a basis of reciprocity. I am sure that this will be welcomed by hon. members on both sides of this House.

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

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has touched upon quite a number of important points to which we on this side of the House would like to respond. We particularly want to respond and have a good discussion on the question of dialogue. Because, unfortunately, the time of day is already well-advanced and we would not like to have our discussions interrupted, I do not want to ask for the privilege of the hal-fhour now, but I merely want to touch upon a few odd points. I would prefer to avail myself of the privilege of the half-hour tomorrow, if the hon. the Minister does not mind.

The principal matter we would like to discuss with the hon. the Minister in this House is the question of dialogue. I must say that we are somewhat disappointed at not having heard something more concrete from the hon. the Minister. We had really hoped that we would. We have recently had very clear and important statements from leaders of African states in connection with a dialogue with South Africa. The impression we gained was that in actual fact the ball was in our court now and that the time had come for some sort of concrete response on the part of the Government. In any case, I shall discuss that tomorrow. However, we are sorry that we received nothing of this kind from the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister referred to President Banda’s visit to South Africa later this fear. In this connection I would like to make a suggestion. A visit of this nature is of the utmost importance to our country. It is also something which is quite new to South Africa. This is really the first time that a visit of this nature will take place under the new circumstances in Africa. The hon. the Minister emphasized the fact that we are of Africa. That is true. Geographically we are part of Africa, but in actual fact we are closer to Europe in our connections with the outside world. In our intercourse, our knowledge of affairs and our contact with most countries in Africa we are really only in the initial stage. The relations and the contact are really minimal as yet. Consequently we will actually still have to learn to work together and live together with independent Africa. As someone put it: “We shall have to learn the art of being at home in Africa.’’ Visits like that of Dr. Banda can be of very great help to us in this process of education which we will still have to undergo. We might as well accept that it will not always be easy. Therefore I want to make a suggestion. When further visits of this nature are arranged in future, they should, if possible, be arranged to coincide with the parliamentary session, if it suits the visitor, I know the hon. the Minister and the Government cannot always determine when these visits are to take place. However, we should extend the hospitality of Parliament to such persons, if possible. I think it would also be a good thing if we could, in due course, introduce the custom of having such visitors address our Parliament. This is a common practice in other countries. Not only would a visitor such as he appreciate such an opportunity, but it should also be of special value to us in this important period of adjustment which lies ahead for us.

Then I want to add this. The hon. the Minister is at the head of our extensive foreign service and this foreign service is our most important display window abroad. Many governments have no way of really becoming acquainted with South Africa on an official level other than through our representation abroad. The Government makes great play of our being a multinational country, a country of many peoples, and ethnically speaking we are a multi-national country. But our foreign service in no way reflects the fact of this multi-nationality. I have often wondered what explanation the hon. the Minister offers people abroad when they ask him: Where are the other people of this multinational South Africa? I am afraid that, as long as only one of the peoples of South Africa is seen abroad on an official level, the idea will persist that one dominates the other, or that there is only one which dominates all the rest.

I fully agree with the complaint made here today by the Minister. There is misunderstanding, certainly among the ordinary people, although I think the hon. the Minister is mistaken if he says that there is such a great deal of misunderstanding among governments. I cannot speak on the same level as he can, but what little experience I have had is that foreign governments are fairly well-informed about the situation in South Africa. One cannot expect the ordinary people to be so well- informed, and, after all, our own people are also sadly ignorant of what goes on in other countries of the world. There are precious few of them who know what is going on in Africa, here on our own continent. We realize that the average man does not know much about South Africa, and this will not be the case with the ordinary people abroad either. And it is not so important either. Our task is that the governments should know what is going on, and most of them have representatives here. Consequently they are fairly well informed and fairly well aware of what goes on in South Africa. This is the important point which the hon. the Minister forgets.

But I am telling him once again that, if we want to avoid the idea abroad that we have domination of one section over another here, then he must convey the concept of multi-nationalism to the outside world. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he intends to do about it. It takes years to qualify people for the foreign service. It cannot simply be done overnight. We are also perfectly aware of the fact that there are problems in connection with the training of non-White South Africans for the foreign service, and I do not foresee non-White South Africans becoming ambassadors very soon. What is more, at the moment such people are still too easily regarded as puppets of the Government. But this is a problem that can be surmounted. The point is that we will have to make a start with the training of non-White South Africans for the foreign service, and we will have to initiate that process now. Apart from the fact that it is essential for our own well-being and that it is going to be increasingly essential for the part we will have to play in Africa that the various population groups of this multi-national country be given the opportunity to co-operate in the sphere of foreign affairs in the interests of the whole, the multi-national standpoint of the Government will not really gain acceptance until such time as we are able to present a multi-national front to the outside world in our foreign service, I repeat that they will continue to suspect us of having one group dominating the rest. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us that he has already set the ball rolling and that he is making headway with the plans. Since we have reached the stage, if I may mention it, where we can on an international level already he represented by representative sports teams abroad, it will begin to seem increasingly incongruous for this to be possible in the field of sport, but not in the foreign service.

