When the debate was adjourned last night, I was busy explaining to hon. members that since 1960 there had been an improvement as regards the amount allocated to Bantu education. Pressed by hon. members on this side of the House, the Government slowly began to realize that the Bantu Education Account is in fact too difficult to manage and also that this is an inadequate method of financing this education. We did witness a very slow process of adaptation, culminating of course in the Bill in front of us. We on this side of the House support this Bill, because henceforth the hands of the Minister will be free to use the Consolidated Revenue Account for the purposes of Bantu education. But I am afraid that South Africa needs more than just a Bill to do justice to this urgent problem. It is true that the provisions of this Bill will enable the hon. the Minister to tackle the problem more effectively than before, but his success will depend on his basic approach to this problem, and if we look at this basic approach, we must bear in mind that he will have to negotiate and consult with the hon. the Minister of Finance in order to determine the exact allocation. When I looked through the Bill originally, I was very pleased because I could see that we can make progress provided we adopt the correct approach to the matter, but I was disappointed to hear from the hon. the Minister that he will continue to adhere to his old guide lines in this process. It is for that reason that I want to ask him to have a good look at South Africa and to accept certain fundamental facts of our society.

First of all, in his negotiations he should bear in mind that we have 21 million people in this country. For the sake of my argument it is completely immaterial whether we look upon South Africa as a multi-national country or a multi-racial one. The fact remains that we have 21 million people in this country. We also know that the population increase in South Africa is in the region of ½ million per annum. It is of the utmost importance that we should make every single person in this country productive. We cannot afford the luxury of unproductive units and it is only logic that we can only do this if people are properly trained, and you cannot train people properly unless you provide the necessary educational facilities. But there are other facts the hon. the Minister should bear in mind when he negotiates with the hon. the Minister of Finance. He should realize that the 21 million people in this country are all active in one economy and, what is more, in one integrated economy; that we have in this country a process of economic integration, which is not the policy of this side of the House or of the other side of the House, but something which has become a reality. It is a fact of life. It is something which has brought South Africa to where we are today. If we look around us and we see all the positive results of this process, we realize what the position is. The clothes we wear and the houses we live in are all results of the mutual efforts of both Black and White. He must bear in mind too, that it is virtually impossible to determine exactly the contribution of one particular race group or the other in this great and wealthy South Africa. The hon. the Minister must also bear in mind that it has been said before that labour accounts for a certain factor in this. We do not know exactly what it is. I heard during a previous debate that somebody on the other side of the House mentioned that labour accounts for only 20 per cent of the general contribution. I wonder whether in his negotiations with the Minister of Finance he will bear this in mind. I know that hon. members opposite are all taxpayers, and I also know that they pay a lot of taxes because they, like us, have the misfortune to be ruled by a National Government. But we have more than that in common. We also have in common the fact that we make use of Bantu labour in one form or the other, and they contribute to our own personal income in no uncertain terms. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he dare not look on White taxation or Bantu taxation completely in isolation, because one cannot do so. He must therefore accept the fact that he has been given a wonderful opportunity through this Bill where he can now negotiate with the hon. the Minister of Finance and can say to him that so much has been paid in taxes and that we must bear in mind that the labourers of this country are really making a contribution to the prosperity of South Africa. I want to plead with him that he do so when he negotiates with the hon. the Minister of Finance. In fact, I would be much happier if he could give this House the assurance that he will in fact negotiate on that basis.

I want to move on to some other aspects. We have heard during the debate from the hon. member for Berea that the unit cost at a Bantu university is something in the region of R2 400. He said this because he accepted that some R6 million per annum is spent on the Bantu universities of South Africa. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us exactly how much is being spent on Bantu universities in South Africa. We have heard from the hon. member for Hercules another figure, one of R4,5 million. I believe it is important that we should know this, because there has been a sudden decrease from last year to this year in the unit cost, from R25 to R20. I believe the answer to this problem lies in the fact of how much exactly is spend on Bantu university education in South Africa. I believe that at the time—the hon. the Deputy Minister must correct me if I am wrong—when it was calculated that the cost per unit in Bantu education is R25, the unit cost included the schools as well as the universities. The reason why it has now all of a sudden dropped to R20 is that in the new calculation they have only taken into consideration the exact amount which is being spent on schools and they have excluded the amount being spent on the universities. I would be very pleased if the hon. the Deputy Minister can in fact give me that information.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my reply to the Second Reading debate I shall reply to the questions put to me by the hon. member for Durban Central.

The Bill being launched through here is an important one, and if it had not been for the fact that the hon. members opposite had risen formally and said that they supported this Bill, nobody in this House would have believed that they really supported it.

Oh, please!

Whilst I want to express my real thanks and appreciation to the hon. Opposition and the hon. member for Houghton for supporting this Bill, I want to say that it is significant that we have in fact been able to reach unanimity in this House on such a matter, as we also did last week on another important matter, i.e. the aid centres. Whilst I am expressing my appreciation for it, I want hon. members to make no error, but to realize that I have made it my object to keep these things out of politics as much as possible. I must say that it would have been so much more wonderful and important for South Africa if this unanimous support could have been attended with a real discussion of this matter, which could as far as possible have been conducted on a high level and which could as far as possible have endeavoured to steer clear of these petty political gains which the Opposition has been trying to derive from this matter. I find this a pity, and I must state this very clearly right at the beginning of my speech.

What have we had? The hon. member for Transkei rose here, on a Wednesday evening no less, and in my modest opinion he did not make a speech—I read it afterwards—which really amounted to much, but he delivered a political tirade. That is why this whole debate reminded me of a poem by Willem Kloos, “Wij blaasen bellen aan het rand van het leven” (We are blowing bubbles on the brink of life), for in point of fact the Opposition, with their soap-suds and pipe, did blow bubbles and enjoyed themselves tremendously as they watched them floating away and bursting in this Chamber. To them it does not matter whether these bubbles, blown by themselves, have any lasting value; all that matters to them, is the temporary pleasure they derive from wondering at and watching them, and to derive a certain measure of satisfaction from the fact that they have at least blown a soap-bubble. To my mind this was not a fine display on the part of the United Party in regard to this matter, for it was very obvious that they only adopted one view, i.e. to make as much political capital out of the Bill as they possibly could, after they had promised their support to it. They were literally chasing after spectres, spectres which they took for distant horizons, but which will do nothing to improve their position and by which they will gain nothing. I am sorry that it is once again my task to pick the bubbles blown by them. Therefore I want to say at once that there is a deep-rooted difference between that side and this side of the House on this matter in regard to which we have now reached so-called unanimity because of the fact that they are supporting this Bill, for speaker after spaaker on that side of the House rose and stated their approach very clearly. Their approach is that Bantu education should be financed out of the pockets of the Whites, irrespective of what it is going to cost the Whites.

Precisely.

That is their standpoint, and that is why they are once again revealing themselves to be an extension-piece of the old imperial idea in this House; they have revealed that in regard to this matter they are in point of fact, after a manner of speaking, as antiquarian as a cow. Therefore they are sitting in this House as unreal people in the seventies, in which we are faced with the constitutional development of the Bantu peoples. In regard to this development I told Lord Carrendon with conviction on a certain occasion that if he had a son who wanted to study political development somewhere in the world, he would not be able to study it more profitably than in fact in this Republic of South Africa. But here we now have members of the Opposition who are trying to steal a political march in regard to a matter as important as this one; unreal people in the seventies.

What is the factual position in regard to this matter? The factual position in regard to the abolition of the Bantu Education Account is that it is being abolished because a new system of preparing estimates and a new system of providing funds have been introduced as a result of the self-government gained by the Bantu homelands. [Interjections.] I expected them to laugh again, because the moment one talks about these realistic facts of the circumstances I am referring to now, one gets a political delirium tremens from that side … [Interjections.] There it is! There we have the laughter! It is as though hon. members opposite have received instructions from somebody in their midst to give this delirium laugh, which on Wednesday-evening we heard more than ad nauseam, whenever certain things on which they were at variance were discussed in this House— the hon. member for South Coast is not here at the moment, and you yourself know, Sir, how at variance they are on this matter. I do not think the Opposition is rendering itself a service in regard to this matter. This House and the whole country outside should understand clearly that this Bill does not deal primarily with the voting of funds for Bantu education; this Bill deals with a system of procedure and budgeting in respect of the Bantu homelands.

That is why it pleases me to support it.

The position is that the system dealt with in this Bill, came into operation in the Transkei as far back as 1964, when the Transkei obtained its own revenue fund. The Bantu Education Account, in so far as it affects the Transkei, was in actual fact abolished in 1964 already, for that was when the Transkei was given its own revenue account. I am illustrating now how the hon. members on that side ran away, one by one, from the real crux of this Bill. In 1971 this House passed the Bantu Self-government Act, in terms of which provision is made for various degrees of self-government for these other seven homeland governments on the same basis as the provision made for it in the case of the Transkei. The relevant provision in that Act of 1971 which deals with the establishment of an education account, is virtually word for word the same as the one in terms of which the Transkeian account was established in 1964. One would at least have expected the hon. members to take cognizance of this extremely important point and not to keep quiet about it as they did. Why did they do it? By way of interjection I repeatedly asked why they were not referring to the constitutional development of the Bantu homelands. On a certain occasion they even appealed to the Chair so as to prevent this from being discussed. They handled this matter in that way solely with a short-term end in view.

What is the nature of the attack which hon. members are making on us? Before trying to show the House how, as a result of the development of these increasingly self-governing Bantu homelands, we literally outgrew this Bantu Education Account, as the intention was, and that this is the basic reason why this account is being abolished, i.e. that it has served its purpose, and not the reasons which were thought up by hon. members opposite, I want to remove in very clear terms another misunderstanding that has arisen. One speaker after the other said that one of the main reasons why the Bantu Education Account was being abolished, was because it was supposedly a “flop” and because this was supposedly indicative of the failure of Dr. Verwoerd’s policy. Nothing is further removed from the truth than this very statement. Let me quote the words which Dr. Verwoerd used when this education account was established in 1955. On that occasion he said (Hansard, Volume 87, column 314)—

That is the amount pegged at R13 million—

That is what Dr. Verwoerd said on 31st January, 1955. Dr. Verwoerd stated unambiguously that this account could be borne on that basis, as established by him, for five years. Can it be stated more clearly than it was stated here? But what has happened in the meantime? We have outgrown this account. Now, there is an important fact of which cognizance must be taken. When the Transkei Constitution Act was introduced in 1963 and came into operation in the Transkei in 1964, Dr. Verwoerd was directly concerned with the wording of the relevant section—I think it is section 52—in which provision is made for the establishment of the Transkei’s own Revenue Account and Revenue Fund. Every word in that section was not only weighed by Dr. Verwoerd, but also, so to speak, written by Dr. Verwoerd himself. How can hon. members opposite, in the face of such a fact, argue that Dr. Verwoerd’s policy has failed and that, therefore, the abolition of this Bantu Education Account is actually an example of the failure of Dr. Verwoerd’s policy? When the Transkei was given its own Revenue Account in 1964, a deduction was not made from the R13 million because the Transkei received at the time 15 per cent of the direct taxation on Bantu, which represented more than R1½ million. Why not? There were important reasons for this. Now that the other seven Bantu homelands are getting self-government as well as their own revenue funds, the R13 million is all that is left in this Bantu Education Account, i.e. the pegging amount which Dr. Verwoerd anticipated would hold good for five years, but which did in actual fact hold good a little longer, plus the R1½ million for university training plus a very small amount that is left after the pro rata allocation has been made from direct taxation to the homelands. That is all that is left in that Bantu Education Account. Out of the estimated revenue of R18 million from direct taxation on Bantu, 21 per cent will, according to the latest distribution, be allocated to the Transkei, whereas it only received 15 per cent at that stage. This represents an amount of R3 780 000. The Tswana are getting 12 per cent, the Ciskei 6 per cent, the Leboa 12 per cent, the Shangaan 5 per cent, the Venda 2 per cent, the Zulu 28 per cent, and then one is left with a balance which will be paid into the Bantu Trust Account. This remaining portion comes to 14 per cent, and on the basis of an estimated revenue of R18 million it represents an amount of R2 520 000. Now the House can see how ridiculous the arguments advanced by hon. members on that side of the House were. In taking into account the constitutional development of the Bantu homelands, one is faced with the accomplished fact that all that is left in that account, after the passing in 1971 of the Bantu Self-government Act as a continuation on the Transkei Constitution Act of 1964, is the R13 million plus the R1½ million for university training and this remaining portion of 14 per cent, which represents an amount of R2 520 000. That is what we mean by saying that we have literally outgrown the Bantu Education Account, and that that is the reason for this account being abolished.

Then there is a second very important reason for the abolition of this Bantu Education Account. This is where the basic difference between the Opposition and us comes in. We on this side of the House have made the necessary provision for it in good time. There is one matter about which we should not have the slightest doubt, i.e. that we on this side of the House appreciate the necessity for Bantu education. Along with that we also appreciate that in a multi-racial country such as the Republic of South Africa with, at the moment, more than 15 million Black people and 4 million Whites, a situation cannot be tolerated where, from now until kingdom-come, the 4 million Whites are expected to vote funds in an unlimited manner for the education of those approximately 16 million Black people, who will by the year 2 000 perhaps have increased to 35 million or 40 million. After all, this is unfair. We on this side of the House say that we do not intend to allow this. It has always been our policy that it ought not to be done in this way. That is why we have made the necessary provision for it in good time. That was why we on this side of the House introduced in 1969 one very important measure, which was followed by another measure shortly afterwards. In 1969 we introduced the Bantu Taxation Act, which provided that a Bantu person would in future pay tax on a pay-as-you-earn basis when his income exceeded R30. The poll tax, as hon. members know, has remained at R2,50. Soon after that the second very important measure was introduced, i.e. the measure in respect of purchase tax. I cannot commit myself, nor is it my intention to do so, as to what the real revenue will be from direct and indirect taxation on the Bantu, but it is very obvious that a substantial amount will be collected from this purchase tax and direct taxation. Therefore the policy of the Government is very clear. Whereas the Government cannot say that the revenue from these two sources and also from the other contributions by Bantu will amount to RX, and whereas it knows exactly what the expenditure in respect of Bantu education will be, this Government says its policy is that the Whites cannot simply pay for Bantu education in an unlimited manner, but that the Bantu should make their contribution. We say that the contribution made by the Bantu is a guarantee, and we take it into account, for we have ways and means by which it is possible for us to calculate what that contribution will amount to more or less. As the Bantu make that increasing contribution from their own income tax and other taxes, we are prepared to help, through this Parliament, to vote funds so as to ensure that Bantu education will develop continually and that the growing needs of Bantu education will continually be met in that manner.

May I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister mean that the more the Bantu pay by way of taxes, the less Parliament will need to vote?

I am pleased that the hon. member has asked me that question. In terms of the policy of the National Government, these Bantu peoples are being guided to self-development. From now on a revenue fund of its own will be established for each of those Bantu peoples’ Legislative Assemblies, and they themselves will have to budget for their own education. In terms of this Bill the Revenue by way of direct taxation will be paid into those revenue funds of the homelands. That will be the first source of revenue for that fund. Therefore it follows as a matter of course that, to an ever-increasing extent, the homelands will have to contribute to their own education by way of their own funds, the direct taxation and, in due course, by way of indirect taxation as well. That is our policy. That is why the contrast between that side of the House and this side in regard to this matter, is a very important one. It is consequent upon the fundamental difference between us who say that we want to guide the Bantu peoples to self-development, and that side which wants one undivided South Africa. In other words, that side wants one source of revenue for everybody. One source of financing for Bantu education will have the effect that the Whites will to an increasing extent have to pay for the education of the Bantu.

Why? As they earn more, they pay more in taxes.

I shall now tell you why. Under our policy, because we are guiding the Bantu peoples to self-development and granting them their own revenue funds, we are also stimulating the self-respect of the Bantu. What is more, under our policy we can without the slightest doubt look forward to the time when the contribution having to be made by the Whites in respect of Bantu education, will become increasingly smaller and the Bantu will have to contribute more.

Nonsense!

Of course this is the case. Speaker after speaker on that side of the House adopted that attitude. In that regard I can quote to hon. members from the speeches made by the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Berea. However, I want to try not to make too much political capital oat of this matter.

It is a question of what is true and what is not.

No, it is not a question of truth. In this regard there need not be any misunderstanding. Under our policy the Bantu peoples will be guided to self-development, with their own revenue funds and revenue accounts so that they may handle their own Estimates. As this happens, the burden borne by the Whites will, of course, become lighter as time goes by, and the burden borne by the Black people will become heavier as time goes by. That is the difference.

If they remain poor, we shall have to pay a great deal more.

In stimulating the development of the Bantu homelands, we are also stimulating their revenue-earning capacity so that they will not remain poor, but their revenue will contiually be increased. That is the way it will happen.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? At what point in time does the hon. the Deputy Minister envisage that this Utopia will come about?

I am not prepared to commit myself to any fixed date as to when this so-called Utopia will materialize.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

The hon. member may put his question in a moment. Let us obtain clarity on one matter. We on this side of the House have no intention of evading our obligation in respect of Bantu education. We did not do so in the past, nor shall we do so in the future. We appreciate the necessity for Bantu education, but we also appreciate the necessity for viewing it realistically, for the very purpose of being able to assist in meeting their needs in that regard, because at this stage the Bantu themselves are still not in a position to do this. Therefore we may not adopt an attitude that we may indefinitely go on taking as much as we can out of the pockets of the White taxpayers in order to finance Bantu education. If that is one’s attitude or standpoint, it is going to cause trouble. Our standpoint is the exact opposite of that. That is why I said in my Second Reading speech—and I mean it—that it was a real achievement that this Government was in a position to abolish the Bantu education account in this House after what was in fact such a short period. There is one matter about which the hon. members should have no illusions. If it had not been for the constitutional development of the Bantu homelands and the successful implementation of it, we would not have come forward with the abolition of the Bantu Education Account at this stage. We have, to wit, been financing Bantu education in this manner for so many years that, surely, we could have continued to do so in this manner. If there were to be a deficit in this regard, surely we would have been able to make other plans for making up those deficits. After all, there are many plans that may be made in order to do this, as in fact we did in the past. However, why are we abolishing the Bantu Education Account? We are abolishing it chiefly because the homelands have developed and because we have outgrown this account. Let me add that we in this country have always regarded Bantu education as a most topical matter, owing to the fact that it concerns the education of children of two groups of people living in the Republic, i.e. the Bantu peoples on the one hand and the Whites on the other. It is a matter which arouses a great deal of emotion and which should therefore be treated with extreme circumspection. We on this side of the House have always done this in regard to Bantu education.

Now I should like to reply to certain questions put to me by hon. members on that side. The first question was in regard to the unit cost. Every question to which I am going to reply now, is important as it should be seen as a further explanation of the abolition of the Bantu Education Account. As far as the unit cost is concerned, this depends on how it is calculated. In regard to unit cost we furnished the figure of R25. It can also be calculated differently. The amount for this year’s Estimates will come to R70 049 000. If one adds the capital expenditure incurred by local authorities, which amounts to R4 million, it gives one a total of approximately R75 million. This is to be divided by 3 036 0Ô0, the number of Bantu children attending schools in the Republic this year. Let me say in passing that it is only when we consider that approximately 900 000 White children are attending schools at the moment, that one realizes the tremendous dimensions of the task with which we are dealing here in respect of Bantu education. In this case the attitude adopted by the Opposition is so much the more totally inexplicable.

Why?

If we have to divide R75 million by three million in order to calculate the unit cost, we arrive at an amount of R25. We say that this is not the correct manner in which the unit cost should be calculated. The correct manner is that the capital expenditure and expenditure in respect of universities should actually be left out of account in calculating the unit costs. If one does not take that expenditure into account, it works out at an amount of approximately R20, which is therefore the unit cost. That is the answer. Therefore, there is no difference between what we said last year, i.e. that the unit cost was R25, and what we are saying now, i.e. that it is R20. If we calculate it according to what I regard as the more correct manner, i.e. by leaving the capital expenditure on universities out of account, it works out at an amount of just under R20. Therefore, this is the unit cost. One of the hon. members went on to ask me whether it was going to be the position that this would be a pegged amount, and whether it was our ideal to keep it at that amount. Of course, Sir, that is not the ideal. This ideal, i.e. what the Government has always done and what it will also do in the future, is to work on the basis of the needs of Bantu education. The Department of Bantu Education has gained a great deal of experience in this regard, and we shall therefore proceed on the basis of those real needs that exist and, taking into account the general circumstances of the country, also the economic circumstances of the country, and we shall meet those needs as far as possible. South Africa can really be proud of what has been brought about in respect of Bantu education in South Africa. The unit cost will therefore not have to remain pegged at that amount, nor did it remain pegged at that amount in the past.

Another matter of which a great deal of mention was made, was the question of free books. I said by way of interjection that it had to be appreciated that the question of free books was a delicate matter. I wanted to know where the free books received by the Whites at present, came from; after all, Sir, they do not fall from heaven like manna. Those free books are paid for by the Whites themselves. They are paying for them by way of their taxes. As a result of those taxes paid by them, they obtain these free books. But on that matter those hon. members are as silent as the grave, for what reason I do not know.

And the Coloureds?

We are not talking about the Coloureds now. A great deal was said about the question of free books. Let us consider the facts, as I have stated them to the House now. In principle, therefore, we are not opposed to free books for the Bantu. We are by no means opposed to this, but somebody has to pay for them, and once again we say that what those hon. members opposite want to do, is not fair. If they want to make political capital out of this, then we shall also do so. In contrast to those members opposite, we say: The White parent should not be expected to pay for the free books of Bantu children. Why should that be necessary? Therefore, if the Bantu can pay for free books, they must get them and they will get them. That is also the reason why the amount reflected annually in the Estimates in respect of free books, has increased in recent years. At the moment the position is such that this year the following amounts are reflected: R32 700 in respect of Government Bantu schools, R411 300 in respect of communal schools, and R81 600 in respect of State-aided schools. That gives us a total amount of R525 600. In the homelands the amount is R530 000. That gives us on the Estimates this year an amount of more than R1 million, which is being voted for free books. That, I say, is a great achievement on the part of the Bantu who are in a position to help themselves in this regard. The hon. member for Berea wanted to know what our attitude would be if the Transkei wanted to introduce free books. Our attitude will be that they will be able to do so with the greatest pleasure, just as any other homeland my do so with the greatest pleasure, but they must just understand that their Budget must balance. If they want to introduce free books, they will have to make provision for it in their Estimates, and they will have to effect certain savings in respect of other items. However, we are by no means opposed to free books being introduced by any of the homelands. The matter is in their hands and they can do so with the greatest pleasure. But they are also informed; they know their own circumstances. When they themselves are planning and deliberating in their own Legislative Assembly on a certain amount which is available for education—let us say R10 million, for instance—and they see that their needs in respect of teachers’ salaries come to this amount and their needs in respect of other urgent items come to that amount, they themselves will come to the conclusion that they cannot afford to spend such a large amount on free books. Then they will realize that it is not possible for them to do so. They are practical and realistic enough to determine their priorities themselves. That is why I say that in these times those hon. members are not approaching the position realistically. About these matters and about what is happening in the homeland governments, those hon. members do not know a thing. For instance, I do not know how many of those members have ever held a budget of a homeland government in their hands and taken a good look at what is printed in it. It is time they did so for a change; then they will understand the basic position better.

If the urban Bantu want free books, what are they to do?

According to circumstances which obtain generally, we would then do exactly what the homeland government would do, for, after all, we too budget for Bantu education here in the White area. In terms of our priorities we would then determine how much could be set aside for free books. We do that; as I pointed out, this amount has increased every year. I want to say that I myself am very sympathetic towards this matter. I may as well tell you this: If one had at one’s disposal absolutely unlimited funds, why would one then not vote those funds? Why would one not do so in order to make the practice of free books a possibility? After all, we agree that education for the Bantu in the Republic of South Africa is very important, but one should also be realistic. Surely, one cannot do the impossible with a limited amount of money at one’s disposal.