One small point I should also like to raise is the question of a report I have during this Session put a whole series of questions to the hon. the Minister in this House, and one of them was a question concerning the resolutions adopted by the U.N. and the Security Council in connection with South-West and the Republic of South Africa. The hon. the Minister will remember that his reply ran to 91 pages, so many that Hansard did not see its way clear to publishing it. Sir, we do not have a foreign affairs committee in our Parliament, and I do not intend pleading for one either. It seems to me there are certain things that will have to wait until there is a change of government,.,

*An HON. MEMBER:

You will have to wait a long time.

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

But I think it is reasonable to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that we at least receive reports in this Parliament on resolutions which are adopted by international bodies and which affect South Africa and South-West, and that we also receive reports on standpoints adopted by our Government abroad, because I think this Parliament is entitled to know what standpoints South Africa adopts in connection with important international problems in international bodies, for our country is bound by them. [Time expired.]

*Dr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE:

Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout sometimes adopts a very strange attitude. He and his party try to break down the idea of multi-nationalism in South Africa every day, and now the hon. member comes along with this suggestion that we should recognize the basis of multi-nationalism in our foreign affairs. Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and every informed authority on and objective observer of foreign politics will acknowledge that we have been making swift progress in our foreign relations in recent years. We find today that there is an increasing understanding of our particular problems among the silent majorities in other countries. More and more politicians and statesmen of world stature are visiting South Africa, and in addition they sometimes declare afterwards that they are convinced of the sincerity of our endeavours. We have increasing contact with and are receiving more and more visits from leaders of African states.

Sir, I want to declare that this progress is largely due to the impact made by the Government's outward policy and to the brilliant way in which it has been presented to the world by the Prime Minister personally and by our Minister of Foreign Affairs, to whom all credit and praise for it is due, and his department. To my mind a further factor to which it is attributable is the daily proof we furnish of our indisputable leadership in the economic and technical spheres in Africa; thirdly there is the fact that we are, despite pressure from outside, quietly continuing to assist other African states with economic and technical aid, even countries which do not want to be seen in our company; and, fourthly, there is the fact that, although they do not like our policy, they realize that it is at least an honest attempt to tackle our racial problems.

But. Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about the question of dialogue, which was raised here by the hon. the Minister. I want to say that the proposal of a dialogue, which was initiated as far back as 1962 by Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa of Nigeria, and which has now gathered new momentum through the statements of President Houphouet-Boigny, Dr. Busia, President Tsiranana and others, and which has gained further impact as a result of the proposed visit by Dr, Banda to South Africa, is the only door of hope, of progress and, indeed, of peace opened to Africa in the past 50 years. Sir, one should really view this impact against the background of the events in Africa over the past years and the urgent and burning problems which have already arisen and which are still being awaited as a result of the latest developments in Africa, and particularly the penetration of communism into Africa by way of Tanzania and Zambia. Sir, if we look at the events in Africa over the past decade, we find that almost five million people died in the past decade in coup d’états, riots, and wars, especially in Nigeria, the Sudan and the Congo; that is to say, more people have died in Africa during peacetime than on the battlefront during the five years of the Second World War, and that in the face of the U.N., the most powerful international body ever established in the history of mankind.

Then we also have to do with Africa today, some of the states of which are definitely among the poorest in the world. I have here a report of the U.N. which states that 19 of the world’s 24 backward states are situated in Africa. This report states that the gross national product in these countries is less than R70 per capita, that less than 20 per cent of the population is literate and that less than 10 per cent is involved in manufacturing industry. Nineteen countries are then mentioned, including Ethiopia, Tanzania and others which have a great deal to say about us today. These events are disturbing, but what is even more disturbing is the picture we see when we look at the future. Only if one thinks of the threat now presented by Red China having put its foot in the door with the building of the railway line in Tanzania, can one realize the tremendous problems in store for Africa. At the moment there are more than 6 000 Chinese technicians and propagandists working on that raliway line, which is hoped to be completed by 1976. I want to assert today that this railway line is nothing but a Trojan horse with which to gain entry into Africa. The only difference will be that they will not push that Trojan horse into the city, but will enter by train.