The hon. member for Berea also spoke about the Lodder Committee. Before coming to that, I want to tell the hon. member that the figure he mentioned in regard to the per capita cost for training at the Bantu universities, is not correct at all. I do not wish to take up the time of the House in order to prove this, but I want to say that the hon. member calculated the figure in a totally wrong manner. In another case he added one student three or four times and then arrived at a total which was absolutely disproportionate. This is a large amount; that is something one can say without the slightest doubt, but it is not nearly as large as that hon. member said it was.

This was over a period of 12 years, not one year.

His figure was not correct at all. However, he and I may discuss the matter privately, and I shall take pleasure in explaining the position to him. In regard to the Lodder Committee the hon. member put the following question: How can the Education Account be abolished before the Lodder Committee has reported properly? The position is that that is an inter-departmental committee and that its findings have absolutely no bearing on the abolition of this Bantu Education Account. The Estimates are going to be submitted to the House of Assembly, and whatever the Lodder Committee may recommend, we shall take into consideration in the normal manner.

The hon. member for Transkei wanted to know how we were going to make the Bantu education moneys available to the Bantu homelands. Actually, his question was not very clear to me; other members on this side and I were under a misapprehension. I looked up his Hansard to see whether he meant how the taxes were going to be utilized in a homeland, and specifically in the Transkei, or whether he meant how the purchase tax was going to be utilized. If he wants to know how the purchase tax is going to be utilized, then the answer is as I have already explained, and I shall not take the trouble to go into the other question as well. The answer is therefore, as I have already explained that it is impossible to determine an amount definitely, in rands and cents, and to say, “This is the amount that will be derived from purchase tax.” Therefore, for the present, and for the foreseeable future, it is impossible to tell the Transkei, “You are getting that amount for Bantu education because it represents the amount in purchase tax contributed by your people.” For the present this is impossible, and it is not our intention to do this. Let me just tell the hon. member that the manner in which these amounts will be voted, is very simple. Every homeland will vote funds according to its needs for education. We know what the normal increase and the needs in respect of Bantu education are, and these are based on years of experience. Hon. members will find it interesting to know that over the past six years the average increase in spending on Bantu education was 14,9 per cent, but the increase in the number of pupils was 6,9 per cent, and at the universities the increase in the number of students was 17,6 per cent We know that the amount increases by approximately 14 per cent, and then the basic needs of Bantu education are met, and any increases in the future, now that the Bantu Education Account is being abolished, will depend on the amounts which will, according to the needs and the circumstances of the country, be voted in our own Parliament for Bantu education in White areas on the one hand, for university training at the Bantu universities on the other hand and, thirdly the amount which this House of Assembly will vote by way of supplementing the Revenue Estimates of the Bantu homelands. Nobody in this country need therefore entertain any fear that as a result of the abolition of the Bantu Education Account, excessive and disproportionate sums of money taken from the pockets of the White taxpayers will now be voted for Bantu education, for in principle no change has been effected in the Bantu Education Account as a result of its abolition. Therefore the principle, that the Bantu themselves should accept responsibility for their education services, is still being upheld. The policy is that the Bantu should accept that responsibility through their tax contributions. For those reasons it can therefore not be argued that Bantu education, either in the White area or in the homelands, will be better or worse off after the abolition of the Bantu Education Account, for the simple reason that the point at issue here is the procedure of preparing estimates and not the amounts to be voted in regard to Bantu education.

Do you accept that the Bantu are also making a contribution to the wealth of the country?

Yes, of course the Bantu are making a contribution; there is not the slightest doubt about that, but what does that have to do with this matter?

But you are leaving it out of account.

But I did reply to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned here yesterday. He wanted to know why in fact an exception was being made in respect of education, and I replied that from the earliest times education had been regarded as an extremely delicate matter in South Africa. The education of children—irrespective of whether they are White or Black or Coloured or Indian—has always, from the earliest times, been a matter which has aroused emotions, and for that reason it has always been treated as a delicate matter, as the Government is in fact doing at the moment.

The hon. member also wanted to know from me how much was being spent on Bantu universities. The amount, as the hon. member for Koedoespoort said, is R4½ million, and the unit cost is R1 880 and not the figure mentioned by the hon. member.

Sir, I want to conclude by saying that the abolition of this Bantu Education Account is without the slightest doubt a milestone that has been reached by the National Party Government. One is grateful for the unanimity on both sides of the House as far as this matter is concerned. Sir, whilst the contrast I pointed out, does exist between the Opposition and us, and whilst we are intent on making Bantu education in South Africa homeland-centric, as the hon. member for Algoa pointed out here very strikingly yesterday, and as is proved by the figures at the disposal of hon. members, I want to say that with the abolition of the Bantu Education Account we have now entered upon a course along which the political exploitation of this kind of matter, and of this matter specifically, will in future be restricted to the minimum and will not be blown up to the maximum, because it is not to our advantage to do so, nor is it to the advantage of the Bantu and of the country as a whole to exploit the matter in that manner. Sir, a debt of gratitude is owing to the National Government for this courageous, important step which it is taking, which represents the crystallisation of the successful implementation of the policy of multi-national development.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet is not here at the moment, because just before the debate adjourned he was endeavouring to explain the amendment embodied in this clause. He quoted the example of a piece of subdivided ground on which there was a garage which had become redundant. In fact, the example he gave was one of a rezoning of an already subdivided erf. Sir, the hon. member was in the provincial council long enough to realize that this power is vested in the local authority and the provincial authority and that there is an appeal to the Administrator. Surely he knows this, and surely he realizes that the rezoning of such sites, with few exceptions, has worked very efficiently in the past. If he is correct in saying that this is the sole reason for this amendment, surely he must realize that if he adds a third department to the two existing authorities, he is going to add even more red tape to this matter. He must have had these experiences when he was in the provincial council. The process, even as it is today, is a slow one, and if you are going to add a third department, the process is going to be even slower.

Sir, this amendment is worded in a very broad and a very vague way. Subdivided land does not necessarily mean land that has been subdivided into plots or erven. It can very easily be a very large farm that has been subdivided into potentially economic units. Is the Minister now going to dictate, as he can according to the amendment as it is worded, to the purchaser of such a farm what he must do with the land bought by him, how he must develop it and what crops he must grow or what cattle he must run on it? Sir, if this is so, then there is a far stronger term than socialism for this, because it smacks of the most dictatorial aspects of those types of government which are distasteful to us. It will in fact mean that the landowner, although expected to pay good money for the paper purchase of the land, will not in fact own it. The state will be the boss and will dictate the manner in which and the purpose for which that land will be used. An overworked and under staffed department of state will, according to the wording of this amendment, be forced to take over the direction of all urban and rural development as well as the direction of all farming operations in the Republic. Mr. Chairman, how crazy can you get? I understand and appreciate the ideals of the hon. the Deputy Minister, but when he endeavours to translate them into a law such as this, then I can only say he is most inept. Sir, it is for this reason that I have decided not to move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, because after having a look at this clause, I have found that no matter how one amends it, it remains a bad and unacceptable clause to this side of the House.

The hon. member for Albany has quite a wrong impression of what this clause is about. And also the submission by the hon. member for Newton Park last Tuesday, that the Minister hereby wants to adopt drastic powers to even tell a farmer how and where he must farm, really has nothing to do with this clause.

That’s right, let him have it!

Then explain the conditions to us.

I should like to do so for the hon. member’s edification. In terms of the Act, as it reads at present, the Minister can lay down conditions for subdivision only in respect of the linking up and consolidation of certain units, but in practice situations have developed where other subdivisions can also take place for other than just agricultural purposes. I want to mention an example. An organisation such as a co-operative society wants land, for example, for the construction of a grain silo within a production area. The organisation needs five or six morgen. It must obtain the permission of the Minister for subdivision. The Minister is presented with the fact that the land will be employed for this specific purpose. In reality the Minister cannot lay down conditions for the exclusive use of a grain silo. In reality he cannot give permission for such a subdivision either, because he does not have the legal powers, because in terms of the old dispensation it is stated that the Minister can only do this when it is a question of linking up, and in such a situation there is no linking up and consolidation of land. Now the Bill merely provides that if subdivision is requested for this purpose, the Minister can lay down a condition that it can be used for the erection of a silo.

But I want to mention another example. Suppose a man were to apply for a subdivision of land to obtain a piece of land for the erection of a drive-in theatre, it is necessary to negotiate with various bodies, such as the provincial authorities. But suppose he does not succeed in obtaining the permission for the eventual establishment of the drive-in theatre, then the purpose for which he made the request falls away, and then he can use the land for any other purpose. He can erect houses there, for example, and cause slum conditions in the rural areas. The Minister then has no powers to limit him in the use of that land.

No, that is nonsense! What about the Squatters’ Act?

This clause makes it possible for the Minister to obtain powers so that if the purpose for which a person requested the subdivision falls away, that land can revert to use for agricultural purposes. But it is interesting that the amendment which appeared on the Order Paper last Tuesday evening in connection with this clause proposed the total rejection of this clause, and now the hon. member for Albany agrees, in his new amendment now on the Order Paper, that the Minister should, in fact, be able to state conditions in respect of the right of use of land. This is a change of front on the part of the United Party. I do not know whether the hon. member and the hon. member for Newton Park had a little talk about the matter, but you know that last time this clause was discussed the hon. member for Newton Park took the bit between his teeth like a wild horse and charged over the alarming powers the Minister is now obtaining in being able to tell a person how he must farm. Now we have this change of attitude, and in his amendment the hon. member for Albany states that the Minister must be able to lay down certain conditions; he must just consult with the local authorities, with the Executive Committee.

You are now discussing something that was not proposed.

Here it stands on the Order Paper.

It has been withdrawn.

He changed his mind.

It is clear that there is a change of standpoint, but this is how we have come to know the United Party. The hon. member for Newton Park’s whole idea was that he wanted to demonstrate here that the Minister was adopting too many powers and that the farmers in general should be afraid of this. I conclude by saying that the Minister cannot accept this amendment of the United Party and that he must go ahead with the clause as it stands.

The hon. member for Bethal really seems to be “Crazy mixed up” here this morning. He is talking to an amendment which has not been moved and it is quite apparent that he did not listen to my hon. friend from Albany. He explained the whole position. Perhaps I should repeat it for the benefit of the hon. member for Bethal. He said quite clearly that this was a new amendment which had been proposed, but on reflection, no matter what amendment we moved, this clause was so bad that it could not be improved. I hope the hon. member for Bethal understands that. We will vote against this clause. The hon. member for Albany said so. We will go back to where we started from. We tried to co-operate with the hon. the Deputy Minister. We went so far as even to try to move an amendment to improve this clause so that it would be acceptable not only to us on this side of the House but to those on the opposite side of the House and to the most important people of all, the farmers of South Africa, the owners of agricultural land. We tried to help but then we found that it was impossible to help the Minister in this respect. The hon. member for Bethal says that the hon. member for Newton Park, when we discussed this Bill two years ago, alleged then that this Deputy Minister was taking the power to be able to say to a farmer how he could farm, where he could farm and what he could farm with, and he denied that this was the power which the hon. the Deputy Minister asked for then. The Deputy Minister is on record in Hansard too as denying that very point. But what have we got today? The very amendment which we foresaw in 1970 when we discussed it. We pointed out to him that this was exactly what he was after, the power to control the purpose for which the land shall be used, and not only just the purpose for which it shall be used, in other words to be able to dictate to the land-owner that it shall be used either for farming or for residential purposes or for the building of a silo—the example given by the hon. member for Bethal—but also the manner in which it shall be used. What does this mean, the manner in which it can be used? It means that the hon. the Deputy Minister can go so far as to say that it will be used for the purpose of grazing but in such a manner that it will only be used for two months; that he will be able to say that it shall be used for the purpose of agriculture but that you can only use a disc plough and not a hillside plough on that piece of land. That is the manner in which it can be used. This is what the Deputy Minister is asking for and that is why we are opposed to this clause. Surely, are there any rights left for people in South Africa with which this Government will not interfere? Sir, it is only a couple of weeks ago when I was speaking to some farmers from the Eastern Cape who said that no matter what they do and no matter which way they turn they are bound by some regulation or by some law of this Government.

I suppose it was just a lot of United Party supporters.

I am referring to more controls on the farms which are being introduced, in terms of which this Deputy Minister can dictate to a farmer who wishes to subdivide, the conditions as to the purpose for which or the manner in which the land in question may be used. When we considered this amendment which was placed on the Order Paper, and which has not been moved, we took into consideration the powers which the provinces have today, where the provinces control the subdivision of land into pieces smaller than 25 morgen, or 50 acres in Natal. In terms of their ordinances and the Act passed by this House a province, when the subdivisions are smaller than 25 morgen, has the power to dictate the purpose for which the land may be used, but not the manner in which it may be used. We can accept that when it comes to these small units, which really have no place in the agricultural sphere today, the purpose should be defined then, for example that it should be for residential purposes or for industrial development or for farming purposes, but we cannot go so far as the hon. the Deputy Minister is going today. When I say that the hon. member for Bethal seems to be “crazy mixed up” here today, I do so because he says that these powers that the hon. the Deputy Minister is asking for are only in the case of “koppeling en konsolidasie van grond”. I do not know where he gets that from. He must look at the Act.

It has nothing to do with “koppel”.

There is no mention in the Act of consolidation. He must have a look at this clause 4 which we are now amending. Section 4 (1) reads: “Any application for the consent of the Minister for the purposes of section 3 shall be lodged with the Secretary …”, and then subsection (2) reads: “The Minister may in his discretion refuse or grant such application, and if he grants it, grant it on such conditions as he deems fit.” Then we have this amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister is moving now in this House. What are the provisions of section 3? Section 3 reads—

1. (a) agricultural land shall not be subdivided;
2. (b) no undivided share in agricultural land not already held by any person, shall vest in any person;
3. (c) no part of any undivided share in agricultural land shall vest in any person, if such part is not already held by any person,

unless the Minister has consented …

Where does it talk about consolidation? I do not know where the hon. the Deputy Minister gets any story about consolidation. He knows what our attitude towards consolidation is. We made it quite clear in 1970 and again in the Second Reading of this Bill that we were prepared to support the Minister and the Government on the consolidation of uneconomic units whenever it occurred and on every occasion. However, this sort of legislation is leading to the confusion which we have today, the confusion where you have three authorities controlling one thing and where not one of those three authorities will be the first one to give a decision. If you want to subdivide land, you have to apply to the provincial administration, the Department of Planning and now to the Minister of Agriculture. Not one will be the first to give an answer. Each one says: “You must speak to the other one first and when he has given an answer, you can come back to me and ask me for my answer.” Here we have the hon. the Deputy Minister going even further than this Act. He says that before he gives his answer, he will think of what conditions he is going to apply to that subdivision. Even if the subdivision is for 5 000 morgen, he can prescribe conditions and, as I say, such far-reaching conditions, not only for the purpose for which the land is to be used, but also for the manner in which it will be used. We shall oppose this clause.

Will you read the title of the Act?

Mr. Chairman, in reply to what the hon. member said. I immediately want to tell him that he did not read the relevant section of Act No. 10 of 1944 correctly, because in that section a description is not given, as he claims, of the purpose for which land may be used. I want to read the section to him, and I quote from section 1 which gives the provinces the powers to control sub-divisions smaller than 25 morgen. What does the section state. I quote—

†No mention whatsoever is made of the purpose for which it may be used. The word “use” as it is used in the section, can mean the manner or the way in which it can be used. The word “use” in this section includes the manner. I should like to suggest that if the hon. member reads this particular section again, he will not find that it provides that the province can determine the purpose as he said. The article says that the provincial council can impose conditions restricting the use of the land.

*What does that mean? It means, in other words, that the principle of controlling the use of land was embodied as far back as the 1944 Act. That legislation gives the provincial councils the right to restrict the use of land when they agree to a subdivision.

What about a large subdivision?

It does not matter whether it is a large or small piece of land; we are now speaking, after all, about fundamentals, and if the hon. member for Mooi River cannot think in terms of fundamentals, I cannot help him. The principle contained in this clause is that the Minister, when he approves a subdivision, can do no more than the 1944 legislation indicates, because the powers granted in the 1944 legislation in connection with the restriction on the use of land are wider in scope than the restriction the Minister can impose in terms of this new subsection (2). However, there is another important aspect, i.e. that when an application for the subdivision of agricultural land is made to the Minister, such an application is motivated in relation to the specifying of the purpose for which the applicant wants to use the land. It is therefore not unreasonable that the Minister, if the motivation of the application is strong enough and he is prepared, in the particular circumstances pleaded by the applicant, to accede to the applicant’s request, should say that in the circumstances he is prepared to approve the subdivision if the land is used for the purpose requested by the applicant. If this provision is not included, the applicant may surely, after subdivision, use the land for any other purpose than the one he originally applied for, and then the reason on which the subdivision was approved, falls away.

I want to make a second point. The hon. member for Albany has here a Van Blerk amendment on the Order Paper. He has already changed front three times. Initially he advocated that he wants no control whatsoever over the subdivision of land.

He is a Bill van Blerk.

Yes, he is a Bill van Blerk in this amendment, because at first he was opposed to the principle of subdivision, but in the amendment, which he did not move, he accepted the principle that subdivision should be controlled. By not moving that amendment he is again back where he was when he opposed the principle. Oh no, we should at least be serious when we are discussing legislation. I want to reiterate that here we are dealing with agricultural land. It is only land that qualifies in terms of the definition of “agricultural land” that will fall under this provision.

What is the definition?

If an application for subdivision is submitted as a result of certain specific circumstances, and the subdivision is requested for specific reasons, well-founded reasons, and the Minister agrees, the reasons of the applicant must surely be accepted as a condition of the approval. Surely this is purely in accordance with the wishes of the owner of the land. The whole purpose of the legislation will be frustrated if the Minister does not have the power to provide for the conditions in connection with the right of use of this subdivided part of the land.

For the information of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District I just want to reiterate that the word “use” extends further than “way” and “purpose”.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for False Bay tried to create the impression that principle of control over the use of land had been accepted as far back as 1944. The hon. member is quite correct in quoting section 1 of Act No. 10 of 1944, but what the hon. member neglects to tell the House is what was said in the course of the 1944 debates. I shall not blame him, because the hon. member probably did not take the trouble to consult not only the Act but also the debates. Had he done so, he would have found that it makes quite a difference. What was the reason why the Minister of Lands introduced his legislation at the time? The reason was that he wanted to give the provinces the power, as he termed it, to control agricultural smallholdings round the cities. I want to read to the hon. member what he advanced on 25th February, 1944. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 47, col. 2063—

That is the reason. If the hon. member reads this speech—it is not a long speech— he will find that the reason is to ensure that the provincial authorities will make proper streets and other facilities available in the course of time, because those areas later become part of the townships and cities. What is more interesting is the attitude a Nationalist M.P. adopted when that debate took place. I refer to Dr. S. J. Swanepoel, representing the Gezina constituency, who then said the following—

This just goes to show that although they supported the legislation, there were persons amongst the Nationalists who were careful that the provinces should not go too far in this respect.

I now want to come back to the original point I put to the hon. the Deputy Minister. If he wants to carry this amendment through, he must have properly motivated reasons why it is necessary. If he does not have properly motivated reasons, suspicion will surely be created amongst the farmers in general, because this legislation, after all, simply deals with the subdivision of agricultural land. This is the only matter in respect of which the Minister originally wanted powers. But now he wants the additional power to tell a person he will allow him to subdivide his land, but that he then wants to prescribe the conditions for the use of that land and also the manner in which it may be used. The hon. the Deputy Minister must give us those reasons.

†He must not come here with flimsy reasons like, for instance, the reason given by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech, namely that they had to have this power in order to control the number of residences that a farmer may, for example, wish to establish on his farm.

*That is surely no reason to advance in respect of why he does not want to allow the subdivision. No, we on this side are not prepared to do this, because in this legislation we see the thin end of the wedge. What is more, two years ago, when the hon. gentleman placed this legislation, before the House, he said it is a controlling measure in respect of the subdivision, of agricultural land. Now the hon. gentleman comes along and piecemeal wants additional powers, not only to exercise control over subdivision, but also to have additional control over what may be done with that land. He cannot only state conditions of an agricultural nature, but can also, in terms of this clause, as he now wants to amend it, also lay down dozens of other conditions. We want the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain this to us. We do not accept what he advanced in his Second Reading speech as the reason for the amendment proposed in clause 4.

The day before yesterday the hon. member for Newton Park used the same arguments he is using now. The hon. members for Bethal and False Bay explained the reasons, but what bothers me the most is that we must explain the whole matter from the very beginning again, and then the hon. member for Bronkie still shouts that we “hate the farmers”. Do hon. members know what our object with this legislation is? In 1970 it was our object not to subdivide agricultural land. But now a farmer comes along with 10 000 morgen, one morgen of which he is going to sell to Brickor for the purposes of a stone quarry because it has a good clay deposit there. He can sell that one morgen for R100 000. Must we now refuse that farmer permission or must we do him the favour of allowing him to cut off that one morgen?

May I ask you a question?

But he wants to subdivide. The farmer can do just as he pleases. The hon. member stated that people in the Eastern Cape told him the Government is continuing to place restrictions on the farmers. The farmer can do whatever he likes. Even when a surplus of maize is produced we do not even tell the farmer, who obtains subsidized State water, that he may not plant maize. He can do just as he likes. But now such a farmer can ask whether he may subdivide his farm. We tell him that he can do so, that he can cut off a morgen or even half a morgen to start a brickworks there, or he can sell it to someone who wants to start a brickworks there, but then we must at least impose a condition. That is what the matter ís all about. We do not want to prescribe to that person how he must farm. When we give him permission to cut off a piece of land we just want to link this up to the condition that that piece may only be used for the purpose for which he wants to cut it off, whether it be for a drive-in theatre, a garage, a quarry or whatever the case may be.

And if a person wants to cut 20 000 morgen in half?

We have said repeatedly that if the piece that is cut off is an economic unit, and a decent living can be made on it, this can be done. It goes without saying. The hon. member cannot give me one example where a delay occurred when a person wanted to cut off an economic unit.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he is aware that there is an ordinance operative in the Cape which prohibits any person, including a farmer, from starting a quarry without the permission of the Administrator?

There is such an ordinance; it prohibits people from starting a quarry without permission. But to cut the land off for a quarry is something quite different. Those are two different matters. If I were to walk out here, catch a United Party man, bring him inside and explain the matter to him in five minutes, he would tell me I was benefiting the farmers. But none is so blind as he who will not see. The intention is to give the person the opportunity to utilize his land properly. In 1970 we amended the Act, but in time problems were encountered in its implementation. I said that when the guide plan has been drawn up with respect to the urban complexes, those parts are no longer regarded as agricultural land. That land is then used for the establishment of townships and no longer has anything to do with agriculture. We transfer it to the relevant province, and that is the end of it. We do not waste any more time with it. But now we can have an instance where a person, who has a piece of land outside Prieska, wants to cut off a piece of that land adjoining the tar road because he wants to erect a filling station there and then wants to sell it. In such a case we tell him that he may cut it off on condition that that morgen of land is not cut off for agricultural purposes, but for the specific purpose for which he wants to cut it off. What is so difficult to understand in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question. Would he be so kind as to explain why he could not prescribe that provision in the original subsection 4 (2)? He has now given the example of the person who wants to build a garage, for example. Why is it necessary to come along with this amendment with respect to the object for which and manner in which the relevant money may be used. Obviously the original subsection 4 (2) gave him the powers to prescribe any conditions under which the subdivision can take place. If that is his argument, why then the change?

I subsequently want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this subsection is also going to empower him, where land is merely subdivided on an agricultural basis, to say for what purposes it may be used as far as agriculture is concerned. That is the type of question the hon. the Deputy Minister must answer.