However, there is another Trojan horse which presents a great danger to us, namely the fact that Zambia and Tanzania are today taking the lead in admitting terrorists in the guise of freedom fighters. These terrorists have been trained in Cuba, Algeria, Moscow and Peking, and they definitely bear the banner of the hammer and sickle. Even in the camps in Tanzania and Zambia the leaders are communists. Therefore I say that this presents a great danger to Africa as such.

We already find that piracy is beginning to occur. I want to declare that we will have the situation within a few years that the route around the Cape and on to the East will become a dangerous one, not only for South Africa, Portugal and Rhodesia, but for the whole of the Western world. The penetration of communism has become an accomplished fact today. In this serious situation neither South Africa nor any other country can face the danger all on its own. These tremendous problems which have been unleashed, as well as the poverty and the backlog, cannot be eliminated by any single country. I also want to state that they cannot be eliminated without South Africa. Any attempt to face these problems without South Africa is like trying to stage Hamlet without the Prince. South Africa is the leading and most developed country in Africa today, and without its co-operation it will not be possible to face those dangers.

Therefore it is perhaps fitting that proposals are being made for a dialogue with South Africa, even at this late stage. We find that after the Second World War, when Europe had been laid waste, proposals were also made to establish the U.N., which means nothing but a dialogue. It has now become high time for Africa also to think in this direction so that we can at least conduct a dialogue with one another about our common problems and dangers. The old method of boycotts and abuse is not the answer to the problems of Africa. If only half of the precious lives, money and energy spent in breaking down Africa over the past decade could have been applied towards some positive purpose we could have come a long way by now and we would have had nothing to fear. We do not ask the countries conducting a dialogue with us to approve of our domestic policy. Russia and America are conducting a dialogue today and we know that their policies are poles apart. Nor do we ask countries to negate the human right of self-determination, because we are in fact the greatest advocates of it. The Lusaka Manifesto declares in article 2:

We believe that all men have the right and duty to participate as equal members of the society in their own government. We do not accept that any individual or group has any right to govern any other group of adults without their consent and we affirm that only the people of a society acting together as equals can determine what is for them good society and a good social, economic or political organization.

This is precisely the policy of separate development. But further than this we cannot, of course, go along with the Lusaka Manifesto, because for the rest the voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau; the voice of peace, but the hand of aggression. [Time expired.]

Mr. I. F. A. DE VILLIERS:

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will not think me discourteous if I do not now reply to the very interesting statement he made on our relations and dialogue with Africa. As the time is so limited, I prefer to discuss it tomorrow at greater length. I hope also that the hon. member for Middelland will excuse me if I do not react to his statement now.

I would like to use the few remaining minutes of this evening to deal with another problem, another matter of international concern, namely that of nuclear energy and the controls which need to be applied to the use of nuclear energy internationally to ensure that this boon to the great human race is not used to the great detriment of the human race. There are talks proceeding in various parts of the world about the limitation of nuclear weapons. Notably, talks are proceeding in Europe on the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, which is designed to reduce or to control the use of strategic nuclear weapons between nations.

There is another aspect of the problem and that is the use or abuse of nuclear energy or the products of nuclear energy, and the possibility that these products might be turned to hostile or warlike use. We in South Afrcia have a great interest and responsibility in these matters. We are one of the world's major producers of uranium. We are in the process of developing a system for the enrichment of uranium. We also propose in due course to embark on a programme of nuclear power stations. Now, Sir, the material which is used in atomic weapons is, firstly, enriched uranium, for which we claim we are now developing a process, and secondly, plutonium, which is a by-product of nuclear power stations. For all these reasons, we have, as I say, a great interest and an obligation internationally to assist in maintaining peace in regard to the uses or abuses of nuclear energy. The hon. the Prime Minister last year, when he announced the discovery in South Africa of a new enrichment process, referred to South Africa’s willingness to subscribe to safeguards and to treaties for the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. He laid down three conditions, which we believe are reasonable. He mentioned firstly that South Africa should not be limited by such treaties in the peaceful application of nuclear energy; secondly, that South Africa should not have its industrial secrets leaked out through inspection of our processes; and thirdly, that the safeguards system should be implemented on such a reasonable basis as to avoid interference with the normal, efficient operation of the particular industry concerned. Now, Sir, these are apparently reasonable conditions, and I believe that much progress has been made, both in the non-proliferation treaties and in the safeguards which accompany them and which are being discussed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, to achieve a system which is as widely and universally acceptable to nations as may be possible. We should be grateful if in the course of his reply to this debate, the hon. the Minister would tell us what progress has been made: firstly, in regard to the non-proliferation treaties, what countries still have not signed and how much progress must still be made before this becomes a universally effective treaty; and secondly, in regard to the completion of universally acceptable safeguard arrangements under the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House resumed:

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 7 p.m.