Business interrupted to report progress.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this motion practically lends itself to a threefold object. Within the framework of this motion we are able to express our recognition and appreciation of the steps taken by this Government since assuming power so as to grant self-government to the Bantu homelands ultimately, and of the Government’s purposeful progress, step by step, on this road. Furthermore, this motion may be used and may serve as a means of elucidating and clarifying the confusion at present prevailing within the ranks of the Opposition with regard to relations politics. Consequently I want to express the wish that the speakers from the opposite side who are going to participate in this debate, will give us clarity as to the official standpoint of the official Opposition. In the third place, this motion lends itself to pitting policy against policy in this House on a high level. I think the Government owes the country and the Opposition owes South Africa a statement as to exactly where we stand in respect of our relations politics in South Africa. For that reason I say this motion can practically serve a threefold purpose, as I have just explained.

As regards appreciation of the work which has been done, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my highest appreciation towards the Government, towards the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his predecessors. Furthermore, I should like to express my appreciation and gratitude towards the officials who assist him, and I should like to address a special word of appreciation to those White officials who have been seconded to Bantu homeland governments for the dedicated and tireless work they are doing there in implementing this policy and in leading the homeland governments to independence, and generally for the preparatory work they are doing.

I want to make the statement here that the Government, with the establishment of a form of government for each Bantu people, is giving the White man in South Africa a guarantee that he will retain his identity and his place here in South Africa at all times. It is only on the road of the separate development of the various peoples living within the Republic of South Africa that the White man will be able to retain his place and position here. Therefore I am of the opinion that each White person in South Africa as well as each non-White person who belongs to a people may express his gratitude towards this Government which is leading him on this road. We believe in the right of self-determination of peoples and nations. Now we have afforded each Bantu people the opportunity of gradually being led to a position of determining its destiny itself, of handling its own affairs and of establishing its own government or administration. I want to emphasize the difference between the policy of the National Party Government and that of the United Party. Under the policy of the National Party, with the establishment of a national government for each Bantu people, a Bantu is able to become a postmaster, a secretary of a school board, a prime minister or a minister of the cabinet in his own homeland. He may realize himself to his maximum potential according to his skills and abilities. Now I should like to ask hon. members whether it will be possible for a Bantu to do the same under the federal policy of the United Party? What opportunities does the United Party afford him in the public service? What opportunities does it afford him on any social level within its federal parliament? This is one of the major differences of which we must take cognizance. I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition who are going to participate in this debate to tell us very clearly where they stand in respect of their declared policy of giving eight representatives to the Bantu peoples in one central parliament. I know the hon. member for Transkei does not like us to discuss these matters, but it is in this very field that confusion exists. It is in this regard they wish to keep South Africa in the dark. Hon. members will not believe me, but I have good friends in my constituency who are members of the United Party and they do not want to believe me when I tell them that the official policy of the United Party is to have the Bantu represented in a central parliament by eight Whites. Nor do they want to believe me when I tell them that this is an interim arrangement only and that these representatives will eventually be replaced by non-Whites. They do not want to believe me that the United Party wants to start with eight representatives in the House of Assembly and six in the Senate.

Where do you get that from?

The hon. member asks me where I get it from. I get it from a speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at De Aar on 9th May, 1962. I quote (translation)—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that this will be the position for the “foreseeable future”. But he is not the only one who says this. Mr. Marais Steyn, the hon. member for Yeoville …

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

No, Mr. Speaker, this is a private motion and my time is limited. The hon. members have 70 minutes in which to state their case. I want to refer to the well-known BBC television interview of Mr. Marais Steyn in 1963. At that time he stated very clearly what the policy of the Untied Party would be and that eventually it … [Interjections.] I ask hon. members to deal with this when it is their turn to speak. I ask hon. members to tell me that it is not their policy. At the time of the 1966 election they published a pamphlet on this very subject. The heading of the pamphlet was “Beware of the Bantustans!” The pamphlet contained two reproductions of maps, the one of the National Party’s South Africa, on which they gave the borders of the Bantu homelands according to their own views …

Can you give us the borders?

The hon. member will get the right borders at the right time; he will get them when this Government has completed the work it is now setting about energetically, i.e. the consolidation of the Bantu homelands. On the other map, we had the depiction of the United Party’s South Africa. That map showed only two small black spots, i.e. the two former British Protectorates, Swaziland and Lesotho. For the rest it depicted a White South Africa, a South Africa over which only the flag of the Republic would fly. Why this deception in the pamphlet reflecting the United Party’s policy and containing this statement? Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to express the hope that the United Party will have the courage to tell us today for how long these eight members will remain eight and for how long they will remain White. I must admit in all fairness that the Opposition has told us that this change can be made only after a referendum has been held amongst the White voters in South Africa. We have been told that. Now I want to ask: Is the United Party going to give any guidance in that referendum? Is it going to make a recommendation to the voters and if it is going to make a recommendation, hon. members opposite must tell us when they participate in and reply to this debate what their recommendation to the White voters is going to be. When the National Party held a referendum on the question of South Africa becoming a Republic it asked the voters to vote “yes”. Will hon. members on that side and their party recommend to the voters to vote “no” when it comes to a change of this kind? Then why this pretence? Why not honesty? Why not bear the consequences of their policy? The National Party is experiencing many bottle-necks in the implementation of its policy, but it at least has the courage of its convictions to tell the voters prior to an election what it stands for. Consult every election manifesto issued by the National Party prior to an election. Let me just read out what appeared prior to the 1948 election when this policy was planned.

There were no “Bantu” at that time.

The hon. member may just as well stop trying to be so clever. They were the same people, whether they were called by the same name or not. The National Party said the following in its published election manifesto of 1948 …

White supremacy.

I shall just proceed, Sir. The hon. member for Pinelands can await his turn to speak; he can speak just now and when he does I hope he will state their policy to us. At the moment I am stating the policy of the National Party. If ever there were people who stand for White supremacy, they are those hon. members on the opposite side. It is stated here in their pamphlet: “White leadership over all South Africa”. Why do they play with words?

May I put a question?

No, my time is very limited. Now I shall quote from what appeared in the election manifesto of the National Party in 1948 (translation)—

Therefore, no supremacy in those areas—

Where is the supremacy, Sir? This was contained in the 1948 manifesto. I am going to quote only from this one. Hon. members may refer to all the other elections manifestos themselves. This manifesto continues (translation)—

This, Sir, was how the National Party framed its election manifesto in 1948 and submitted it to the electorate. The electorate approved of it and for that reason it became a mandate. Now we thank this Minister and his predecessors and everyone engaged in implementing this policy for the work which is being done to implement not only that election manifesto but also the instruction of the people of South Africa. Sir, we shall keep on speaking about these things …

Who will?

The National Party will for many years to come, or until such time as the Opposition comes forward with a policy under which the White man’s position is perpetuated and assured, not under this interim policy of eight White representatives for the Bantu in the House of Assembly. Sir, in 1971 we did not pass the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act precipitately, because that Act undeniably placed the Bantu homelands on a road on which they cannot turn back, on which they do not want to turn back, but on which they will develop evolutionary into autonomous, dignified nations and peoples able to decide their own affairs. As far back as 1913—and time does not permit me to go further back into history in order to indicate how these areas originated, but their origin is well known—this Parliament passed legislation in which it laid down this principle of separateness between the White people and the non-White peoples in South Africa when it placed a statute on the Statute Book for preventing the alienation of Bantu tribal land. In 1936 this Parliament passed legislation which irrevocably bound the White man of this country in his honour …

[Inaudible.]

I should very much like to hear the standpoint of that hon. member. I hope he is going to participate in this debate and I should very much like to hear his standpoint in particular. Sir, I say in 1936 this Parliament passed legislation for extending and consolidating the Bantu areas; for enlarging the recognized Bantu homeland land from 6 209 857 ha to 15 417 556 ha, which exceeds the size of the Bantu tribal land at that time by 7¼ million. Sir, I ask the United Party to tell me what its official standpoint is in respect of this Act. I want to say here today that the National Party, for as long as it is in power, will continue to purchase this land it has undertaken to purchase and to consolidate it with the Bantu homelands. [Interjections.] Those hon. members will have an opportunity just now to tell me where they stand. They are the people who always pretend to be so moral; let us hear where they stand in respect of this matter, because there are whisperings amongst members of the United Party that all this land should not be purchased. We shall continue purchasing this land. Sir, in this way this Government also caused the following Acts to be passed by this Parliament: The Bantu Authorities Act, 1951; the Bantu Education Act, 1953; the Promotion of the Development of Bantu Homelands Act; the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, 1970— because these states must be linked to citizenship and to a homeland — and the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act, 1971. We progressed step by step and led the Bantu peoples to such self-government as is vested in them today. Sir, it is only on this road that one can assure the position of the Whites here, in so far as it is within the power of humans to do so. If it is to be our fate, we shall not be able to change it, but may it never be said of us that it was our fault that the White man’s future here had not been guaranteed, not for the sake of ourselves, but in the interests of South Africa, because it is in the interests of South Africa that a place be ensured here for the White man, but at the same time we want to give the Black man a place where he can fully realize himself and not become a threat to the White man in this Parliament and through this Parliament. Only then can the White man be an asset as light-bearer for the Christian, Western civilization, not only in South Africa but also in Africa to which he will be called to bear that light.

In conclusion I should like to say that it is of the most vital importance to the free Western world to have a strong, established White community here, and for that reason I trust that we shall discuss this motion in the serious light which is called for and that we shall be honest with the voters outside so that we may know where we stand the one as against the other when we pit policy against policy here in South Africa. Sir, only then will the White man in South Africa serve as a nucleus for activating our neighbouring states into forming a bulwark against Communism which is threatening our gateways every day.

I have looked several times, during the hon. member’s speech, at the terms of the motion. I thought I had prepared for the wrong motion altogether. I timed the hon. member. He started talking at 12 o’clock and he spoke about United Party policy until 12.15 p.m., asking what our policy was in regard to the eight representatives and what we were going to tell the people when the referendum was held. From 12.15 p.m. until 12.18 p.m. he dealt with National Party policy and read through a whole list of Acts which they passed in pursuance of that policy and he also then dealt with the 1913 Act and the 1936 Act, and then he went back again to the “toe-koms van die Witman”. This motion does not mention anything about the future of the White man. If he reads his speech he will find that he has not dealt with this motion whatsoever. I think after he put this motion on the order paper, they realized that there was an election in Oudtshoorn and he had to make a speech for Oudtshoorn, but there was not one word about the motion.

Are you speaking to the motion now?

I am dealing with your speech. The hon. member wants me to get to the motion. It is quite obvious from all these challenges that the last thing the hon. member wanted was to get on to National Party policy. He starts off with the 1913 and the 1936 Land Act passed by the old South African Party in 1913 and by the United Party in 1936. That is now the basis of their policy, the Land Acts passed in 1913 and in 1936. The only credible thing he said about their policy was that they still intended carrying out the terms of the 1936 Act. But I want to remind the hon. member that part of the 1936 Act was that the Africans should have representation in this House, and what did they do with that? They scrapped it.

Yes, because this is a White man’s Parliament.

All the promises we have had now, all the waving of arms, “ons sal daar vasstaan”, we will carry out this policy, the National Party has always been loyal to the 1913 and the 1936 Acts—Sir, I should like to remind them of what happened before 1948, before they came into power. I would like to remind them of a pamphlet issued by Mr. De Wet Nel, then secretary of the H.N.P., on 12th April, 1944. I just happen to have it with me at the moment. This was put out in English and it said: “Where are we going? Are such things possible in South Africa?” The third paragraph of it says—

Buying land for Natives! Now we are asked to abide by the 1936 Act. We are asked to state our policy. This motion has nothing to do with our policy. In any event, how many more times must we in this House tell them what our policy is? In the No-Confidence Debate I was challenged about the same thing and I spent the last five minutes of my speech then telling them exactly about the representation by the eight Whites. I am not going to repeat it every time. [Interjections.] They know very well what our policy is. Let me get on to this motion, to their policy. What does this motion mean? Let us dissect this motion. The first part reads that this House takes cognizance of the manner in which the Government has over the past years taken steps to bring about a national Government for each homeland. How has it acted, what has it done? Its purpose is, as the hon. member said, to bring about a national government in each homeland. What is a national government? Here, in South Africa and in the Government’s context, all it means is a tribal government for each homeland. That is all it is going to be. Seven in the Republic and two in South-West Africa have already been given what is known as self-government. Let us deal with the most advanced of these homelands, because we are asked to take cognizance of the manner in which the Government has developed them. Let us take the Transkei. The Transkei has a Legislative Assembly with a Cabinet. It has Ministers with executive powers. What a tortuous route it has been for them to have attained this status! In 1948, when the National Party took over, there was a general council system, what was known as the old Bunga, in the Transkei. That was a system of representation through district councils and elected members to the general council. In Pondoland there was a different form, because there councillors were appointed, but they had a general council. In 1947 Gen. Smuts said that he was going to give this Bunga executive powers, even the power of taxation. He used the word “portfolio”—he said they could have portfolios. Nothing was done, because unfortunately he lost the election. I must stress that unfortunately for the country he lost the election. Nothing was done by this Government until 1951, when the Bantu Authorities Act was passed bringing into being tribal and regional authorities and a territorial council. In the same Act they deprived the Africans of their representation in this Parliament.

Which they had since 1936.

The Transkei refused to accept that form of government. They said: You can have your authorities, but do not give it to us. After intensive campaigning by senior officials of the Government—I was in the Transkei at the time—they eventually persuaded members of the Bunga to agree to abolish the Bunga and to accept a form of government based on the Bantu Authorities Act, but not the same. It was done by special proclamation.

Were they consulted?

They were consulted, yes. What is wrong with that?

And you say we never do it.

Do not talk nonsense.

They then abolished the Bunga and accepted this form of government which was almost thrust upon them by the National Party. But what happened? The Transkei then saw its bloodiest period of lawlessness that it had ever experienced; Pondoland was in revolt against the system. The Police were unable to handle the matter on their own and eventually the Army and the Air Force were called in. They were stationed in Pondoland to try to quell the disturbances. Proclamation No. 400 was passed and it still remains in force. The disturbances were eventually settled when the Government offered to appoint a commission of inquiry.

The Van Heerden Commission was then appointed. This commission reported, and what they reported we who lived there all knew, i.e. that there was dissatisfaction and opposition to the form of government. The Government under Dr. Verwoerd then embarked on a new scheme and they produced the Transkei Constitution giving them the self-government which they now enjoy with a Legislative Assembly. With this constitution, too, they were given a flag. I wonder what that flag means to 99 per cent of the people of the Transkei. What does it mean? It also gave them a paper citizenship. This was not given to them only but the Government extended it to other Bantu homelands. Bantu throughout the country will now have some other form of citizenship besides that of the Republic. Of what value is that citizenship to them? The only citizenship worthwhile having is citizenship of the Republic and they know it. The citizenship they have is quite meaningless, as Chief Buthelezi said the other day. He said: “What sort of citizenship is this; citizenship of a nowhere country?”. I was pleased to see that this hon. member, who moved the motion, was sufficiently of a realist in this debate not to thank the Government or to move that the House approve of what the Government has done. All he asked was just to take note of what they are doing. He does that, I submit, because so many people, even in his own ranks now, are being critical. He would have looked a bit foolish, had he asked us to approve of what the Government is doing.

The Prime Minister has given several invitations to these Bantu homelands to approach him for independence. Well, there has been no response yet. The only Reserve which could faintly hope to aspire to an independent state, is the Transkei. There the opposition party is vehemently opposed to independence. The Chief Minister, Kaiser Matanzima, the Leader of the pro-government party, says he will not ask for independence until his land problems are settled, because he wants more land. The Prime Minister of the Republic is vowing that he will not get the land he has asked for. Therefore you have a stalemate. Other Bantu leaders have responded to the Government’s offer of self-government because they have no option. If they do not take what the Government offers, then they get absolutely nothing. The hon. member’s motion says that the policy is one of self-determination. He said that by self-determination is meant leading them up to managing their own affairs. But that is not what is meant by self-determination. When I asked the Prime Minister in this House what he meant by self-determination, when he spoke about granting it to these people, I asked whether they are given any choice. Can they choose to become separate states or to remain in the Republic as part of and citizens of the Republic? He said no. They have no choice. They either go on their way to independence according to the policy of the Government or they remain as they are now, stateless citizens just as the Coloureds and the Indians are. That is not self-determination.

Do you think the Whites in South Africa do not have self-determination?

Of course the Whites have self-determination; but the Bantu certainly have not self-determination. They are not given any choice in the matter.

Why don’t you define self-determination?

Self-determination is that you determine what you are going fro be and where you are going. This Government has become a colonial power. It has no colonies, but it is starting to split up its own country to make colonies in order to shed its troubles as the metropolitan powers did in Africa. This multiracial state in which we live has become too much of a problem for this Nationalist Government. They would like to rid themselves of the problems by saying: “You can be independent. We will get rid of you as the colonial powers got rid of their appendices overseas.” When they won the election in 1948, the National Party wanted separation, but they had never visualized complete separation. The first time we heard of it after years of apartheid was when Dr. Verwoerd mentioned it in the Senate.

[Inaudible.]

This hon. Chief Whip was here in the House with me when Dr. Malan denied that it was their policy. He denied that it was their policy and said it was an idea.

Ultimate independence was implicit in the Manifesto.

When Dr. Verwoerd was made Minister of Native Affairs the game was on. He set out trying to bring about the separation. When he found he could not get rid of the urban Bantu, he changed his tactics. No longer was there to be just complete physical separation; now it was going to become a system of bringing about a theoretical separation. We were to be separated on paper. So he announced his policy of independent states, without, as we are told, even discussing the matter with the caucus. Certainly the country was never told that he was going to give them the status of independent nations. Each reserve or homeland was going to become independent, and every black man living in the country would become the citizen of a homeland and cease to be a citizen of South Africa. If he is not a citizen of South Africa he will have no rights here; if he has no rights here, he does not exist. We imagine he is not really in South Africa. That is what the Nationalist Government has asked us to accept.

You are just talking a lot of nonsense, really.

It is the absolute truth.

The second part of his motion reads—

We have always been inter-dependent upon each other. It is nothing new; it is not United Party policy that we must be interdependent. We do not welcome the fact as he says here, that we must be interdependent. The fact is, we are inter-dependent. What does he mean by “the principle of inter-dependence between them … is being realized”?

He did not say.

He did not say a word about it. I was waiting to hear what this principle was. [Interjections.] I listened when he was speaking. Not a word was said about it.

The Fagan Commission which was appointed by the United Party and reported in 1947, made it quite clear then that we are dependent on one another, and we will continue to be that. Is the Government now trying to tell the country that it is succeeding in a policy of making us interdependent? Is this what we must understand by the motion? Must we welcome “the fact that the principle of inter-dependence between them and the Government of the Republic is being realized”? Because they fail in the general policy which they intended to apply, they are now trying to tell the country that, although that has failed, they have succeeded in making the homelands dependent on the White areas and the White areas dependent on the homelands. Is that now to be the case; is that the new claim they are going to make at Oudtshoorn? I say this motion is absolutely meaningless. I waited to hear the member justify it. He has done nothing of the sort. We certainly will not oppose this motion, because we have taken note of the disaster this Government has brought upon us and of the disastrous policy it is following. We and the country have taken notice of that and that is why the people are now turning against the Government. We have taken cognizance of the failure of the Government’s policy. This motion does not ask us to approve of it; it does not ask us to thank the Government for it; we just take note. We also take note of the fact that the principle of inter-dependence, which is the basis of our policy, is being accepted by the Government.

You would have noticed, Sir, that that part of the speech made by the hon. member for Transkei during which he flung his arms about the most and spoke in the loudest tones was when he was censuring the hon. member for Wolmaransstad for having said that we will afford them an opportunity of stating their policy. He was terribly annoyed because we afforded them this opportunity of stating their policy. Surely one must, if you are in politics, and if you present yourself as an alternative Government which could take over tomorrow or the next day, welcome every minute you have in which to state your policy. That hon. member said: “No, I am not going to avail myself of that opportunity; what have you done to me by affording me such an opportunity? Surely you cannot do a thing like that to me.” The hon. member for Transkei was very unhappy about that. Apart from the wording of the motion, if anyone leaves a gap like that for me, I slip through it as no centre could ever slip through a gap. But that hon. member complains if such an opportunity is offered to him.

I want to ask that hon. member something: He says that we are giving the Bantu in this country so-called self-determination, but that it does not exist.

You are not giving it to them.

He did not say that.

We are not giving it to them? No, the hon. member said so, and the hon. member for Maitland must not chip in now. The hon. member for Transkei and I are having a discussion now, and he said that we are not giving it to them. We are telling them what their governments should look like, it is being alleged. Does that side of the House want to give the Black people in this country self-determination or not? [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite do not want to do so. If self-determination is important to the entire nation, surely it is important that the Opposition should also ascertain the opinion of the Black man on the future they have in mind for the Black man. You are not giving them a choice.

But that is the basis of our policy.

Listen to me for a moment. The basis is consultation, but what did that hon. member himself say in this House?

What about the interim?

I am still coming to the interim. I am so glad of the opportunity to say something about it. In 1971 the hon. member for Transkei, who supposedly does all this consulting, said the following (Hansard, volume 32, column 1545)—

Which the Government did in fact do—

They can go hang, but we will not give them a chance to decide on their own future. Then that hon. member still talks about consultation. What does consultation help if he wants to prescribe to these people in this way? [Interjections.]

Order!

Consultation is of no use at all if those hon. members want to prescribe to these people in this way.

But I want to return to the fact that one should really avail oneself of the opportunity of stating one’s policy. Last year on 21st November the Cape Times still had the following to say—

That was only a few months ago. They went on to say—

A lack of clarity need not be a liability—

That was said only last year. But when we afford them an opportunity of discussing policy, that hon. member is angry and does not do so. If one looks at the wording of the hon. member’s motion in regard to the granting of national governments to the Bantu peoples in South Africa, one can also approach it from this angle, i.e. by taking note of the basic principles in regard to the granting of national governments. We must consider the implications of the basic principles in this matter every time. We must argue this matter on its principles. This is where we want those hon. gentlemen to consider the implications of their principles as well. The first principle I want to mention is that here in South Africa there is a variety of Bantu peoples, each associated with a specific area and each with a distinctive nature and distinctive characteristics.

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

Mr. Speaker, for lack of time I shall not even summarise what I said before the adjournment. I come at once to the second principle according to which national governments are granted to Bantu homelands, and which is inseparably associated with the previous one: separate peoples but peoples which were historically linked to a specific part of the territory of South Africa. Post-Union rulers were already recognizing this policy when, from 1913 onwards, they set aside in certain legislation the territory for the Bantu, and increased its extent in other legislation. Thirdly, the granting of national governments, as it is stated in the motion, also rests on the principle that every nation with its historical homeland as a base, is entitled to political self-realization. Participation in the State administration to the highest level is the right of every nation and the Government on this side of the House is prepared to give it to them. With separated political rights we know that they will eventually have their own Parliament which they will control, and that we will have the White Parliament which we will control. There were deviations from this policy when the Bantu moved out of the territory allocated to them and occupied, in increasing numbers, the territory belonging to the Whites. The idea began to take root that the Bantu, apart from the exclusive rights they had in their own territory, could also eventually lay claim to certain rights in the White area. So it consequently came about that certain political rights were eventually given to the Bantu in the White Parliament, although at that time these were still limited. I am mentioning this to point out to hon. members that eventually the point has been reached where a choice had to be made between the maintenance of separate ethnic communities, identified with their homelands on the basis of the original objectives, and the development of a single multi-racial community, an integrated community, the acceptance of which in politics would force a person eventually to incorporate them in all the different walks of life. Then, too, the various pieces of legislation passed by this side of the House over the years, from 1951 with the introduction of the Bantu Authorities Act to the legislation we had last year, the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act, are only links in the chain of a distinctive political authority for the Bantu peoples, each in its own homeland, and an exclusive say for the Whites in their Parliament.

Having said this one could ask, if one did not want to recognize those three principles I mentioned at the outset, what the alternative is? What other course should one then adopt? The course one should then adopt is the course presented by that side of the House. The first concept I want to state in contrast to multi-nationality is the concept of that side of the House of “one nation, one country, and one loyalty”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition once said the following, and I am quoting from Hansard of 1961, col. 7559—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member, in terms of Standing Order No. 113, allowed to read his speech?

I may read a quotation, in case the hon. member does not know that. He would do well to read the Standing Orders. I read further:

I repeat that it was the Leader of the Opposition who said this. But only last year the hon. member for East London City said:

I want to contrast the two statements. That side of the House says: “One nation, one country, and one loyalty” as a result of which the Bantu will eventually be given representation in this House. Opposed to homeland governments as is stated in the motion, we have from that side the right of representation for the Bantu peoples in this House as well …

What about the communal council?

… owing to their race federation policy which eventually crystallized into a more definite form in 1962—I say “more definite”. The principle is also accepted that a race group cannot be given other representation in this Parliament than eventual representation by his own people. This we also have from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In Hansard of 1963, col. 277, he states:

Now it is being pretended that we were responsible for that. Previously that little codicil was not attached. That has always been the attitude of that side of the House.

So I can go on but my time, as I said, is limited. The hon. member for Yeoville, apart from the famous television interview, said that Blacks are eventually going to be represented by their own people in this House. As recently as this year the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that he was opposed to those people being represented anywhere by any other people than their own. He spoke of a fool’s paradise. Those are actually words which the Prime Minister used, and with which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout agreed. It is interesting to note that the eight representatives the Bantu are to receive in this House have to disappear at some stage or another because they will be here as an interim measure. If this is to be an interim measure, and it is accepted that they are going to disappear—the Whites are going to disappear and are going to be replaced by Blacks, or their numbers are going to be increased—then surely it is no use pretending to the electorate of South Africa that that party, with a referendum or with an election, has the right to have a say in regard to that matter. It has already been decided here that it will only be an interim measure.

In addition there is this important question: Where are they eventually going to have representation—in the consultation parliament or eventually in the federal parliament, the umbrella parliament? At what price is the Opposition going to buy back the homelands into their federation if a homeland has already been granted its independence? With eight members? It makes no difference whether it is 8, 20 or a 120 members, for part of the sovereignty of this Parliament will in that way have to be relinquished. In a unitary state the authority of the Whites in this Parliament will be undermined.

You must write a pamphlet for Oudtshoorn.

We are making progress, for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is already recognizing separate peoples. The United Party is accepting the possibility that Bantu states can become independent and will want to have nothing to do with their federation. We are making progress therefore, but people who think they are on the road to victory, must seize upon an opportunity such as this to state their policy and they must state clearly where those eight representatives are going to sit, under what circumstances they are going to change, and what the representation will be in that umbrella Parliament of all the 17 groups which will eventually be present here. As Whites who are at present controlling this Parliament, we want a guarantee that we will also in future have the say here.

Mr. Speaker, one can perhaps understand the note of agitation with which the debate has been conducted so far by the hon gentlemen on the other side of the House, more particularly when it comes to the questions which have been put to us in regard to what our recommendations might be to the electorate in the event of any changes being envisaged in United Party policy and in their references to what they describe as the “interim policy” of the United Party. One can understand that it comes from the hon. member for Germiston, who has just spoken, because the recommendations of the United Party in regard to the representation of non-Whites in Parliament have recently been put to the electorate of this country. It has not been put to all of them, but it has been put to large areas. In the constituency of the hon. member for Germiston in particular this question of the recommendations has been put to the voters. [Interjections.] Recently the present recommendations were put in the municipal elections in Germiston and what was the result? A substantial slide of opinion in favour of those recommendations. [Interjections.]

You can put them in Oudtshoorn.

They will be put in Oudtshoorn as well.

We shall see.

And in Caledon.

Just as we have done on this occasion we put to the electorate the recommendations of the United Party which are that there should be White representatives for the Bantu people in this House and in the same way in the future the recommendations of the United Party will be put to the electorate. I have no doubt that they will be received as well as in the past elections.

That is an interim measure.

I am always surprised that the hon. gentlemen opposite have not learnt the danger of predicting the future so far as their policy is concerned, with such glee. We have just been told that we are the “baasskap party” because we stand for White political leadership in South Africa. This motion, whatever it might mean, but I shall refer to that later, is used as a vehicle which is very popular among hon. members opposite and that is to pose the all or nothing policy, the pure Black or the pure White policy which we hear so often in regard to Government policy. I do wish the hon. gentlemen would look ahead a little bit, particularly when they accuse us of being the representatives of “baaskap” in South Africa. Is it not realized that by the end of this century the majority of the people in White South Africa will not be White even though every Black man has been sent back to the Black areas, but they will be Coloureds and Asiatics if the present rate of birth amongst them continues? They will be Coloureds and Asiatics and what are hon. members going to do then? In this debate and with motions of this kind, the Black and the White are posed. That is simple, anybody can deal with that problem, but what about the real problem which these gentlemen will be faced with? What are they going to do then and what is their formula then for what will be the majority of people in South Africa?

Let us come back to this motion. We were asked by the proposer of the motion how the United Party would deal with the undoubted increasing aspirations of the Bantu people in South Africa. He mentioned the example that we have Black magistrates in the Native areas at the present time. He said that Black men are occupying positions of that kind. You do not have to achieve an independent state to give advancement to the Non-European. We have a Black magistrate in South Africa at the present time and not a single Black state is in existence. All you have at the present time, and that you have in every Black area, is an advanced form of local self-government. In many respects the positions of the present time are as consistent with a federal arrangement as with the ultimate role of the hon. gentlemen opposite. I have no doubt that the United Party will handle the advancement of the Bantu people in South Africa, which will gradually take place, in that sphere. It will be done in the same way as the Government will have to deal with similar advances and aspirations amongst the Indian and the Coloured people who under their scheme will forever remain a part of the White State. Indeed, at the present time …

What is going to be the composition of your federal Parliament?

Let me come to the hon. the Minister of Transport. He has given a lead on how to handle the aspirations of the Black people in the economic sphere and in employment. Here I have an article from the Natal Mercury of 21st February last year. The headlines read: “End seen to restrictions in South African Railways jobs”.

I am asking what the composition of your federal Parliament is going to be.

I am talking to that hon. gentleman. We were asked specifically how we would deal with the aspirations of these people in the field of employment. I quote the hon. Minister of Transport as an example of how this can be dealt with in a unitary State:

A clearer statement of the United Party’s policy you could not wish to hear. Then he goes on to say:

Why do you not answer the question?

This is precisely the way the United Party will handle this problem, and to suggest to the country that these problems will not arise when you have established a number of Black states in this country, is simply to mislead them on a difficult aspect of our administration. This will take place under a United Party Government and it is taking place under this Government at the present time.

Won’t you reply to my question?

One of the great advantages of the federal principle, the federal solution which we offer and which is the devolution of power to the maximum in respect of the various race groups, is that you can provide immediately within the short term a tremendous increase in the number of executive positions which will be open to the various non-White peoples of this country.

Can you not reply to that question?

Can I not reply to what?

To the composition of your federal Parliament.

I shall come to the question of the federal Parliament of the United Party.

When?

I want to look at something for a moment …

After Oudtshoorn.

One thing I can guarantee is that the hon. Minister of Tourism will not be asked to speak at Oudtshoorn. [Interjections.] Perhaps that is why he is still in this House. The hon. gentleman opposite forgets, and I am not surprised, the motion that we are supposed to be speaking on. I think we ought to look at it. When you read this motion, you realize why the two speakers who have spoken on the government side have skated as quickly as possible over this subject. It is a most curious thing and I quote:

That is the first part. It does not say that this House welcomes the progress which has been made or that it praises the Minister for what he has done in this regard, or that it thanks the government for providing this essential saviour of the White man. There is none of that in that motion; there is no enthusiasm, no praise, no welcome, but it merely says: “this House takes cognisance of … A less enthusiastic manner of expressing appreciation for what the Government has done, one could not have imagined, not even if we, on this side, tried to do it. Then we go on to read that it is to “bring about a national government for each Bantu homeland …”—a “volksregering”, but what is this “volksregering” or a national government? First of all, a Government I would have thought is something with considerable executive functions and not a subordinate legislative body which we have at the present time. The phrase that I do not understand is “a national government”. Then it goes on to welcome: “the fact that the principle of interdependence between them …”—presumably these governments—and “the Government of the Republic is being realized”. I would have thought that they would have expressed sorrow that there is the measure of interdependence which exists at the present time, because interdependence between the Governments of those territories and ourselves or interdependence between the people of those territories and ourselves, whether it is on a political or an economic level, is the very opposite of what their philosophy is designed to bring about. This is what the hon. gentlemen have been trying to do during the last 23 years.

Where did the policy start? It was to get the Black people back to the Reserves, not all of them but the majority of them. That is what the policy was for—to get Black labour out of the White economy—because we have heard over and over again that economic power to the Black man in the White area would automatically mean political power for him. Sir, the other thing was consolidation of the Bantu territories. This was the hard core of National Party philosophy. Sir, what success has there been in any of these three respects? The Blacks are not going back to the Reserves; they are coming in increasing numbers to White South Africa. The year 1978 has been forgotten; the reduction of 5 per cent a year in the number of Blacks in the White areas has been forgotten. What is the position in regard to labour in South Africa? To an ever-increasing extent the Blacks—and in this connection I have quoted the biggest employer of non-White labour, the Railways—are being bound up in the White economy; and so far as consolidation of the territories is concerned, I have a stack of learned journals here that I could quote, all supporting the Government’s philosophy, saying that consolidation was the essential key to the whole philosophy and how the Government must take the people into their confidence, tell them what the sacrifices are, gather up their strength and go forward and do it. What has happened, Sir? Virtually nothing. The Prime Minister, in his own utterances, has prevented this essential part of Government policy coming into effect; he pins himself to the 1936 Land Act, and in the Transvaal alone, if the whole quota under the 1936 Act were to be purchased tomorrow, there would not be sufficient land to consolidate the Bantu areas in the Transvaal—one province alone. In the Prime Minister’s own policy, therefore, is the prevention of its fulfilment. Sir, there is one factor which I think one must bear in mind, and this is where the utterances of hon. gentlemen opposite go completely off the rails: Attention is given by the National Party only to a political solution. We are led to believe that when once you have established the Bantu governments and in the eyes of the Nationalist Party you have settled the political problem, then all the problems in regard to race in South Africa are dealt with. But, Sir, if I may say so, that is only half the cake. Under their policy, when the Bantu governments are established and when the political solution has been achieved in the eyes of hon. gentlemen opposite, we still have millions upon millions of Black people living and working in South Africa and, Sir, what are the problems that still remain?

Without any political rights in White South Africa. They are citizens of their own homelands.

I am arguing on that basis. I accept that we have achieved all that. Sir, what is solved? You have solved half the problem, but what is the other problem which you still have to solve, whether they have political rights here or whether they have political rights in the Transkei? That problem is their mere presence in the White area and the problems which arise out of their mere presence: their position in our economy; the jobs they can do and the jobs that they cannot do; the social problems which arise; the housing and where the housing is to be; their recreation and where they are to enjoy their recreational facilities; the beaches they are to use; the transport they are to use, their hospitalization and their education. You see, Sir, none of this is solved by the political solution which hon. gentlemen opposite give us. The pressures will be there and the problems will be there, whether this Government achieves its goal of political independence for these people or not. None of the rest of it, Sir, is dealt with in any respect whatever, and all those problems will still be with us together with the problems which will arise out of the existence of these independent states. Let me give one example. Let us hope that it never happens, but let us look at the possibility that the young men of South Africa who have gone through their military training have to be called up because of trouble on our borders and that we have to call up 100 000 or 200 000 of our young men to form our permanent army. This is a possibility which exists. We already have in South Africa a desperate shortage of White men when it comes to filling the jobs in our economy, and were we to call up our young men, who then would fill the jobs in the economy which is keeping that army in the field? Who would fill those jobs but the non-Europeans who are living in the country? And, Sir, these hon. gentlemen jeer at the Leader of the United Party when he says that we must develop a common patriotism here; that we must draw the allegiance of all the people living in this country, whether they are White, Brown or Black.

Integration.

Sir, whose point of view, in the circumstance which I have posed, when we would really have our backs to the wall, is more practical and more far-sighted for the wellbeing of this country than the point of view which the Leader of the Opposition has expressed over and over again, and where does the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite assist us to meet the problems which will arise?

Order! The hon. members for Marico and Moorreesburg must not conduct a debate from one side of the House across to the other.

I believe, Sir, that that point has been made. The successful fulfilment of the philosophy of independent states by hon. gentlemen opposite contributes nothing towards solving the problems which would arise were South Africa to find itself—which Heaven forbid—in this type of trouble which I have just mentioned. It would merely, in our view, accentuate the dangers which exist.

Sir, what are the fallacies of the solution which hon. gentlemen opposite pose to us over and over again from that side of the House? They say: “Look at India; the Moslems and the Hindus couldn’t live together; they had to have partition, and wherever you go around the world you will find that there are a variety of races or religious groups that do not get on well together; partition is the solution.” That is fine in theory where you have a complete social structure within each racial group from the labouring class, the broad base of the pyramid, to the executive at the top. But, Sir, in South Africa you do not have that. You have that amongst the various Bantu races because they are a complete society in themselves from the broad base of the working man to the executive, if you like, at the top. But amongst the White group that broad-based pyramid no longer exists. We are the top part of the pyramid and for our very survival we are based upon a broad base of a pyramid which is not White. Sir, if you take away that part of our pyramid which is not White, which the philosophy of hon. gentlemen opposite demands, then the White pyramid collapses to the ground. Our situation cannot be compared with those in India or Ireland, or any other part of the world. We have got to survive with the assistance, in the economic sphere if no other, of the non-European. We on this side of the House, therefore, say that you must look to the federal solution. I believe that that is the only solution which can deal with these problems.

Sir, I think the best reply to the hon. member’s speech is the fact that he was unable to reply to the question put to him by the hon. the Minister of Transport. He spoke for 20 minutes, and twice he said, “I shall reply to that”. It is significant, too, that the hon. member for Transkei was unable to reply to it. I want to suggest that hon. members on the opposite side are ashamed to state their policy in this House, for they know how many different senior front-benchers on that side have, during the past year alone, given different interpretations to their policy.

Read the motion.

I shall not go into that any further, specifically as a result of the wording of the motion, but I just want to say this in conclusion about the hon. member’s speech. I really hoped, because we should like to debate this matter with hon. members opposite, that the hon. member would express just one positive idea, but for 20 minutes we had to listen to a negative speech. I shall leave the hon. member at that. I just find it a great pity that I cannot debate this matter with the hon. member for Pinelands today, but in 15 minutes there is no possibility of that. But I do want to come to the hon. member for Turffontein who at times is so clever and who at times wants to make such clever interjections as “They do not want independence”, as he said before supper today. I just want to refer the hon. member for Turffontein to the only authority from among the Bantu peoples of South Africa whom he, and most of his party, take any notice of, although fortunately not all. This is the leader of the Zulus, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. I just want to tell this hon. member what this person says about his party’s policy, and I quote here from Dagbreek of 25th October, 1970. This is verbatim (translation)—

But I want to quote something else. It seems to me the hon. member is already not feeling too well—

This is now a reference to a speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at Pietermaritzburg—

Then he went further, and said this of the hon. members opposite—

Then I just want to quote the last section—

That is the hon. member who is so fond of making interjections, but I should like to steer this debate back to the positive aspect. It seems to me the hon. member for North Rand is not feeling too well now either.

More than anything this motion contrasts the following: Firstly, the National Party as realistic and dynamic thinkers, as opposed to the United Party, in regard to whom the following appeared on 22nd August, 1971, in the Sunday Times—

The National Party is realistic because the National Party realizes that no Christian conscience can justify 15½ million Bantu having for all time to be satisfied to be governed by 4½ million Whites. That is not ethically acceptable, and since the Bantu have at the same time traditionally had their own territories, this creates, without problems, an opportunity for the autogenous development of every Bantu nation, and it is indeed possible as well to allow every nation to develop, according to its own choice, to full independence. The United Party, on the other hand, clings to a policy of permanent subservience to and dependence on the Whites. White leadership is proposed for everything, and no future whatsoever for independent development is offered to the Bantu. That is the contrast. It is a policy without a future, and it is accepted by no one, except the U.P. itself. It is not accepted at home or abroad, by Whites or non-Whites.

What about Brakpan?

In overseas countries the U.P. members are laughed unashamedly to scorn over this policy of theirs and you may as well ask some of the hon. members opposite what their experience has been in this connection.

What about your policy?

I am stating our policy. The National Party does not begrudge the same freedoms which it allows itself and demands for itself, viz. sovereign independence, to all the other different Bantu groups we are discussing at the moment, and that is also why it is steering those peoples in the direction of full independence by making that possible for them, inter alia, by means of these national governments mentioned in the motion. The United Party on the other hand denies the right of the Bantu to separate freedoms. If one considers the debacle which developed when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout began to talk about separate freedoms, it is quite astonishing. Unfortunately I do not have the time to quote everything, but I just want to refer to the November, 1971, edition of New Nation where he referred to these separate freedoms of the Bantu, and where the hon. member for Bezuidenhout pointed out that according to him and according to United Party policy, South Africa was a multi-national country, and that multi-national development would take place, and that this was United Party policy. If he wants to deny it, I just want to quote this—

Now none of the hon. members on the opposite side have anything to say, Sir.

There is nothing wrong with it.

Then the hon. member goes further by way of question and answer. Here is a further answer—

Thus Mr. Japie Basson, who says that this is the United Party standpoint—

[Interjections.] What is more, the hon. member then goes further and says that this is already a generally acceptable standpoint, not only of the members of the United Party, but also of influential newspapers, English-language newspapers, and also most of the Bantu leaders in South Africa. And immediately after this had happened the hon. member for Turffontein jumped onto the bandwagon again, and said he thought it was an excellent idea. He said—

And what happened then? When the hon. member for Bezuidenhout expressed the same view at their congress—and I am quoting here from Rapport of 14th November—what happened then (translation)?

Streicher motionless as a gate post. Graaff sits hunched over and brooding. Mitchell studies an invisible fly.

And now the hon. member for Transkei is also studying an invisible fly. That was the reaction. Unfortunately I do not have the time to make further quotations in this regard. But the response from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was immediate—

That is what the party on the opposite side is trying to offer. But this policy of the National Party, as opposed to this debacle to which we have referred, is the only ethically justifiable policy.

Thirteen per cent for 70 per cent.

An important result of this will be that the different peoples and states … [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Stilfontein must keep quiet for a bit.

An important result of this will be that the different peoples and states will to a great extent be interdependent.

Will?

Yes. They will be interdependent. I know the hon. member for Maitland is at least trying to listen. In respect of this matter as well the motion contrasts again the economic decolonizing action of the National Party policy as opposed to the economic imperialism of the United Party policy. This is an important aspect to which the hon. member for Maitland could well give attention. The United Party believes in perpetual White leadership and the permanent dependence of the Bantu as against the Whites. There will be no political independence, and consequently no economic independence either. The National Party, on the other hand, believes in full political development of the Bantu and consequently, attendant on that, economic decolonization which leads to economic independence. This is however an end result which cannot be achieved because a tremendous amount of economic development still has to take place before political independence as such can be established. That is the full concept. I know the hon. member for Maitland would like to argue this matter.

Economic stability is an important prerequisite for political stability, and as soon as it is achieved, the ideal of political independence can be achieved, which again gives rise to economic independence. Understood under this concept is the right to conclude contracts on a basis of equality. Now, this must not again be misinterpreted politically.

Never! We will not do that. [Interjections.]

This concept of economic independence, which will be the direct consequence of National Party policy, creates a situation of interdependence, as is stated in the motion. I hope the hon. member listened to that. This position creates this situation, as is stated in the motion. The United Party policy can never lead to such interstate dependence, because it denies the Bantu the right to full development, and no sensible person accepts this aspect of the United Party’s policy either. When we discuss this interdependence mentioned in the motion, it is a matter which has a number of facets of which I want to mention only a few.

In the first place I want to mention the matter of labour. It is true that as a result of the flow of Bantu to our urban areas there are serious political, social and economic problems which arise from that. These problems can only be solved by economic co-operation whereby the necessary economic viability is created in the different areas so that economically active people can be accommodated in the labour markets of the different areas. We accept that to a large extent we are dependent on Bantu labour. This has never been denied by anyone. We also accept that we will for many decades to come have to provide work for the Bantu outside their areas, to workers of the various Bantu nations, precisely because of the economic situation which exists in their areas. However, because we accept their political independence as the end result it is imperative that everyone should realize and understand that all such workers are in our area solely on a casual basis, and that there can never be any possibility of permanent residential rights. All Bantu in White urban areas are here only on a casual basis, and no provision of any Act can be interpreted differently.

That is not true.

But you are dreaming, man. You do not keep up with the facts.

Such provision of employment must take place on a contractual basis without any prospects whatsoever of permanency.

But you know that that is not true.

There are other debates in which we can argue this matter further.

Old Bronkie has only just woken up.

The economic and political development of the homelands is, as far as I am concerned, a prerequisite for an orderly labour market in South Africa. However, it is not only the task of the National Party Government and the different national governments to give attention to this matter, it is the task of everyone, White and non-White. It is also our task to give attention to this interdependence as far as it affects this aspect. I want to mention one important matter: Derogatory criticism and references to the Bantu ways of thinking and doing things, for example to their ability to govern and to administer themselves, are harmful and prejudicial to good neighbourliness, and I think the debate which was conducted a day or two ago in the spirit in which the hon. members conducted it, was really not conducive to good neighbourliness. Another matter I just want to mention in this regard is that for the promotion of this interdependence on an economic level we must give serious attention to steps to encourage the middle class and more well-off Bantu to invest in their own areas, whether it is in land and/or in business enterprises. It is also true that we, as Whites in South Africa, should cultivate a new attitude towards manual labour. I am mentioning only a few aspects, but I want to say that another matter to which we could give very serious attention in regard to this interdependence is the way we behave towards one another. We must behave and speak decently towards one another.

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

No, I am sorry; my time is almost up.

Human and group relations are formed in the streets, on the farms, in the kitchen, at filling stations, shops and public offices. I want to conclude with this. The hon. member for Zululand raised the question of defence. Inter-dependence also applies in respect of a conventional or unconventional threat from outside, and although there is at present no need for the establishment or existence of any military force in any of these homeland areas, we find it particularly gratifying to know that one homeland leader after another is confirming in public that they will oppose any terrorist or military onslaught on South Africa jointly, and also of their own accord.

So we can go on, for there are various other spheres in which there is inter-dependence. There is sport for example. We are training sports administrators and they appear, together with us, before the International Olympic Committee. I want to conclude with this and would like to pay tribute to the following people, and I cannot find better words with which to do this —my time is unfortunately up, and I cannot go into greater detail—than what was written by Mr. Johan Liebenberg in Die Vaderland of 22nd September, 1971 (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Potchefstroom began his speech by referring to a whole lot of newspaper clippings and other documents. What he actually intended to achieve by that eluded me, but now I also have a document here which I can read. This is an important document—the constitution of the National Party.

That is an important document. [Interjections.]

Order!

This is not an old document, to the best of my knowledge it is the latest. While the hon. member was speaking about the growth and the progress or the Black states to sovereign independence, I wondered what the constitution of his party had to say about this matter; what the attitude is which it would like to convey to people in general. I just want to say in passing that the matter of the Bantu being here to stay for all time, is, according to the hon. member, a farce, a fairy tale. The Bantu are only here temporarily; tomorrow they must be gone again. Let us read what the constitution of the National Party has to say (translation)—

This is no mere ordinary principle; it is not merely “principially” (prinsipiecl) if I may use the hon. member for False Bay’s word, but as a fundamental principle—

This is so interesting now—

Here we have the word “permanent”—

[Interjections.]

May I ask a question?

No, Sir, I am sorry. Normally I welcome the questions of the hon. Chief Whip, but my time is a little limited.

The question is a brief one. Is guardianship permanent or temporary?

Order! The hon. Chief Whip must resume his seat.

Let me deal with this briefly. The hon. member asks whether it is permanent or temporary. The basic fact is that they are a permanent part of the national population of South Africa. Is that temporary, or is it permanent? No, Sir, it is permanent.

What have I achieved now by reading this passage to the hon. member for Potchefstroom? I can tell him that they have changed their policy. It is the tragedy of South Africa and the pity of a debate such as this that it is held against a man in South Africa if he changes his ideas in regard to cardinal matters, such as population relations. One of the greatest dangers to South Africa is that the thinking of the people in regard to this extremely important matter could become rigidified, or dry up. It would be a tragic day for South Africa if we were to think that we, as far as this problem is concerned, have the final solution. We are dealing here with a process of continual growth and evolution. Any man who rises in this House and speaks of “for all time”, as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development did, is, with all due respect to the hon. the Minister, misleading the people. We are living in a world which is changing dynamically, during the last two decades at a rate never accomplished before. These were changes which made their effect felt on people as well, Black and White. The greatest danger for us is to think that we have finished thinking about this matter. I was pleased to read the other day how the Rapport told my Nationalist friends, “We must think again about the urban Bantu—do not stop thinking”.

I welcomed this debate. I was disappointed in the introducer of the motion because he tried to make a political issue out of something which I thought he could have kept at a high level. He did not do so I must say the hon. member for Potchefstroom acquitted himself better of his task. I say the greatest danger is that our thinking may become rigidified. But there is an even greater danger, and that is that in a rapidly changing world we may come forward with a policy which will steer us in a direction which we will subsequently be unable to change. That is one of the greatest dangers confronting us. I am so afraid that the Nationalist Party is doing South Africa another great disservice by trying to make the people believe that the policy of separate development is not only a party policy, but that it has in fact become the policy of the whole of South Africa. Do you know what the danger in that regard is? The people think that they have found a solution. My argument this afternoon is in fact that the solution of the National Party, purely philosophically, has already failed. That is what I find to be such a great pity, namely that hon. members do not place their own policy under close scrutiny. We are all party-political people. We belong to parties. Let me put it to you like this, Sir: No hon. member of the National Party would think of nibbling at my policy unless he realized that his own policy was not pure and correct. Only if they realize that their own policy is failing, would they be prepared to open their ears to other policies and standpoints. My Nationalist friends do not want to take a look at their own policy. Let us take a look at it this afternoon.

What are the facts? We are dealing here with the identity of the Whites. The problem arising out of that is how we should, in the light of the facts of South Africa preserve this identity. That is how my Nationalist friends see this matter. What are those facts of South Africa, as my Nationalist friends see them, and have over the years presented them to the people? They say that South Africa is a multi-national unitary state, and I accept their word for the sake of my argument, in which the Bantu peoples have the numerical preponderance. That is the first point I want to make, namely that South Africa at this moment is a multi-national unitary state in which the Bantu peoples have the numerical preponderance. And the second point the Nationalist Party postulates, is that the Bantu are entitled to every right, including political rights, which the Whites claim for themselves, and that the time will come when the Bantu will ask for those rights, will lay claim to them and that the Whites will not be able to refuse. The third leg on which the argument of my National Party friends stands is that because we are a unitary state and because the Bantu peoples are in the majority, they will govern South Africa when they ask for those rights, particularly for the political rights, and those rights are given to them. Now, the problem is that the moment the Bantu are governing South Africa, it is all over with the Whites and the White identity is in danger. That is the problem. The essence of the problem as it has been depicted all these years is therefore one of numerical preponderance.

Where do you get the “unitary state” from?

It is a word freely used by the National Party. It is a brainchild of the hon. member for Moorreesburg. It is a marvellous term, and I like it.

Do you have any objection to it?

I have no objection to it. Hon. members may as well give me a chance now; they know what I mean. The essence of the National Party’s problem, as they see the matter, has always been the numerical preponderance of the Bantu. How have they tackled this problem? They decided that the numbers should be reduced. They stated it in strong terms, and in itself it was a fine idea. They tried to reduce the numbers. This afternoon we heard of the magical date, 1978, and of the annual decrease of 5 per cent. We also heard how the hon. member for Moorreesburg warned the north and said that the Rand was becoming more and more integrated and that as long as the Blacks formed part of our labour force, we could not safeguard ourselves. The essence of the argument was that the numbers have to be reduced. However, under pressure from outside and circumstances over which the National Party have no control—and I do not take it amiss of them, for these are circumstances which everyone has to take into account and I am merely stating this as a fact—the number of Bantu increased. The National Party could not get away from that. Either the economy had to fail if their policy were to succeed, or the economy has to succeed, and their policy fail. It is as simple as that. The numbers increased, and then for the first time in 1965 the late Dr. Verwoerd announced a shift in policy in this House, which at the time eluded most people. That was when he said that the emphasis should not fall on territorial separation, but on political separation. An hon. member on that side of the House, Mr. Froneman, said at the time that numbers no longer mattered.

Where do you get the political and territorial separation story from?

The hon. member must read Hansard, and also what Dr. Verwoerd said; perhaps he has forgotten what was said there. The moment the National Party makes that statement and departs from the essence of their argument, namely the numerical preponderance, the bottom has dropped out of their political philosophy.

They had, however, come forward with another argument. They said that although the numbers of Bantu in White South Africa were increasing by thousands, they had a solution to that, namely that they were going to make foreigners of the Bantu. They would declare all the Bantu to be foreigners.

Now you are simply indulging in fantasies.

This is the case and it is, after all, true. The moment Bantu become foreigners they would not exercise any of the rights they would normally be able to exercise if they had not been declared to be foreigners. The fundamental question which now occurs to me is what makes the National Party think that, despite the fact that they have made foreigners of millions of Bantu, those Bantu will not still lay claim to the same rights. What makes them think that the nature of man will change simply as a result of an action taken by the National Party? The numerical preponderance exists today more than ever. The National Party has no solution for it. In fact, as long as it exists they are bluffing the people of South Africa. They do not have a solution to this fundamental problem.

What is far more serious, is that they do not want to agree to and think out this problem together in the House that the answer should no longer be sought in fragmentation. We know that fragmentation has failed. The late Dr. Verwoerd announced the fact here that it had failed. Only he did not say it in so many words. What we must decide today is that a solution must be found for the national relations problem not in fragmentation, but within the framework of a unitary state. That is where the answer lies. The United Party states, on the basis of a study of numerous examples throughout the world that federation appears to be the most fruitful course we can follow. Matters are taking a serious turn for us.

No, that course leads to one man one vote.

If hon. members opposite could convince me that we will be able to maintain our economy without integrated Bantu labour, I may listen to them.

But we do not say that.

The hon. gentleman says that they do not say that. If they do not say that, however, this whole view of the matter falls away, for their case is based not on the variety of man, but simply on the numerical preponderance of the Bantu. That obstacle the National Party cannot overcome. Now I say to them today in the words of Rapport: The time has come for my Nationalist friends to refrain from hurling insults and abuse back and forth, to refrain from reading newspaper reports, it is time they said to one another: “We are glad that we can still, as individuals, think these matters out together. Let us think these matters out together and see whether there is not perhaps another course we should adopt.” With all due respect to my Nationalist friends, that party has already in the course it has adopted done South Africa more harm than any of its predecessors. That is why I am in all seriousness putting these questions to my Nationalist friends. I am not doing this lightly.

I wish it was 1975 already.

I just want to say in passing that that hon. member should keep quiet, for I recall how he proved to people in 1948 that the United Party had been responsible for the Great Trek. You can expect anything from him. This is a serious matter and I am appealing to my friends to think these matters out together for the people of South Africa, for that side has no solution to this burning problem.

The introducer of this motion has come to this House with a very peculiarly phrased motion. I want to return a little later to the actual phraseology he used and try to divine what he means by it. But there is something I want to say immediately, which is that I have the rare pleasure today of complimenting him and the hon. members for Potchefstroom and Germiston on being well ahead of their time. This motion deals with the Bantu policy of the Government. These hon. gentlemen have been talking about the Bantu policy of the United Party. I think they should come back to reality. They should not become too alarmed or despondent about the results of the recent elections. They should realize that they are still in government and that it is a bit early to talk about the United Party as being the Government. If the hon. member for Wolmaransstad had come with this motion in two or three years’ time, perhaps a little less, then he would have been fully entitled to talk about the Bantu policy of the United Party, the Government.

There is one other matter I want to mention in all seriousness. I believe the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will enter into this debate before it closes. Quite a lot has been said about United Party policy. There is not time now to go into the ramifications of the United Party policy, but I want to dwell in all seriousness on one aspect that has been raised by hon. members on that side of the House, namely the question of the referendum that we propose before our policy can be changed. These people seem to think that in terms of our policy we would be embarking on some reckless political escapade with the future of our country at stake. I want to ask that hon. gentleman—and I hope he is going to reply to me—whether he has such a low regard for the White voters of the country and whether he has such a poor opinion of their judgment and responsibility that he believes that this White electorate will do something against the interests of the country and of themselves. This is a very serious point. I should like an answer from him or, if he is not prepared to give me an answer, certainly I should like an answer from someone in authority on that side of the House before we hear any suggestions from them again that the White electorate will sell this country down the river. [Interjections.] That is precisely what they mean.

Do not think that that question will put us off our stroke.

There are a few other points I feel I should mention before we get down to the pith of this motion. I was terribly interested in the line taken by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. Suddenly, out of the blue, he seems to have a new paint brush out. We are all becoming liberals again.

But surely you are one, George.

In the last few days that hon. gentleman’s party has taken great pains to try to present me and my colleagues on this side of the House as a bunch of “verkramptes”. You know, Mr. Speaker, the sort of debates we have had during the last few days, and I dare say you have also read the comments of the official organs of that hon. gentleman’s party. For example, their Cape newspaper, Die Burger said only yesterday that we have embarked on or climbed on to a “verkrampte” band-wagon. Well. I am sorry, but they must make up their minds whether we are verkramptes or suddenly, for the purposes of fighting the Oudtshoorn by-election, we are the flaming liberals that that hon. gentleman tried to make out this afternoon.

Bronkie, your man has very little time. He has to get a move on for he is just plodding along.

Another thing I want to deal with very briefly is the question of self-determination.

Where is that referendum of yours you wanted to talk about?

I want you to talk about it. Of course I do not have the time to repeat everything for that hon. gentleman, but perhaps he can ask one of his colleagues what has been said. Coming back to the question of self-determination the hon. member for Transkei asked what is meant precisely by “self-determination” as it is spoken of by hon. gentlemen on that side of the House.

Why do not you give us a definition?

I hope that the hon. the Minister too will tell us precisely what he means, because we already have it on record that the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that self-determination means one thing and one thing only, namely that these Bantu homelands will be given one choice, the choice of taking independence. Is that so? Is it Hobson’s choice— either independence or complete and perpetual servility to this Central Government? I have taken the trouble to look up what “self-determination” means. I want to quote here from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Third Edition, published in 1969:

The second interpretation, which is the one I suggest, applies more closely, viz.—

It does not say “policy”, but “polity”. “Polity” means the organization of the State. If the hon. the Prime Minister is correct then these Black states have not been offered self-determination at all. They are simply being told to take their independence or suffer the consequences.

They will get it ultimately.

That hon. Chief Whip says that they will get it ultimately. It is quite conceivable—and I think it is almost certain—that under a United Party Government at least these States would not opt for independence. They will be completely foolish to do so. Do not talk about “ultimate independence”.

What will they receive?

That hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Krugersdorp, should just study our policy; I am not going to waste time on that. When looking at this thing in its proper context, let us go back to the point made by the hon. member for Transkei a little earlier in this debate. He said that Dr. Malan, in his day, said that independence was an ideal only. He indicated quite clearly that in the early days—and here I am replying directly to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad— there was no question then of Black states ever becoming independent. I agree with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad in one respect. I still do not see a prospect of that happening and I think what Dr. Malan said in those days is as valid today as it ever was. It would indeed mean disaster if what Dr. Malan predicted then were not to come true. This is much the same as the prediction or the description of the position relating to the Coloured people, which is in direct parallel. The hon. Minister of Information has said that a Colouredstan is an ideal, a target, that you have way ahead of you. But we are told by other Ministers on that side of the House that this of course is not practical. I suggest that the old concept of independent Bantustans is equally impracticable. Now, to come back to the motion itself. Like the hon. member for Transkei I want to say quite bluntly that we have no objection to this motion, whatever it means. It seems so wide that it is capable of almost any interpretation. As far as I can make out the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, is terribly luke-warm about what the Government has done. He does not praise the Government but he simply asks the House to take notice or to take cognizance of what the Government has done. As far as interdependence is concerned we have no objection to it and we regard it as a most desirable thing, but if one tries to divine what that hon. gentleman had in mind when he introduced this motion, one must look at the start of his speech. He then said that he wanted to express the appreciation of this House for the manner in which the Government had proceeded step by step towards giving the Bantu homelands self-government. What are these steps? These steps are the Tomlinson report in which a blueprint was produced, but that is something about which we hear almost nothing these days. I would suggest that the Tomlinson report as gone into the realm of folklore as far as the Nationalist Party is concerned. After the Tomlinson report had moved well into the background we had this hon. Minister, soon after his appointment, speaking outside this House about constellations of states in Southern Africa. That we have not heard about since then and I wonder if he will ever come back to that. Subsequently we had the target of 1978, which was set by the present Minister of Community Development as the year in which the flow from the Bantustans would be reversed. I want to mention in passing that 1978 is less than six years away, and I wonder what we are going to hear from that side of the House in six years’ time when they will be on this side of the House. We have had all of this replaced by a series of ad hoc laws, and I think this can best be summed up by saying that the Government has become completely directionless and that it is stumbling along in trying to achieve an objective which it itself is not clear about.

Sir, it is astounding that in a debate on a motion such as this, which pre-eminently puts the cardinal political approach of the two parties to us, namely the National Party’s policy of separate development for each people, each with its own government, to ultimate independence, as opposed to the integrated government of the United Party, the United Party runs away to such an extent from their policy and that, as the last speaker did, they make use of little anecdotes and jokes. The last speaker, who in terms of our private division of time amongst one another, had limited time, spent half his time—I looked at the clock —on a lot of feeble jokes. I am sorry that I have unfortunately been deprived of some of my time as well, so that I cannot reply fully. While referring to the last speaker, I just want to say to him that the things he told us here may perhaps be suitable for Hogarth de Hoogh or for the “Passing Show”, but are not suitable in this debate. He can go and tell his childish little tales to his children in front of the hearth at night, but not here in this House.

Is that meant to be a joke?

The hon. member for Kensington said he wanted to speak about the referendum their party would supposedly hold. He said nothing about it, Sir. He asked me whether our party thought that the public of South Africa were so weak or so irresponsible that they would sell South Africa. No, Sir, it is not we who want to hold a referendum on a possible sale of South Africa; it is the United Party. Our party says what I said in 1969—and I repeat it for the edification of the hon. member for Maitland, who tried to ridicule my use of the words “for all time”. I repeat what I said; our whole party and the Whites in South Africa say this. In regard to political say in South Africa, I said the following in fact, we do guarantee it for all time. If we remain in power with our policy in White South Africa, we guarantee the say in White South Africa, in this Parliament to which I have referred, to the Whites for all time.

Sir. I repeat the words “for all time”, and I hope the words “for all time” will thunder like a refrain in the hon. member’s head until he too believes it.

I should like to remind the last member who spoke about the referendum, that when the referendum of the United Party was discussed here in the year 1965, when I was Deputy Minister, I told the hon. member for Yeoville, who spoke on television about the question of the replacement of Whites by Bantu under United Party leadership: “In your political publications you say that you will hold a referendum; the United Party must tell us what their advice would be to the public of South Africa— whether to vote positively or negatively at that referendum.”

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I am going to read out the reply to you now. That hon. member must just control his nerves. I am going to read out to him what was said.

Who is nervous?

Sir, I told this House that day, as I am doing now, that at the referendum on the establishment of a Republic in 1960, the National Party advised the electorate to vote “yes”. We made a positive recommendation, a positive plea, and we succeeded. I said at the time: “What would your attitude be if a referendum were held on the question of whether the White representatives of the Bantu in this Parliament should be replaced by Black men under a United Party régime, yes or no?” The hon. member for Yeoville then replied as follows (Hansard, 1965, col. 606)—

But then he continued and said further— so typical of the United Party, which always has two answers—

This was to recommend to them to get Black people. This is the typical point of the United Party, like the old joke told about Mr. Sammy Marks, who, speaking at a directors’ meeting, said: “Gentlemen, these are my principles, but if you do not want these principles of mine, I have others as well”. [Interjections.]

That is too old.

No, it is not too old. The hon. member must not talk to me about age. He told us old little Bunga anecdotes from the previous century. Instead of telling us about his policy and tearing our policy to shreds, he told us little anecdotes from the previous century, about the old Bunga, and now he is complaining about Sammy Marks’s little joke. It is very applicable to the hon. members opposite.

Sir, I want to say that those few of our members on this side who had turns to speak, made a great contribution today, for which I want to thank them. I refer to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, who gave a very good political exposition and emphasized the guarantees we offer White South Africa as well as the non-White peoples, each along its own road. Then there is the hon. member for Germiston, who gave an excellent exposition of the principles of our policy, and also the hon. member for Potchefstroom, who effectively stated the principles of inter-dependence. On the United Party side we had a running away from their own policy and a running away from the questions put to them on their policy by this side. We had evasion. They filled the time with little anecdotes and jokes. The hon. member for Transkei, who was the first speaker on that side and who had to set the standard for his speakers, tried to regale us with old tales. He told us nothing about their policy. He only told us the old history of what it was like in the Transkei in the time of the Bunga.

And you only spoke about 1913.

The hon. member must contain himself. Even if he has no manners, he should still give me a chance to speak. My time is very limited. I hung on his lips to hear something from him; why is he not hanging on mine now?

You are the last one to try to teach us manners.

Oh, you big stuff!

Furthermore, the hon. member for Transkei made disparaging remarks. He did not even try to defend his policy. He regaled us with tales, spoke in a disparaging way and asked: “What are these national governments?” He said they were “tribal governments” and that it was “paper citizenship”. The hon. member for Zululand also made the same derogatory remarks. The hon. member for Zululand also spoke about the referendum. I have given him a reply here now, in fact two replies. “If circumstances are like this, we shall say ‘Whites’; if circumstances are different, we shall say ‘Bantu’”. This is what the United Party’s policy is like. The hon. member for Maitland also stood here wasting time with melodrama and rhetoric, and I think the hon. members opposite who are so fond of dictionaries would do well to advise this hon. member to go and look up what melodrama and rhetoric are. Then he would know what he perpetrated this afternoon. [Interjections.] The hon. members are really playing into my hands when they call me a teacher, because whenever they try to disparage the teachers of South Africa, we receive more votes from them, but that hon. member should have had much more dealings with a teacher in his life. The words read out by the hon. member for Maitland referred to the Bantu as a permanent part of the country’s population. Does the hon. member want us to say in our policy that we shall oust the Bantu from South Africa?

That is your policy.

We are talking about the population of the country. We do not want to oust them from the country. We are giving them their own parts of the country. [Interjections.] I find it a great pity that for a motion which makes provision for such a fundamental discussion as this motion does, there is as little time as we have today. It is a motion which deserves much more time.

But are you going to discuss the motion?

I should very much like to discuss the motion, but the hon. member will not give me time to do so. What is more, hon. members stole some of my time this afternoon. Yes, oh yes.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Very well, I shall withdraw the word “stole”. I shall say they took some of my time.

That is not true either.

It was the Whips who took over some of your time.

Which Whips? The United Party Whips!

I am used to my time being wasted as much as possible because they do not want to hear what I have to say.

You are the biggest waster of your own time.

This motion proves the fundamentalism of the National Party as opposed to the opportunism and sliding policy of the United Party. We accept the reality of South Africa as Almighty God gave it to us, a country with a population consisting of a number of different, separately identifiable peoples, and we have adopted and are applying a policy to guide each of those peoples along its separate road to its own destination …

Rapport says those are empty words.

Just as all peoples in the world want their own destination along their own road in their own areas, we also say this in regard to the Xhosas, the Zulus, the Sothos, the Vendas, the Shangaans, the Ovambos, the Hereros, the Damaras, to all the separate peoples in South Africa.

And the Namas.

Yes, very well. I am not going to mention them all.

Except the Coloured people.

The hon. member tried to ridicule my image of the constellation. I repeat it. Our policy makes provision for this great constellation of different peoples in South Africa in which each can move in its own orbit in this great universe without coming into collision with one another.

Drama!

Melodrama!

During the time we have been applying our policy, it has shown what fruits are produced by it. Our policy for the peoples, our policy of multinational development, has already produced the following great and very clearly discernible fruits, namely that there is an acknowledgement and stimulation of each of these separate peoples’ own culture, outlook and idealism on the way to their own destination. Secondly, we have picked the fruits that, whereas frustration may build up on the part of a people because it does not have its own outlets for its aspirations, we have created an outlet for that frustration by means of our policy, so that each of those peoples has its own vista, its own political vista, because they see before them what they can develop to.

Empty words.

By our policy we have obtained the factual, the de facto acknowledgement from Bantu peoples —this is what is so important—that here in South Africa there is a destination, a path and a Parliament of their own for the Whites and that in the same way there are paths and institutions of their own for them as well. Through these aspects of our policy we have established better mutual relations between the Bantu peoples in South Africa and our White people and, through this, a good disposition. It is a great pity that this good disposition is not appreciated, that this good disposition is belittled, and that this good disposition is ignored by Opposition speakers and writers. In this regard I just want to give a quick example in passing, because my time is extremely limited. Very recently representatives of the North Sotho people were here, and the leader of their Government, chief councillor Matlala, held a press conference at which questions were put to him. If one reads the reports of Die Burger, Die Transvaler and other Nationalist newspapers, and one then reads the reports in the English newspapers, it seems as if two different people were here.

Those are party-political newspapers.

We shall hear whether this subject is party-political. We shall hear whether that wise gentleman with his confused talk will call it party politics. We read here in Die Burger what Matlala said inter alia: I quote (translation)—

Here I have a tremendously long report of the same interview in The Argus, with not a single letter referring to his statement on terrorism. It does not suit them, Sir. I now want to ask the Opposition and their newspaper whether this is their way of doing things. Where, in regard to such an extremely important matter, something which in the South African set-up and geographical situation is a real threat at the moment, makes such a positive statement against terrorism, why is it so unimportant that no mention must be made of it?

What have we to do with the matter?

This is the sort of attitude which not only fails to promote the good disposition developing among our peoples, but also bedevils it. I want to ask the hon. member what party politics that is.

The Argus does not support us.

Oh, I see the hon. member is becoming annoyed with The Argus. Well, I shall leave it to him and The Argus.

We are not responsible for what it writes.

Does the hon. member want to tell me that The Argus is not an opponent of the Government?

Surely it can write what it likes.

But surely it is an ally of the United Party. [Interjections.] I think The Argus itself will have to settle this little matter with the United Party.

I want to proceed. With the application of our policy we have ensured that the very important aspects of becoming a nation have been implemented properly in the case of each people. Our speakers have pointed that out. Firstly, there is the political top structure which was, is, and will in future be increasingly necessary for each national government. The hon. member spoke so disparagingly of “tribal government” today. As far as some of them are concerned, it was in fact a case in the past of a government which started in an embryonic state. But why can it not develop? The government of what country in the world did not start on a lowish level and then develop? None of them. Surely a people is a living organism. Surely it is not a dead fossil like the United Party. Surely a government must grow as its people grows. We are helping them on that basis. This is the principle on the basis of which we are working [Interjections.] Sir, I do wish the members opposite would not make it necessary for one to shout in order to be heard. I think it is reprehensible manners, which they would do well to suppress.

As I have said, we have provided for a top structure with a legislative council. There are quite a number with executive councils, with select committees in those legislative assemblies and with an election system in terms of which the people outside the homelands will also be bound to those homelands and those governments. Secondly, we said a big layer of administrative services and institutions is necessary, i.e. a considerable number of departments. I said on another occasion that probably there are already approximately 50 such departments for each of the various Bantu peoples, together with the staff structures, public service regulations for themselves, pension schemes, corps of officials consisting of their own people who have to be trained as well as White officials, whom we also orientate for their task by means of conferences. In terms of a proclamation which appeared in the Government Gazette last week, we shall be transferring literally tens of thousands of Bantu persons from the Republic’s Public Service to the various Bantu Governments on 1st April. I cannot give you the details in the very limited time I have, but I do want to mention something. At this stage we are transferring more than 2 500 officials from the Public Service. In the course of this year even more of them are going to be transferred. We are transferring almost 22 000 teachers from the Republic’s Public Service to those homeland governments, with their own structure, regulations, pension schemes and their own comparable privileges, the same as our people have in the Republic. Sir, this is nation-building according to a plan. It is the building-up of a homeland government according to a well-considered policy. But what would those people do under United Party policy? Under the supremacy (baasskap) mentality revealed by the United Party, they would have to search for crumbs falling from the table.

Whose policy is supremacy? Did Strydom not say his policy was supremacy?

Mr. Strydom, Dr. Verwoerd and others said, “Supremacy for each in his own sphere,” and this still applies. [Interjections.] Yes. But the United Party talks about supremacy in an integrated sphere.

In introducing their own public service staff, we laid it down as a firm policy that localization would follow, or, as I prefer to call it, that a “nationalization” (vervolking) of these various staffs should take place. In other words, as we are able to obtain the Bantu persons and render them capable of taking over their own services, they must do so and the seconded White staff will be withdrawn. May I just give you the one single example of the oldest of these activated governments which have been established, namely that of the Transkei? When the process started in 1963, 18,6 per cent of their public service staff consisted of White persons who had been seconded to them. Over the past eight years, that staff has increased in number, and at the end of 1971 the percentage of White staff was only 7,2. In a much greater establishment the percentage of Whites decreased tremendously. This is the principle being applied in respect of all the other peoples as well. We are not only assisting them in forming a public service of their own—we are also helping them as regards proper financing, proper financial regulations and a budget system as we with our democratic system can couple or reconcile it with their own traditional views. In addition, we are providing for a supplies procurement organization of their own. In the same way as we have tender boards, they have their own procurement boards. Furthermore, we are making provision for co-ordination within their own homelands, for which purpose there are committees in certain cases and co-ordinating and planning boards will be established in due course in other cases.

Thirdly, we are carrying out a very balanced and realistic development programme within those homelands in respect of infrastructure, agriculture, forestry, roads, irrigation, the administration of justice, education, towns, mining, industries and commerce, assisted by the three corporations we have by way of specialist services rendered to the Bantu. All this is a gradual process, as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad emphasized very well here today. It is a gradual process because we, in contrast to the other countries in Africa, do not want to descend on the people with something of which they have no knowledge or experience. It is a gradual process because we lend them officials and have to provide them with temporary aid in other respects. It is a gradual process. In the beginning they had the territorial authorities in the old form, after that the activated territorial authorities, then the legislative councils in terms of Chapter I of the Act, then the self-governing territories within the Republic in terms of Chapter II of the Act of 1971, and then legislative assemblies in terms of Chapter II of the Transkei Constitution Act, with more and more powers being added, as we are doing in this Parliament in respect of the Transkei. After that only the last phase remains, namely that of independence, towards which we are also striving, so that we may say that the Bantu peoples may achieve this in terms of our policy and that they may get their own independent national goverment in their homelands. As the hon. member for Potchefstroom said, in this process and in all the services being rendered, the principle of inter-dependence, that we should help one another, is at the core of everything, running through like a golden thread or permeating everything like a yeast. How do we help one another in terms of this policy of inter-dependence? They help us with all sorts of matters, with markets, labour and our roads which pass through their territories. We help them in all sorts of ways, perhaps even more than they help us. In this way this policy of inter-dependence has created a situation in which these different peoples must grow into the reality of mutual dependence. It is a security principle for the Whites, as well as for the Bantu peoples in South Africa, to ensure peace, order, prosperity and a place for everyone, with recognition of one’s neighbour. This is our policy. We hear nothing about that. The United Party pretends here that it is their policy. It is not their policy. The United Party does not want to help the Xhosas, the Zulus, the Vendas or the Shangaans as peoples; the United Party wants all of them to serve us Whites as one people together with the Whites. This is the policy of the United Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move the following motion, as printed in my name on the Order Paper—

In moving this motion I believe it will not be inappropriate for me, in order to avoid confusion, at the outset to draw the attention of the House to the existing legislation under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act before setting out what this motion in itself attempts to do.

The 1942 Act was debated in this House at a critical period in the nation’s history since we were in the midst of war. Yet it was felt that it was important enough in the public interest not to delay passing the legislation, which was considered to be urgently necessary to meet a special problem. At that time 1 000 people were being killed on our roads each year and 15 000 were being injured. Based on the 1930/34 British Roads Act it received support from all sides of the House when it was debated. It was introduced by the then Minister of Finance, the late Mr. Hofmeyr, who pointed out at that time that only one motor vehicle out of every three in South Africa was comprehensively insured, a ratio which is even less today, by the way. He also said that innocent victims of road accidents were all too often left without redress of any kind. It was true then as it is today that these innocent victims of road accidents did have recourse to common law, but they seldom received compensation because few of the guilty drivers or owners of motor vehicles were in a financial position to meet any, or even part, of the claims for damages that were successful against them. Mrs. Solomon, the then member for Jeppes, lobbied for eight years to get this legislation introduced and the Minister of Transport, the present Leader of the House, was good enough at the time to give credit where it was due when he said that if the Minister of Finance was the father of the legislation, then Mrs. Solomon could be considered its mother. One could repeat all the arguments used at the introduction of the 1942 Act in support of this motion here today, because these arguments apply even more today than they did then. The accident rate is almost eight times as high in 1972 than it was in 1942, when the legislation was first introduced. The number killed on our roads approaches 9 000 per year and not 1 000 and the number of people injured are in excess of 60 000 per annum and not 15 000 as it was then. The 1942 Act, with which we are all familiar, provides compensation to persons or their dependants for injury received or death as a result of the negligent action of the driver of the insured vehicle. The amount of this compensation is unlimited and extends to the full legal liability of the driver of the vehicle, with certain exceptions. These exceptions place a limit of R8 000 for any person and R40 000 for any accident on passengers in the insured vehicle who are being carried—and this is important—in the employ of the driver of the registered owner or are passengers carried for reward, such as in taxis or buses, or passengers conveyed in the course of the business of a driver or the registered owner. To the layman this in itself may be misleading until one appreciates that only passengers who are injured or killed in the negligent vehicle must in fact be passengers under one of the categories I have mentioned, either paying passengers or passengers carried in the course of employment or passengers carried in the course of the occupation of the owner of the vehicle. Otherwise they are not covered by the 1942 Act. It is the risks that are not covered by the 1942 Act that this motion attempts to cater for.

This is the whole purpose of the motion. It is not realized until too late, generally, that passengers in the insured vehicle are not covered unless they fall into one of these three categories I have mentioned. In other words, friends or hitch-hikers being given a casual lift—and we all do it every day—are not covered by the Act of 1942. This includes the vast majority of passengers in any motor vehicle at any given time in South Africa. We do not realize that these people are not covered; they have no cover at all. Neither does the Act cover any material damage, of course. If the driver is involved in an accident in which no other vehicle is involved he will be liable for any injury sustained by his friends or hitch-hikers travelling in his car. In other words, he will be liable for any injury sustained by the passengers in that motor car, provided he is negligent. If the accident does not involve another motor vehicle one can rest assured that nine times out of ten the driver of that vehicle is in fact negligent. The result could be that the driver, who in the goodness of his heart, gives a friend or a hitch-hiker a lift, may find himself in debt for many, many thousands of rand. If he is not in the millionaire class, the chances are that his passengers who will be the innocent victims of his actions will find themselves faced with hardship and misery for the rest of their lives. There are today probably many thousands of people in South Africa who are crippled as a result of motor accidents and who have been unable to recover any compensation from the driver, because the driver is probably a man of straw. It is these things that this motion attempts to rectify. The high cost of medical services in South Africa today is frightening and when one thinks of the bread-winners who are lost to families because they have been injured in accidents, one realizes the seriousness of the position. These people had recourse, but it was absolutely useless to them because the driver was unable to meet any of the commitments or damages found against him. If the accident involves two or more vehicles, as most accidents do, the guilty driver will naturally be held liable. If the same driver had passengers in his vehicle who were injured, they would not be able to claim compensation in terms of the 1942 Act, unless they were included amongst the exceptions I have already mentioned, in other words, unless they were paying passengers, or passengers carried in the course of employment, and so on. How many people—and the numbers must be many thousands each day—do travel as friends of the driver and as a matter of course? Because they are friends of the driver they never inquire whether he is carrying comprehensive insurance. In fact, nobody would have the nerve to ask somebody who is giving him a lift whether he even has a driver’s licence. This is only natural. But the driver runs a tremendous risk when he gives anybody a lift in his motor-car, because he will be responsible, provided again that he is negligent in the accident, for all the injuries received by his passengers. Many a case has happened where a passenger is injured in a motor vehicle through the negligence of the driver and his injuries are substantial, but because he is a friend of the driver and was being given a lift as a friend, he is reluctant to claim against the driver in common law. This, of course, does not happen when the driver gives a lift to a hitch-hiker. The hitch-hiker has no compunction whatsoever in instituting a claim for damages against the driver when he is negligent. Many a person has found out to his cost that the good turn he has rendered by giving a per son a lift has hurt him financially probably for the rest of his life. Over 50 000 accidents take place in South Africa each year in which no other vehicle is involved at all. As I have said, since most accidents where no other vehicle is involved are caused by the negligence of the driver, one can imagine just how many passengers are in fact injured in this way and have no recourse under the 1942 Act.

Another aspect, of course, is that of material damage, either to property or to the other vehicle. Neither is covered in terms of the 1942 Act. There again, if the guilty driver is unable to meet the claims of those whose property or vehicles have been damaged, they have to bear the costs themselves. It may again be many thousands of rands. The offending driver may be a man of straw and may not have taken out full comprehensive insurance cover. Who can say that his own financial position is such today that he will be able to afford any claims arising out of the contingencies that I have mentioned and that are not covered by the 1942 Act? In each case the innocent person involved in the accident, or the innocent owner of the property damaged, will be the loser. What happens in reality is that the driver, because of his carelessness, recklessness or what have you, will escape all liability because he has nothing and is not worth suing. If the driver has been wise and has taken out effective comprehensive insurance, he will find that even here, too, he is the loser, because though his passengers will be eternally grateful for the cover that he has taken which gives them a measure of protection, he will find that his own insurance premiums are considerably affected merely by the fact that his insurance company is not able to recover from the guilty driver. Because they are not able to recover, it has a tremendous effect on the premiums of the innocent driver, which I will show in a moment. It follows, therefore, that even the person who is insured is the loser because of the shortcoming that the passengers are not covered by the 1942 Act. It is estimated that two drivers out of every three involved in an accident are uninsured and are unable to meet their liabilities in the event of an accident in South Africa today. Or, if they can meet their liabilities, they can only pay them off in such small amounts each month that the matter is soon left to go by the board. Even an innocent driver who has taken out an insurance policy, as I mentioned just now, will find that in the event of an accident where his company is unable to recover, his comprehensive policy premium will jump probably from R60 odd, if he had the maximum non-claim bonus, back to R130, which it probably was at the start. He may be subject to a R25 excess payment on his policy, which is common today with most companies. He will have to pay that in addition. He may have other excesses imposed on his policy by the company concerned. All of these he will lose in the event of an accident in which he was totally innocent. This is one of the financial losses to those who do take out full comprehensive insurance policies, in addition, the car is usually damaged to the point that it will never be the same—here again, through no fault of his own.

To give an example of the comprehensive premiums concerned, the present premium in Cape Town on the Valiant motorcar, which one takes to be the average larger motor-car, is R135 per year. This amount reduces to R62 after the driver has obtained the maximum no-claim rebates. In addition, he pays a minimum of R25 as the first portion payable on the cost of an accident. These figures are those given by tariff insurance companies, which, in fact, control most of the motor business in South Africa. Should he have obtained these maximum benefits through careful driving, as I said earlier on, his premium will jump from R62 to R135, plus R25 excess should he have an accident and his company is unable to recover the costs. It is almost the norm today that companies are unable to recover from uninsured motorists. This is something which obviously cannot continue. Over 200 000 motor vehicles are involved in accidents in South Africa each year. It is estimated that no more than a quarter of these car owners hold full comprehensive insurance policies. One can assume from this that insurance companies are forced to write off many millions of rands which they cannot recover on behalf of their clients from drivers who, while sometimes grossly negligent, escape totally the consequences of their actions. At present far too many of our road-users feel safe in the knowledge, regardless of their actions, that they have little to lose. As a result, this attitude is breeding a sense of carelessness on our roads, which contributes, I believe, in no small degree to the high accident rate on our roads, which is, as we well know, the worst rate in the world.

This is not the time to have a debate on road safety and, if possible, I wish to avoid it. But one cannot escape the thought that the main reason for our shocking road toll is the degree of irresponsibility displayed by our drivers. It is being said that fear is one of the greatest deterrents of road accidents and that fear of a collision leading to injury or possible death compels the careful driver in his actions. Recently we have heard much about defensive driving. This is probably the underlying cause. Even the fear of a heavy fine militates against the careless driver. There is, for instance, fear of being fined for not stopping at a stop street, exceeding a speed limit or crossing a barrier line. If this is so, and I believe it is, particularly the fear of material loss is absent from the driver driving an old unroadworthy motor vehicle. The value of the vehicle prohibits the thought of taking out comprehensive insurance cover. The driver lacks the fear of monetary loss, because if the vehicle was so badly damaged in an accident that he were to lose it entirely, if it became a complete wreck, he would in fact have lost very little. A perfect illustration of this can perhaps be found in the actions of a person driving a new motor-car. It is common knowledge that if we drive new motorcars, we are very careful how we park them. We are very careful that we do not scratch them and so forth. But when that car gets a little older, it is surprising how our attitude changes. Then we are not so careful whether it gets a scratch or two. We are not so careful whether it is parked too close to another vehicle. The same human factor creeps in when drivers drive company cars. Any organization running a fleet of company cars will readily appreciate what I mean when I say that those cars driven by drivers in the employ of the company are never as well looked after as the cars owned by those particular drivers. Here we have this other factor, namely that a person does not take care of property which is not his own. He does not take as much care of it as he would have if it were expensive and if it were his own. I tackled the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport about a statement which he made in an earlier debate a few weeks ago. We were talking about road safety at the time, and what he said amounted to saying that it will be practically very difficult to force the drivers of unroadworthy vehicles to pay for the risk that they are imposing on others, particularly as it will force many of them to take their cars off the road. He was in fact making a statement in regard to this motion. I submit that drivers of unroadworthy vehicles have no right on the road anyway. If, by forcing them off the road because they do not wish to bear the cost of effecting a type of insurance which this motion seeks, I believe we will have done a service for road safety in South Africa and for all those who use our roads.

An unroadworthy vehicle surely means a vehicle that is unworthy of being on the road. Therefore, if this motion helps to eliminate those vehicles from our roads, it will be well worthwhile for that reason alone. Motor vehicles are becoming a necessity of life; they are not only driven by the very rich, but also by those who are very nearly poor.

Even farmers have them.

Yes, even farmers have them, even if they have to use subsidies to buy them. Not many years from now the majority of the drivers on our roads will in fact be non-Whites. Eighty per cent of the commercial vehicles driven on our roads today are in fact driven by non-Whites. I have not been able to find the latest estimates, but I believe that in 1966 10 per cent of all vehicles on the road were owned by non-Whites. The figure is probably approaching 20 per cent now. It is obvious that, in time to come, probably the majority of the drivers on our roads will be non-Whites. I use this argument to illustrate that, since they are the poorer section of the community, it stands to reason that they will drive the older vehicles and, as a result, possibly the less roadworthy vehicles. Therefore the sort of contingencies I have mentioned will magnify as time goes by and as the number of older vehicles on our roads increases. The estimate of vehicles on our roads today is that one million of our vehicles are over five years old and I have estimated that over 500 000 are more than ten years old. One wonders how many of that 500 000 in particular should be on the road at all. I mention this because this motion, by what it intends to do, will, I believe, help eliminate the number of unroadworthy vehicles from our roads.

What is envisaged by the motion is that the existing comprehensive insurance policy will have deleted from it the section of the policy which refers to third party liability. This section is usually section 3 of the policy. The deletion of this alone should have an effect on the amount that can be saved on over-all comprehensive premiums. I have already said that, since they will be able to recover on behalf of their clients the costs from the guilty drivers, something which they cannot do now, this too should have an effect on comprehensive insurance premiums. I must say here that comprehensive insurance companies, in the last figures I have seen, estimated that 59 per cent of their premiums are at present paid out on claims, 19,6 per cent goes to management and 11,4 per cent on commission fees. Be that as it may, what I suggest is that the present Motor Vehicle Insurance Act should in fact be extended to include all third party claims in respect of both injury and death where they are at present excluded, additionally including material damages. That is broadly the intention of the motion. The mechanics and how it is to be achieved will obviously require detailed investigation. One method is that all premiums paid for the cover suggested go into a pool consisting of all registered insurance companies—not as the position is today—and that the pool be administered as it is at present, but with the difference, as I have said, that all registered insurance companies go into the pool. This will mean that no company is excluded, the benefits to the public will be a wider selection and the service will naturally be better. I can also suggest that any vehicle, say, over the age of five years, should produce a roadworthy certificate each year for the renewal of its insurance. By this method I think it would be possible to eliminate most of these older and unroadworthy vehicles on the road. Some people applauded the idea behind this motion, but feel that its implementation is impracticable. They did the same in 1942. In 1942 there were those who felt that the Act was necessary, but at that stage they felt it would be difficult to implement and for that reason, and that reason only, they opposed it. Experience has shown that what was done in 1942 can be done again. I can see no reason why we cannot overcome some of these difficulties. That is why I said at the beginning of my speech that the arguments used in 1942 could almost be repeated verbatim today. I do not wish to do so but I would like to remind those people who feel that the implementation of the motion would be too difficult, that in 1942 only two people per week it seems incredible to say “only two people per week”, but today one cannot help saying so—were being killed on our roads. Today the figure is one person every hour. In 1942 the number of people injured in a year was 15 000 and today the figure is 60 000. So I say what was important in 1942 probably becomes even more important today. It is of course a fact that no novel suggestion is contained in this motion because it is already being implemented in a number of countries overseas. I believe that in their wisdom they felt it was easy and worthwhile to overcome the practical difficulties in the implementation of this scheme. They thought it was worthwhile in those countries and I believe we should be guided by their good judgment and we should be governed by the fact that the accident rates in those countries where they implemented the scheme, are so much lower than ours. Because our accident rate is so high, I believe we need this scheme more than anybody else in this world. Countries like Japan and the Common Market countries have a scheme of a similar nature and it has been running for some considerable time already. In the United States the third-party schemes vary from state to state. In California for instance no compulsion is used to make people take out this type of insurance, but I was told by one official that if a person drives in the state of California without this type of insurance, he would need to be a millionaire because of the restrictions placed on him in the event of an accident. The system in the Common Market countries is the one I favour most. There the Act includes the same cover as our own, with the additions of bodily injury to passengers and material damage, which is what this motion seeks to do. In the European arrangement all leading insurance companies are members of a pool into which premiums are paid, and in the case of the Netherlands the Government guarantees any losses of the pool, pending an increase in premiums. In Germany, for instance, the insurance is compulsory and it covers justified claims. Furthermore, it defends unjustified claims arising out of legal as opposed to contractual liabilities in connection with the use of a motor vehicle, and in so far as this liability arises out of the death of or bodily injury of a person or out of a destruction or damage to another person’s property, the injured person has a direct action against the insurer.

In conclusion I would like to say that I have merely set out some of the reasons why this motion deserves support. Other members on this side will give weight to these arguments. I believe too, and I believe very sincerely, that the position is serious and deserving of action on part of the Government. Should it be necessary, following this debate, to set up an inquiry into the mechanics of how best to achieve what this motion sets out to do, I hope the Government will not be long in initiating such an inquiry.

Sir, Confucius said that everything has its beauty but that not everyone sees this beauty. When I looked at this motion for the first time I also though there were quite a few attractive aspects in it. My philosophy in life is that I try to see what is lovely and beautiful in everything, but I am very sorry to say that I do not think the hon. member for Port Natal has done himself justice. He spoke for 10 minutes about the so-called third party legislation, the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act of 1942, and subsequently I sat waiting anxiously for him to explain to us the advantages and disadvantages of the comprehensive motor vehicle policy, as we expected him to do, so that the hon. the Minister, the House and the Government could afterwards decide whether there are positive arguments in favour of this motion or not. But I am afraid that irrespective of the hon. member’s last sentence, in which he requested the Government to institute an inquiry, he did not say much more. Many of his arguments were actually arguments I could use to prove why the Government ought not to accept his motion. I hope that other speakers on that side will advance more convincing arguments as to why comprehensive motor vehicle insurance must be introduced for all motorists. The hon. member said little in support of his motion, and in my opinion his arguments carry no weight.

Look at the record; then you will see why it has to be done.

Sir, I am afraid that if the hon. member and I could sit at a table arguing point for point, he would not emerge from the argument with a single point. The hon. member made certain things very clear here; that much I concede, but they were very feeble arguments. Those arguments do not tip the balance against the arguments opposed to his motion. Sir, I want to analyse this matter a little further. The hon. member’s motion requests that all motorists should be compelled to take out comprehensive motor vehicle insurance. I expected him to say more about that. In speaking about motor vehicles, we accept the fact that this includes lorries, motor cars, motor cycles and all kinds of vehicles. I believe it is also the hon. member’s intention that the drivers of all vehicles must be compelled to take out comprehensive insurance. If we are going to make this compulsory, it means that the motorist is deprived of the free choice. It deprives the man in the street of the free choice about whether he wants to take out such a policy or not, and if this Government makes it compulsory, it will also have to help the public in certain respects to comply with the legislation. Sir, when the authorities make certain things compulsory, it is very important that they do not make it impossible for the man in the street to comply with the legislation. Between ourselves and the United Party there is a basic difference as far as this matter is concerned. The hon. member only spoke about the material aspect of the matter. Except for what concerns third party insurance, he only thought of the material aspect, while the National Party places human life first. Human life is far more important than the financial loss a person can suffer if his motor vehicle, or whatever the case may be, is damaged. It is not clear to me what the hon. member meant when he spoke of material losses. What does this embrace? Does he mean damage to the vehicle, damage to other possessions such as clothes, doctors’ fees and hospital fees and loss of income? He did not spell it out for me very clearly. What about other imperceptible losses such as pain and suffering that cannot be covered? These matters will have to be investigated further, and that is also why the hon. member asked at the end of his speech, that the Government must institute an inquiry. Sir, we in this House place human life first, and that is also why the Government recently came along with legislation to establish the National Road Safety Council. That legislation was passed here a few weeks ago. We know that in terms of that legislation there is now going to be a financial burden of only 50 cents per annum placed on the motorist. Provision is being made for that in clause 25 of that Bill. Sir, what happened in this House? The Opposition opposed that measure. They did not move an amendment, but they continually spoke out against it. They objected to that 50 cents. That is what the Opposition did a few weeks ago. They did not want to allow the State to levy an extra tax of 50 cents on each motorist— 50 cents that can then be collected in conjunction with the motorists’ third party insurance premium in order to promote road safety in this country. Sir, if we could bring the idea of road safety home to each and everyone, not only the drivers, but also the cyclists and the pedestrians, there would not be so many accidents taking place in this country. If we could bring about road safety in that way, we would not need this motor insurance against damage either; we would then still find some people driving recklessly and turning their cars over, but they could, in that case, pay for the damage themselves, or they are still free to take out a comprehensive insurance policy. Sir, what are the aims of this National Road Safety Council? One of the aims is the promotion of road safety in the Republic. This National Road Safety Council has a few tasks I just want to mention, weaving this into my entire argument. One of the council’s tasks is a comprehensive research programme to bring about road safety. Sir, that is what the hon. member finally asked for, but when the Government came along with this measure the other day, they opposed it; they were not in favour of this 50 cent levy. Another task is the gathering of information; this also links up with what the hon. member requested in the concluding paragraph of his motion. The Opposition also opposed that the other day. They do not know what exactly they are saying today and what they are going to ask for tomorrow.

What did we oppose?

The Opposition opposed the 50 cent levy, and that money is needed to establish the council in order to do all this work.

What has that to do with this?

It has a great deal to do with this. It has so much to do with it that at the end of his speech the hon. member asked the Government to institute an inquiry. It is specifically the function and the task of that council, which was recently established and will shortly begin to function. If the council does its work properly and brings home the importance of road safety to everyone in this country, there would not be so many motor accidents. Let us look at what the statistics reveal to us. The hon. member also referred to this, and it is shocking to see how many motor accidents take place on our roads today. In 1970, according to official figures, the number of persons killed in motor accidents was as follows: motorists, 1 436; cyclists, 748, half as many as the number of motorists; passengers in motor vehicles, 2 014 and pedestrians, 3 305. Sir, the number of pedestrians alone killed in 1970 were only 145 less than the total number of passengers and motorists—3 305 pedestrians as against 3 450. This shows that we must not be obsessed by the motorist when we think of motor accidents. It is clear that the pedestrians contribute tremendously to motor accidents in this country.

The drivers knock them down.

If the pedestrians were not walking in the middle of the road, or if they were looking where they were going, they would not be knocked down so easily. Sir, every day we see people running recklessly across the streets. The pedestrian can always give way, while the motorist, driving at a tremendous speed, cannot always stop his car immediately or swerve. Let us for a moment, take a further look at this. In connection with this matter one must look a little further than just at the motorist. Let us look at what happens locally. Let us take the local situation. You know that South Africa has a unique population. There is no other country in the world with such a population structure. Here in the Cape Peninsula 75 per cent of all accidents are caused by non-Whites, chiefly Coloureds. There are many reasons that can be attached to those accidents. Many of the motorists are driving old cars and they usually have no insurance that one can fall back on. I shall come back to the aspect of insurance at a later stage. Many of them even drive under the influence of liquor because it is a habit and a tradition amongst them to imbibe excessively. Another very important aspect, which we must not lose sight of, is that this specific population group does not attach as much value to a life as the White population does. Let me depict this in different terms, because I do not want to be misunderstood. The Whites as such are much more set on preventing accidents than these others. And that is so. We cannot get past that, and we also know that only about 5 per cent of the Coloureds’ motor vehicles are insured. But it is also a fact that 60 per cent of all the motor vehicles in the country are comprehensively insured. In other words, just a little more than 50 per cent of all motor vehicles belonging to Whites or to White companies are insured. And, as I have said, we have these local conditions. To introduce a comprehensive motor vehicle policy will have no effect on this population group, as far as preventing accidents is concerned. They must be trained and educated. In the first place that is the task of road safety, and it is also the task of many other bodies, from the school-child right to the top, and the Government cannot undertake that kind of educational work by merely establishing compulsory insurance. If we are going to make this insurance compulsory, who will actually be involved? It is mostly the young people and the non-Whites that will actually be hit in this respect, because the other sector of the population usually carries its own insurance. But when a young person buys a car he struggles to get the money together, and then he does not have money to pay for that insurance. Let us take a further look at the motor vehicle population. What is the financial burden this hon. member now wants to impose on them? We find that in 1970 there were 2 247 000 licensed motor vehicles in South Africa. If we take it that 60 per cent of them were insured, this gives us 1 348 200 insured motor vehicles. As a matter of fact, the companies will tell you that if you take all the motor vehicles, small cars and big cars, with lorries included, you can work on a figure of R85 per annum for comprehensive motor vehicle insurance. This then amounts to R114 600 000 that is being paid in South Africa today for comprehensive insurance.

If the other 40 per cent of the motor vehicles must be insured as well, this means that another 898 800 motor vehicles must be insured, which means an amount of R76 398 000. That is the extra money the people will have to pay. We see that since 1965 the increase in the number of motor vehicles has amounted to 9 per cent per annum, and it is calculated that at this rate we shall have quite a bit more than four million motor vehicles in 1990. You can therefore see that this insurance amount will increase a great deal. I now want to ask the hon. member on whose behalf he is actually speaking today? Was he really concerned about the losses the people would suffer, or is it a question of his speaking on behalf of the insurance companies that want a larger income?

No, he has been worried about this matter for years now.

A backbencher has answered my question and not the hon. member himself, but I am glad if he says he is worried about the losses suffered by motorists.

Then I feel sorry for South Africa.

The hon member did not say so; I am told this by the back-bencher. If that other 40 per cent must also be insured, this means a tremendous amount of money, and there are people who cannot afford it. Then I want to ask this question. The hon. member did not tell us how we should set to work administratively to make this insurance compulsory. Must it be done in the same way as with third party insurance; must third party insurance be linked up with it, or must it only be an additional amount? I hope other speakers will give us more particulars about that. But if it must be done by the Government, if it is made compulsory, that average of R85 per annum must be collected. Must this be linked to third party insurance, must it be done in conjunction with the licensing or how must it otherwise be done? And the collecting and administration of that money will need a tremendous amount of work and also man-power. Those are matters which these hon. members must not lose sight of when they advocate these aspects. In this country we are inclined to simply advocate certain measures, but the very next day we begin complaining about a labour shortage. We must see matters in a clearer perspective. I want to mention a few arguments to indicate why one cannot do this.

What would be the result of this compulsory insurance? The insurance companies would obtain a much greater revenue, which I do not begrudge them if they can sell the insurance; I say that if they can freely sell the insurance to everyone I would be very grateful for the fact, and I would advocate that everyone takes out insurance without it being compulsory. But if it is made compulsory, accidents would drastically increase, in South Africa, because then every person would simply feel that he is insured and can now drive just as he wants to.

No, that is a very poor argument.

It is nevertheless true. Those are the facts. There have already been many commissions debating these aspects and stating that the fact that there is insurance is the cause of people being reckless, because a person feels he is insured. He is not afraid of incurring financial losses because he is insured, and he feels free to simply go ahead.

What about his own life?

People do not always think about that. I also want to say that if this is made compulsory, one is taking a very important aspect out of the hands of the insurance companies, i.e. their present-day ability to discriminate against reckless drivers. Then they will no longer do so, because then the companies will have to take all the risky business, whether it pays them to do so or not; because one cannot make this compulsory and then give them the right to refuse to insure certain individuals. I also want to say that if there are many more claims because the insurance is compulsory, this would not only entail very much greater costs for the insurance companies, but more of the claims will also be contested in court. This would require more magistrates and judges and buildings, and it would entail a great deal more than the hon. member now thinks.

In conclusion I just want to say that there are certain things we could, in fact, have a look at, and the Government has done so in the past, but I will support the hon. member if he proposes that there should again be an additional inquiry instituted. It is wrong, however, to simply say that this must be done and that this aspect must be made compulsory. As I have indicated, the arguments against it far outweigh the arguments that can be advanced in its favour.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my hope that this afternoon I would have been able to comment on the fact that it is not often that my friend, the hon. member for Port Natal, assumes the mantle or role which is neither political nor highly contentious.

I think the hon. the Minister of Community Development, had he been present, would have agreed with me—but regrettably the hon. member for Sunnyside, who has just sat down, has endeavoured in some way to make this debate both contentious and political. It is to my regret that he should have dealt at some length again with that unfortunate section of the population, the non-Europeans, and thrown on them the responsibility for the major number of accidents and also that he should have aligned again his party with the side that is anti-business. He accused my friend, the hon. member for Port Natal, of putting forward merely the case for the large insurance companies. I think hon. members will realize that that was in no way the intention of this motion and I shall endeavour to indicate that further.

I want to compliment the hon. member for Port Natal on having raised this timeous motion so shortly after the legislation which was introduced in regard to road safety and where we on this side disagreed with the Government, not on the fundamental issues of road safety, which we endorsed wholeheartedly, but on the question of the principle of the method of taxation with which we disagreed. I would say too that I believe the hon. member was quite right in analysing the existing legislation in order that we can see from what point of departure we could ask the Government to make balance of third party legislation compulsory in the interest, not only of all persons owning and/or driving motorcars, but of the public at large.

He was quite right in drawing attention to the fact that it was the hon. J. H. Hofmeyr who, in his capacity as Minister of Finance at the time, in 1942, brought in this enlightened initial Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, which was substantiated and enlarged later on with a vast patchwork of legal quilt in further Acts, namely Act No. 31 of 1959, Act No. 46 of 1966 and Act No. 30 of 1969. The latter Act had a particular feature in that it introduced the Motor Vehicle Fund from which insurance claims would be paid under existing legislation. It should be noted that in these latter Acts insurance by means of a comprehensive scheme was made compulsory for third-party insurance, but the insurance applied to the motor vehicle and not to the individual. It was the first time that this principle was envisaged.

The 1942 Act adopted the novel principle in ensuring that the motor vehicle, and not the owner of the vehicle, was insured. This insurance was effected by means of a declaration of insurance issued by the registered insurance company, which as a token of insurance, had to be carried on the vehicle. The important fact there was that the insurer and the insured entered into a statutory relationship and not a contractual one, a relationship which could not be varied even by mutual consent of the insurance company and the insured during the period of the insurance concerned. The primary principle involved in the 1942 Act was to protect third parties who suffer loss or damage as a result of death or injury caused by the driving of an insured vehicle. The Act did not make provision for the protection of the individual passenger of a culpable driver or owner of a vehicle or for property damaged as a result of the accident. The Act went further and protected the innocent party against a driver who was not insured, but at the time there were singular defects in the Act and the Act did not protect an innocent party in the case of a hit-and-run accident where neither the vehicle nor the culpable owner’s identity could be established.

It is to this extent that the motion before the House today seeks to introduce further legislation which will give balance of third-party cover to all motorists who are owners of vehicles and to the public whom may suffer from acts which may be culpable and which may be carried out by these owners. Let us for one moment examine the courses which are open to the owner-motorist today if he wishes to take out insurance. First he is compelled by the State to take out compulsory third-party insurance. Secondly, he has to take out third-party insurance but may in addition take out balance of third-party insurance which would protect him against claims by an innocent party for damage to property and also against claims by passengers whom he may be carrying. There is the element of furthering protection of the innocent party who can now have recourse to a proper insurance company and may recover losses both of property and in the case of the passenger, of passenger liability. Finally, the responsible and cautious motorist can have recourse to a fully comprehensive policy which is available in addition to the third-party compulsory insurance. It is this policy which is extremely expensive and in which few others than the most cautious and the most financially responsible motorist indulges. The hon. member for Sunnyside has shown just how few motorists are in fact covered.

In this country, where we may well say that South Africa is a country of motorists and to the extent that the Englishman regards his home as his castle we, in this country, regard our motorcar as our second home, it is, we believe, of vital importance that additional insurance should be taken out. We believe so, particularly because the damage which flows from accidents today has become inordinately expensive for a number of reasons. The first reason is the expense of our labour costs, the second is the expense of replacement parts for motor vehicles that are damaged and thirdly there is the expense of motor vehicles themselves.

As my hon. friend, the member for Port Natal, has said, when a motorcar is damaged, the innocent party is often the sufferer and finds that in a claim either he or his insurance company has to deal with a man of straw in that so many accidents revolve today around those people who are financially insecure. I do not criticize them as being bad drivers because they are university students, because they are women, because they are Indians, because they are Bantu or because they are non-Europeans. The fact is that they are driving vehicles which they cannot afford. They have been given a licence by the State to drive these vehicles. The vehicles have been declared roadworthy by the State and therefore it is no claim to say that they are culpable merely because they are non-Europeans or poor or driving vehicles in the lower price range. It is the duty of the State under our existing legislation to ensure that vehicles are licensed to people who can drive them properly and that they are roadworthy when they are driven.

We can take a lesson from Sweden that could well be adopted by insurance companies in South Africa and which would reduce the costs of motoring in South Africa and therefore the costs of claims and in this manner would reduce the costs of premiums which are becoming so harsh and so exorbitant. In Sweden the insurance companies themselves have banded together and created their own repair shops and have promoted the concept of bolt-on parts rather than the overall wrap-around type of bodywork that we have today. So, if a front mudguard is destroyed, it is merely removed and a new one bolted on. They have also recognized the principle that they should have car parks in which the car claims may be assessed immediately. The motorist may be given an indication as to what he is likely to receive by way of compensation for the claim. It has been realized in Sweden that many accidents do not involve the roadworthiness of the vehicle itself, but merely the looks. Swedish people believe that it is not right that a car owner should have his car restored to an “as new” condition every time he has a smash. In this manner they have reduced the cost of repairs considerably and the cost of car insurance premiums.

We, on this side of the House, in supporting this motion, are merely asking the Government to envisage an extension of the current third-party compulsory insurance which would result in the motorist having cover against damage of property to innocent third-parties and damage to passengers in the guilty party’s car. There is a precedent for this in Germany, as the hon. member for Port Natal has said, where they have the Afpflichtversicherung, which, since just after the last World War, has compelled the German motorist to take out compulsory insurance guaranteeing an innocent party against property damage to an extent of DM. 250 000 in the first instance. The motorist has the option of going to DM. 500 000 of insurance or to DM. 1 000 000. The subsequent two figures have a premium which is so low, relatively, that most people take them out. There is this tremendous advantage that when a country has a compulsory balance of third-party insurance in its legislation, persons entering the country as immigrants immediately take that cover and they know that they are then covered as they are in their home country. It is a tremendous advantage to know that you are not going to be crippled, either in your career or in your family life, if claims can be brought against a culpable driver who, in a moment of thoughtlessness may have fallen foul of the law and become involved in an accident. It has been shown statistically that there is no particular class of dangerous drivers. The dangerous drivers are sitting around this House right here and now. It is you, it is me. It has been stated that if all the dangerous drivers who have accidents in one year were removed from the roads in a given area, the next year you would have just the same number of accidents. Accidents are not only the result of the driver. They can be the result of circumstances, the car or the weather. People do not voluntarily today use these highly dangerous vehicles that bring about accidents which can result in their own bodily damage. So, I would appeal to the Minister concerned to give an indication as to whether the Government would not consider introducing this kind of legislation which would, quite correctly, lower the incidence of insurance taken out under the comprehensive basis. It would also lower the claims submitted under the comprehensive basis. It would ensure that the South African motorist, be he student, be he any class of motorist, would probably have a 100 per cent higher premium than he is presently paying under third-party, as it is known at the moment. Because of this, I disagree with the hon. member for Sunnyside. He would either be under the obligation of having to find the money or not take out a driver’s licence and not become a car owner. If he does become a car owner, on the penny stamp principle, the risk will be spread amongst all South African drivers and motorists, which will ensure that insurance companies are able to lower the overall rate. This tremendous wastage which is taking place, as a result of the high accident rate on our roads, would thus be covered and the innocent parties would not always be suffering. Therefore, I have great pleasure in giving my fullest support to the motion as put forward by the hon. member for Port Natal.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Gardens on his neat, scientific approach as far as this very important matter is concerned. It is just a pity that there are so few members on his side of the House who could listen to their own motion being discussed today. [Interjections.] It is their motion.

The hon. member for Port Natal has come to this House with a serious matter. It is fitting and essential that this House considers the lot of innocent victims of motor accidents, particularly those motorists and their passengers that cannot recover their losses. For that specific reason I want to emphasize that I appreciate the hon. member’s motion. Consideration of this matter is a responsibility this House cannot get away from. The same ideas that were raised here today have previously been raised in this House. They have previously been raised at National Party congresses, and I also suspect at United Party congresses. This is a matter that has already been thrashed out. It is also a matter that is above political expediency. I am saying these things so that the hon. member for Port Natal will not think that I want to make politics when I tell him that I cannot support his motion in the form in which he has presented it in this House. If his motion had been conditional, had stated that an inquiry should be instituted into certain matters mentioned here, one could have given it a second look. The hon. member’s solution—and hon. members will notice that the hon. member came along with a complete solution—has not taken several facets and aspects into consideration. I shall now try to illustrate those aspects, and I want to do this by way of questions. Does this motion foresee—and the hon. member for Kensington, who is apparently going to speak next, is free to reply—owners of tractors, i.e. mostly farmers, also taking out this compulsory insurance cover? We are a long way from 1942. Farmers today use our roads to an ever greater and increasing extent and everywhere on our roads we see tractors that belong to farmers. The question is whether it is desirable for this House to express finality about a matter before consultations have been held with this large sector of our community. One must bear in mind that some big farmers own up to 50 tractors. My second question is—and I am asking this in good faith— what all does the hon. member for Port Natal include in the term innocent victims?

When this question is answered, it must be borne in mind that cyclists and pedestrians also cause accidents. We must also take into consideration that this can happen under specific circumstances. A motor vehicle with passengers may swerve for a cyclist or a pedestrian without there being a collision, but the fault lies with the cyclist or pedestrian. The motor vehicle is damaged and the passengers are seriously injured. In other words, here we have innocent victims. I immediately want to add that according to the formula the hon. member has offered us, those people will not be covered. I shall come back to this question at a later stage. Is the hon. member’s view in connection with this aspect a correct one? The hon. member for Kensington can also tell us this.

My third question to the hon. member is what he means by material losses? Does he merely mean the vehicle belonging to an innocent party? Let me illustrate this question. It is impossible for the hon. member merely to have meant the vehicle of an innocent party, because then his motion is only significant and meaningful in one single case. This is the case where motorist A collides with motorist B—and the hon. member returned to this point two or three times—‘and motorist B is the innocent party. He claims from motorist A, but motorist A is not able to pay or goes insolvent. That could not possibly have been the hon. member’s intention, and consequently his motion must extend further than that single case. If that is so, additional questions crop up. The following material losses could also be incurred, for example: A passenger in a vehicle that collides with a motor car is injured, loses a year’s income and has dependants. Are those passengers also covered in the formula? The hon. member did not explain that point to us.

Fourthly, in his motion the hon. member states by implication that this covers the cases that are not covered by the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. That is also the argument of the hon. member for Gardens. In its widest application, and read in conjunction with the agreement between the consortium and the administration of the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund, it can only give rise to valid claims for damages suffered as a result of personal injury, not as a result of damage to property. The hon. member did not mention the hit and run cases, where the motorist is unknown and perhaps not insured at all. I take it, however, that he foresees that this must also be included. If we begin with one argument, it leads to the next. What of the case where we do not have a hit and run accident, but where one motorist forces another motorist off the road, without any contact having taken place between the two vehicles. According to the present Motor Vehicle Insurance Act there can be no claim. Neither can there be any claim in terms of the well-known and much famed agreement. The hon. member for Port Natal’s formula will not cover that instance either. The question now is what insurance company must pay in the case I have mentioned? It is very clear that if an insurance company cannot be approached for this claim, it has no meaning. Every day there are such cases that will not be covered. I should like the hon. member for Kensington to tell us whether he agrees that this is pre-eminently a case that must be covered by this motion. If that is the case, this means that the motion in its present form cannot be accepted.

Fifthly, we must take the following aspect into consideration. The motorist I have just mentioned can, to be sure, take out insurance that will cover his passengers against his own negligence, but if he was not negligent a whole new series of requirements come into operation and the premium will probably be much higher than it is today. In other words, in the calculation of these premiums an altogether new system of rules will come into consideration. Then the role of the insurance company becomes of great importance. I shall indicate in a moment that in my view this motion neglects to take note of the role and the willingness of the insurance companies to be involved in this. As I have said, the question that crops up is whether insurance companies want to or can undertake this. I have just this morning shown the motion to the head of a large insurance company and I asked him what his attitude is in this connection and whether his insurance company would undertake this project. He almost fell of his chair. He asked immediately whether we did not remember the “Auto Protection” and “Parity” era. He asked whether we remembered the chaos at that time. That is why I am so glad, and I want to compliment the hon. member for Port Natal on the fact that the hon. member frankly admitted—we would do well to take note of that—that the MVA fund, as administered by the State, is a success. In his recommendation he said we should allow all the insurance companies to participate, but that the administration should remain as it is at present. We are very grateful to him for admitting directly and frankly that the administration of the third party insurance fund is a success and that it is an improvement on the Parity and Auto Protection era.

Sixthly the motion has, in my opinion, one great deficiency, i.e. that no account is taken of the financial implications. The hon. member for Sunnyside made a sound comment and pointed out to us what the financial implications would be. I want to elaborate on that. We must take into account that only 11 per cent of all accidents give rise to third party insurance claims. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Gardens who said that we must establish a system that will provide for the rest. I want to emphasize that only 11 per cent of all accidents at present reach the stage of third party insurance claims. What is more, as far as injuries are concerned, 40 per cent do get that far, and the amount involved is R22 million. What would happen if we now said that we must make provision for all the injuries? Please note, this motion does not cover this aspect, the motion only speaks of material damage. We understand material damage to cover salaries, etc., for example, but not pain and suffering. But the hon. member apparently wanted to broaden the implications because he suggests that we should also include the rest. This means that we shall have to make additional provision for R33 million for claims against insurance companies. This is simple arithmetic. The matter goes further. 384 000 vehicles, almost 10 per cent of the number of vehicles, were involved in accidents in 1970. The Department of Transport made a simple calculation on the basis of statistics and determined that the average damage to each vehicle was about R330. This means a total of R127 million. Add to that the amount of R33 million that I mentioned here, and we have a total of R160 million. According to reports of the Registrar of Financial Institutions we have at present an expected premium revenue of about R60 million that can be employed if this scheme were to be tackled. This is the amount received by local and overseas insurance companies in respect of motor vehicle business. I want to add at once that in my calculation I have added personal accident cover. This gave me a total of R60 million. That was in 1967-’68. I want to acknowledge that that amount could be greater; let us make it R100 million. With R60 million, therefore, the necessary provision will have to be made and it will have to the distributed to cover South Africa’s motor vehicle population. That motor vehicle population already pays more than R15 per vehicle. Therefore, with the present premium revenue of hardly more than R20 million, those premiums will have to be trebled, i.e. R45 on each vehicle according to the formula the hon. member wants to employ. This indicates the tremendous implications we shall have to face and which we shall summarily have to accept according to the hon. members opposite. We cannot do this. We agree that it is a serious matter, and we accept the responsibility of this House. But we are of the opinion that this matter must be investigated and considered in depth before we tackle it.

The hon. member for Sunnyside also touched upon a matter that I want to refer to in conclusion. I take it that the United Party caucus approved this motion. I also take it that the hon. member for Port Natal has matured and mellowed with the years in this House, as I have done—look at the hon. member’s fine display today! I want to compliment him on it. However, when we wanted to impose a levy of 50 cents on each motorist to administer all these matters we have referred to today, that side of the House opposed us most strongly. They said it should come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. According to them we discriminate against motorists; we are unfair. They hit banner headlines in the newspapers. We know why they did this. At the time the hon. member for Yeoville said in his argument, inter alia, and I quote from Hansard, col. 1692 of this year’s discussions:

… What about cyclists?

They also cause motor accidents. Our stanpoint was that the motorist should accept responsibility. He buys the motor vehicle which is the heart of the problem. We said that we see it as a preventive measure, and those hon. members opposed us. Now hon. members suggest, as I have calculated for hon. members, that we shift off R45 on to each motorist. I do not want to condemn this summarily, because one must consider it in depth, as I have said, but I want to expose the political expediency those hon. members employed in their 50 cent arguments. That is what we want to condemn. We want to expose them in that respect. The hon. member who is now going to stand up must tell us—and I know this is going to require a great deal of the hon. member for Kensington—whether he agrees with the hon. member for Yeoville’s approach to this matter. If he agrees, he cannot support the motion. That, at least, is the implication. I want to believe that he is going to agree with the hon. member for Port Natal and that at last we are going to get an honest and sincere approach to this serious matter.

Listening to the two hon. members on that side of the House, one thing has struck me, namely that they do not seem to realize that what is being asked for is not a completely new thing. What is known as “balance of third party insurance” is something that is very well-known in the insurance world of this country. I was rather surprised that our friend from Sunnyside seemed to think that this motion would mean that every motorist would have to take out comprehensive insurance. That certainly is not the intention of this motion. I should have thought that, with his personal knowledge of insurance— I believe he has a background of contact with at least one insurance company—he would have realized this.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West asked a number of questions. He suggested that some matters had not been taken into consideration by my colleague, the hon. member for Port Natal. He asked, for instance, whether the hon. member for Port Natal envisaged this balance of third party insurance being applied to tractors. We all know what the position is already with regard to tractors on public roads. They are already subject to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. Compulsory third party insurance must be taken out if the tractors are to be used on public roads. I think that it is common cause that tractors would be included in what is aimed at in this motion.

The hon. member also posed the question of what the hon. member for Port Natal meant by “innocent victims”. He questioned, indeed, as to what would happen in the case of accidents caused through the misdoings of cyclists or pedestrians. Once again I am surprised that that hon. member apparently has not even made a basic study of balance of third party insurance as it can be bought in this country today. If he had “balance of third party” coverage while he was driving with passengers in his car and he was involved in an accident caused by a pedestrian, the normal third party insurance would not cover them but a balance of third party policy would. It is a simple matter and has nothing to do with the cause of the accident.

But what is your premium?

I shall come to the premium in a moment. It is very interesting. He also mentioned the question of material losses to what he called “innocent persons”. He asked whether the question of cover for material losses would only apply to innocent persons in the event of an accident. Let us once again go back to the normal provisions of a balance of third party policy. If I have that type of policy and I cause an accident my car is not covered. Any damage that is done to my property is not covered. That is a simple enough question. He could have cleared it up with the head of the insurance company with whom he said he consulted this morning.

Returning to the hon. member for Sunnyside, and I say this more in sadness than in anger, I am sorry that he questioned the motives of my colleague when he introduced this motion this afternoon. He questioned in a fairly sneering way whether the hon. member for Port Natal really had the interests of the motorists and those who suffer through motor accidents at heart, or as he put it with such old-world charm, whether my colleague was concerned with drumming up premiums for insurance companies. He has already had an answer to that from his own colleague on that side of the House, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. Insurance companies, and I can tell him this too, do not like the idea of this type of insurance being made compulsory. They do not see it as a very profitable form of business, in fact they are very worried that it might be made compulsory. I think if he had simply checked beforehand with whatever insurance company contacts he has, he would not have questioned the motives of the hon. member for Port Natal. I think it rather deplorable that he should have introduced that note into the debate.

I would like to deal with a few other matters which were raised by the hon. member for Sunnyside. He talked about the question of free choice as far as insurance is concerned and as far as the ability to drive a motor vehicle is concerned. When it comes to the question of injury to people and in many cases damage to property one should ask oneself very seriously whether the basic principles of our compulsory third party cover should not be extended. He talked about the fact that a person’s life is far more important than property; obviously we agree about that. What he seems to have overlooked is that there is one big gap as far as insurance is concerned, and that is that passengers in a vehicle which is in an accident caused by the driver of that vehicle, are not covered by compulsory third party insurance. Surely these passengers are innocent victims of the accident and surely too we should be turning our minds to some way of providing them with cover. These are not only cases in which the driver is necessarily negligent. One can think of a driver who, for example, has a blow-out in a particularly hazardous spot where through no real fault of his own—he might not have been speeding—his passengers are injured and suffer loss. Surely this is precisely the sort of case that we should be looking at in this debate. I feel it is rather regrettable that he did not think of this sort of thing earlier. Just before I go any further, a few other points were made by that hon. member. He used the example of people who he said would not be able to use motor vehicles, because of their limited resources. He mentioned the group of people he had in mind, whose limited resources would be used up by buying a motor vehicle. He felt they would not be able to bear the cost of insurance. Here, I am afraid, he was rather arguing against himself, because one immediately asks oneself. If this type of person cannot bear the cost of injury to people caused by his negligence, should he be driving at all?

I agreed with that.

The hon. member now says that he agrees, but that is not the argument which he advanced earlier.

Can he pay the insurance?

I want to come to the question of the type of premium we should think of making compulsory. I shall refer to that later on. If he cannot pay the insurance, obviously he would not be able to pay any compensation for any damage that he has caused. One asks again whether this is the type of driver that one wants on the road.

What about the “innocent victim” now?

He posed another question and that was in regard to the cost of administration of such a scheme. We all know that this type of insurance is not new in the world. It is compulsory in most countries of continental Europe including, I might add, some communist countries. They seem to be able to administer it and even here in this country we manage to administer our own compulsory third party insurance. It is quite clear that administration itself could be a problem, but I do not think for one moment that it is an insuperable one. Finally, in dealing with what he had to say, he made the extraordinary statement that if drivers were insured against all risks they would not worry then about being reckless. This rather startled me since I, for one, am insured against all risks.

Then why are you so reckless?

I try not to be reckless, because apart from all other considerations I might hurt myself. This motion and the type of insurance that this motion aims at in fact covers a narrower field of insurance than would appear to be the case at first glance. What it is aiming at is to close the gap between our present compulsory third party insurance cover and that provided by comprehensive motor insurance cover. Before we go any further, I should like to make one point about our compulsory third party cover, and that is that I do wish that insurance companies that handle third party insurance would make it quite clear to their clients exactly what cover they are being sold. Many people are under a complete misapprehension about what is covered by the compulsory third party insurance. I feel that each time a policy is issued it should be stated in the clearest possible terms what is being covered and, on broad lines, what is not being covered. As I said earlier, legislation or any move to cover what is being aimed at by my hon. colleague for Port Natal, would really be a social measure. A point of principle is involved in the question of whether or not the State should intervene and insist on compulsory insurance, and whether or not the stage has been reached where this should be done. The hon. member for Port Natal quite clearly thinks that this stage is already past, and this may well be the case. Sir, other countries, as I have mentioned, believe that this type of insurance is necessary. In some of them a ceiling is placed on any awards that can be made in terms of the insurance policy. This is quite a common practice in Europe. The hon. member for Gardens has mentioned Sweden, and strikingly enough I think the Swedes are very advanced in their approach to this sort of thing, and although they do have a ceiling I believe it is the highest ceiling in Europe.

The hon. member for Sunnyside raised the question as to what sort of premium would be payable if balance of third party were to be made compulsory. Sir, this is one of the objections raised by the insurance companies themselves. As far as I am able to judge, their main objection is that this type of insurance will probably prove to be a very uneconomic type of insurance, but I want to remind you, Sir, that this is not a new type of insurance that we are dealing with. Most motor vehicle insurance companies are prepared to give balance of third party cover.

Is that all you want—balance of third party?

Yes, only balance of third party cover. That is all that this motion asks. I do not know why the hon. member for Sunnyside did not realize this from the start. Most insurance companies are prepared to give balance of third party cover, and these policies never cost more than somewhere in the region of about R15 a year.

Could you tell us whether insurance companies would be prepared to give balance of third party cover?

Have you ascertained that it is only R15?

Sir, I have balance of third party cover on one of my cars. I have comprehensive cover on the other two.

Because you have other insurance policies that is why.

No, the hon. member is quite wrong. Several years ago, before I renewed my cars, I had balance of third party on both cars which I had at the time. My hon. friend, the member for South Coast, says that he has balance of third party as well. I think that hon. member is way off beam when he suggests that insurance companies would not want to grant that type of insurance. Until now their premiums have been extremely modest. I am not suggesting for one moment that if this were done on a very much larger scale the premiums would necessarily remain static. I am quite sure that they would rise, if for no reason other than the fact that most of the vehicles being newly insured, in other words, vehicles which do not have comprehensive cover at the moment, are the sort of vehicles that would probably carry greater risks. Sir, the other objection, as I understand it, that comes from insurance companies, is that the organization would be very difficult indeed. That point was also dealt with by the hon. member for Sunnyside. I believe that in itself is not insuperable; I think it is something that could certainly be looked into.

The hon. member for Port Natal dealt very adequately with the motives underlying his motion, and I must say that I agree with most of what he said. There are other things that could be added, such as what seems to me to be the basic unfairness of the situation that when a driver is licensed he seems almost in some cases to get a licence to go out on to the road and cause damage without any sense of responsibility at all. I am sure that there are many of us who have had the experience of being involved in accidents which have not been our fault, and we have found that the damages have not been recoverable from the guilty party. I do feel that there is a good case to be made out for this type of insurance to be made compulsory. Sir, there is one thing which, I am glad to say, seems to have been agreed upon by every speaker in the debate so far, and it is something that I want to press for as strongly as I can, and that is that there should be a new, fresh inquiry into the whole position. We all know that inquiries have been held in the past, not only in this country but in other countries, and it has been held that this is not a feasible proposition. In Britain, for instance, as I understand the position, the question has been raised many times and it has never met with favour from the Government’s side. But I should like to suggest that this House should support this motion moved by the hon. member for Port Natal; that we should adopt the principle that it is desirable that we should have this type of insurance and that we should ask the Government to appoint a new commission to investigate just how this can be brought about.

I want to start off by saying that I myself had problems in gaining a full understanding of the motion of the hon. member for Port Natal. I was not sure whether he had in mind comprehensive insurance, or whether he had in mind extended, third party insurance, which proved to be the case judging from the arguments advanced by hon. members on that side. I must say that I concluded from the motion that he had the latter in mind. Sir, I want to concede at once that the motion of the hon. member for Port Natal is not without merit. There are sound arguments that may be advanced from that premise. So I think he has advanced most of the arguments which can probably be advanced in that respect. The fact that his motion is not without merit, is also clear from the fact that this is in fact not the first time that the idea has been put forward positively. As has been said here, it was put forward at, for example, agricultural congresses and at party congresses. It is also true that at congresses that I know of, it has been suggested that the compulsory third party insurance should be done away with. There are many people with whom it is not popular. However, what we are concerned with here is the fact that other persons may, through their negligence, cause people a great deal of material damage and that, because of the financial position of the persons who caused the damage, damages cannot be recovered from them. Sir, when one accepts this principle as such, the question immediately arises as to where one is to draw the line. Should one draw the line at insurance only? One can extend the same considerations and the same tragedy to a whole series of examples which manifest themselves in society in which people associate with one another. I say the motion has merit, but unfortunately it is a fact that there is no such thing as advantages without disadvantages. Debating this motion will undeniably have its advantages, but there is a disadvantageous aspect as well. This is always present when one has an advantage. Because of this very fact I am not going to take it on me today to commit the Government one way or another by stating whether the motion is accepted or rejected. I think that if the hon. member has achieved anything substantial through his motion today, it is probably to be found in the fact that he has stimulated anew and will again stimulate the minds of the people directly concerned in this matter, i.e. the motorists and the bodies who speak on behalf of the motorists. From my point of view, I feel that they are the people who will have to adopt a specific attitude and present it clearly.

I said a moment ago that at present we still did not have complete unanimity on the existing compulsory third party insurance. Voices are still raised in opposition to it. So, when one starts thinking about the other side of the matter, as opposed to that raised here by the hon. member, that immediately poses a series of questions to which one then has to start looking for answers in one’s own mind. For example, there is the question of whether, when this further obligation is imposed, as hon. members on the opposite side now suggest, this should be left entirely to the insurance industry or whether the State should step in in this regard, i.e. should the State establish a new statutory body or should it be laid down that the present activities of the M.V.I. Fund should be extended so as to cover this as well? Actually there are these three options: The State may leave it entirely to the insurance companies, or it may establish a new institution, or it may decide on the further extension of the existing institution.

If a statutory body is not established, the position immediately arises that the State, after it has imposed this additional obligation, cannot dissociate itself from it in any event, because in that case the State has imposed an obligation by an Act of this Parliament and it will be bound to take an interest in and to keep an eye on the way in which those obligations are met. In other words, as a Government it will retain a certain liability in circumstances similar to those which started to prevail under the existing compulsory third party insurance. In this case they will once more start to prevail. There will be charges as to excessive profits being made and there will be criticism to the effect that the matter should be taken into hand. In other words, eventually the hand of the State will again be forced in a certain direction. If the State were to decide to enter this field, a further question arises, i.e. what would the effect be of this further State action on the field of the insurance industry; would this not perhaps result in certain increases or higher premiums having to be introduced in respect of other aspects of insurance? It is very important for one to obtain clarity first before committing oneself definitely to something like this. To what extent should the State enter this field?

It is clear that when Parliament decided in 1942 to take this first step, it also decided to do the minimum of what was deemed necessary. That is quite clear. That is why it only went so far as to protect the third party, the person in the other vehicle. Now hon. members on the opposite side have emphasized that the person in my vehicle, in the vehicle driven by me, is innocent too. That, however, is not quite correct because when I get into that vehicle, I know what I am doing, and if I get into that vehicle and I see that the driver is under the influence of liquor, I can tell him to stop; I want to get out. When I get into that vehicle and I see the person is driving recklessly, I can tell him the same thing, but when I get into the vehicle of a person I do not know, I am in any event accepting a calculated risk to some extent. That must be so. In other words, whatever may happen eventually or whether I shall be able to recover something if that person is responsible for what happens to me, I have acted willingly and knowingly. The really innocent party is the person in the other vehicle or even the driver of the other vehicle who does not know what is coming, who does not know what is coming from the front, and who has no control whatsoever over it. I had control over the decision as to whether or not I was going to get into that vehicle. I advance this in order to show that it seems clear to me that Parliament felt at that time that it was going to enter the field of insurance, but that it was going to do so only to the absolute minimum extent and no further.

I want to tell the hon. member on the opposite side that he may advance the same arguments that were advanced in favour of the introduction of the existing third party insurance and repeat them as they are in favour of the introduction of this extended third party insurance. The fact of the matter is that those very same arguments may be repeated as they are for comprehensive motor vehicle insurance and they will be just as valid. But I am even going further than that by saying that he may repeat those very same arguments as they are, of other people suffering as a result of someone’s negligence, in order to go much further as regards insurance. When it comes to ordinary life insurance, those very same arguments as they are will apply time and again. In other words, one immediately comes up against the situation where one must decide whether one is going to enter a field in which one will have to go further and further, i.e. that if one says A, one has to say B, and if one says B, one has to say C, or whether one must finally draw the line here. These are the things that will have to be thought out very carefully. I want to raise a few other ideas and in so doing I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Port Natal, particularly with regard to the old vehicle whose owner apparently did not care whether or not it was damaged, or scratched. It is a fact that one sees this. The other argument he mentioned, i.e. that of an employee using his employer’s motor vehicle and not caring for the vehicle, is as true; one sees this too. How often in every day life, when one sees a person driving carelessly, not caring whether he will be involved in accidents, and pushing in where he ought not to, does not one hear someone remark, “Well, of course it is not his own vehicle”.

In pursuance of that, I want to come to a point which insurance companies may not like, but which has been worrying me for a long time. It is a point which was also raised by the hon. member for Sunnyside, but which was then rejected as ridiculous by the hon. members on the opposite side. How often have I not seen a person driving carelessly and not caring whether he will be involved in an accident and wondered whether he was not so careless because of the very fact that he knew the premiums of proper insurance cover had been paid, and now he could do as he pleased. The hon. member for Port Natal need not put on such a sad face now. The principle is exactly the same: I can do as I please, because I am not paying. In fact, is the temptation for that person whose vehicle is fully insured and whose premiums are fully paid-up, not greater to act in this way than it is for that person whose uninsured old, worn out vehicle is all he possesses? I think it is. I mention this consideration because these are thoughts which enter one’s mind and the questions which then present themselves to one, are to what extent insurance is compatible with road safety and to what extent they are in conflict with each other. To what extent are these aims conflicting ones? These are questions which present themselves to one very pointedly.

There are other considerations as well. For example, the hon. member, in pleading for compulsory insurance, was consistent in mentioning the case of the man of straw. However, in pleading for compulsory insurance, he did not consider the man who was not of straw. Suppose we introduced compulsory insurance and we said B, we had already said A, and we then said C. Now it is a fact that large companies and undertakings which have fleets of a few hundred vehicles may find, and indeed do find on good grounds, that they are strong enough to carry the risks and consequently they themselves cover themselves against accidents in which their vehicles may be involved. The outcome is that what the insurance companies were to have spent on administration costs, and what they were to have taken as profit for themselves, is retained by those undertakings or companies which have such fleets of vehicles.

I can give hon. members a very typical example in this respect. When I was attached to the Administration of South-West Africa, the question presented itself pointedly to us and we investigated and made calculations over a period of five years. The administration has a large fleet of vehicles, just like other administrations. We had calculations made specifically for answering the question of whether or not we should insure. The conclusion at which we arrived was that in the course of five years we would have had to pay so much more in respect of premiums than we would actually have had to pay out in the form of repairs to vehicles involved in accidents and damages paid out to other people. The difference was so great that we did not consider insurance a moment longer.

What holds good in the case of such an administration, also holds good for a body which feels that it has sufficient capital to carry its own risks and to pay up when it has to pay up, and consequently it decides to take for its own account the profits made and the costs which have to be incurred by insurance companies. Therefore, as far as this matter is concerned, we must not think only of the man of straw; we must also take stock of the position as seen from the point of view of the moneyed man who will then have to be treated in the same way too and on whom liabilities will be imposed which he would otherwise have been able to avoid easily.

From start to finish the problems with insurance are—whether it is motor vehicle insurance or life insurance, or insurance against fire or whatever form of insurance —that the needs for insurance differ from person to person. That is why there are insurance consultants who specialize in investigating the full circumstances of a person’s life or business when he wants to take out insurance, so that he may be offered a policy which provides exactly what he requires. The next person is offered a different policy, something which is again suited specifically to his circumstances. That is why I feel that we should be very careful when we start saying B—we are making circumstances the same for everyone—because the same circumstances that force one to say B, force one to say C the day after tomorrow. In this way we are going to infringe more and more on the rights of the individual to decide for himself at his own discretion. The hon. member for Port Natal will accept that it cannot continue in this way and that a line has to be drawn somewhere. Therefore great care is necessary when a decision is taken as to precisely where that line is to be drawn.

Mr. Speaker, I read the motion and thought that we would be able to have a very fruitful discussion of this subject this afternoon. I was rather pleased about the fact that the motion was laid before this House by the hon. member for Port Natal. To some extent I owe him a debt of gratitude for the way in which he presented his case here. However, he immediately left a number of questions in my mind on which I still do not have clarity. The hon. member’s motion mentions that in addition to insurance required in terms of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, innocent victims of motor accidents should be guaranteed—and now I quote from the Afrikaans version—“teen alle materiële verlies”. In referring to the English version this afternoon, which I did not have in front of me before, I saw that he mentions “balance of third party”, and it is not completely clear to me whether the terms “alle materiële verlies” and “balance of third party” are in complete agreement. I should have liked to argue this matter with him further. If I remember correctly the hon. member referred to the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act when he introduced the motion. He referred to the scope of that Act and indicated to us more or less what damage was covered by that Act. He went on to mention cases not covered by the Act. The first of these cases—and he elaborated on this for some time—was that of passengers injured in an accident caused by negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. In addition he spoke of hitch-hikers and people picked up as non-paying passengers. He placed special emphasis on the unfavourable position in which these people found themselves whilst being conveyed in a motor vehicle involved in a smash because of negligence on the part of the driver of that vehicle. If I remember correctly, he mentioned a further class of damage, i.e. the damage to the motor vehicle of the innocent party; because the material damage to the motor vehicle of the innocent party is not covered by the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. Now it is not quite clear to me whether he intended by this that only these two groups of people should benefit through his motion. Are these the only people who suffer damage because of the fact that they are involved in an accident innocently? This is the first question which leaves some doubt in my mind.

To me the other aspect of the matter is rather much more important. Does he envisage with this motion that compensations should be given regardless of whether or not negligence was involved? It is true that his motion refers to “innocent victims of motor accidents”; but from the context it is not clear to me whether he used the words “innocent victims” as we use these words in Afrikaans, i.e. to mean “poor victims”, in other words, people who find themselves in trouble by accident, or whether he used the words to mean people who are innocent in the sense that they did not contribute to the negligence which caused the accident. If he wants to bring negligence into the matter, he will have a point to some extent; but if he has in mind here that there will simply be compensation for all people who suffer damage as a result of motor accidents, regardless of whether or not negligence was involved, I want to issue a warning that we would impose a tremendous burden of claims on the motorist.

Don’t they do it overseas?

I am not informed as to that. I should like to take the argument further. We have here certain calculations made by the Department of Transport in connection with the claims put in at present in terms of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act as a result of the approximate number of 218 000 accidents we had in our country in the year 1971. These calculations are based on the large number of vehicles which were involved in these accidents, i.e. close on 384 000 vehicles. The Department of Transport calculated that as a result of bodily injury, pain and suffering, claims amounting to R66 million were put in. This amount of R66 million represents claims put in merely in respect of 11 per cent of those involved in accidents. Now, if one goes further and deletes this principle of negligence from this insurance, one has to multiply this 11 per cent, in which case one finds that the total damage could have amounted to close on R600 million, only with regard to bodily injury and claims as a result of deaths, etc. Moreover, the Department found, on the same basis of 11 per cent of the claims, that medical costs amounted to as much as R3 753 000. Once again, if one takes this as 11 per cent and processes the figure, medical costs may amount to as much as R30 million per annum. Surely hon. members can see that an enormous amount may be involved if one is tripped up by this question, i.e. whether or not negligence should be taken into account. At the moment the damages, pain, suffering and medical, legal and assessors’ costs of those injured because of negligent driving are not covered.

We proceed with these figures. It was found that last year legal costs alone amounted to something like R5 million and assessors’ costs to something close on R900 000. In addition there were sundry expenses of approximately R125 000. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West calculated that damage to motor vehicles alone amounted to something like R127 million in the past year. The total claims in terms of the present Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, plus the material damage to vehicles, to which the hon. member wants to extend this, will amount to close on R202 million. Now you must remember, Sir, we worked on the principle of negligence. I did not eliminate that from the calculations. It is a very simple sum to divide this figure of R202 million by the number of two million motor vehicles—I am not even including the motor-cycles and other vehicles which are licensed and have to have third party insurance as well —and then one finds, on this principle alone, that one will have to pay a premium of approximately R100 per vehicle per annum, which would be a tremendous burden on the motorist.

I said from the beginning that it was not quite clear to me whether the hon. member for Port Natal had in mind with his motion that we should give a general compensation in this regard, as for example the compensation applying under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in the case of a worker suffering bodily injury and damage as a result of an injury sustained on duty. Such a person receives compensation regardless of the fact whether he was negligent and he himself caused that injury to himself. Regardless of whether or not the injury was due to his negligence, he receives his compensation. If we want to introduce this principle of compensation regardless of negligence, we shall come up against astronomical figures. I have already told you that on this present basis of R66 million of claims put in last year, which represents only 11 per cent, one can arrive at a round figure of approximately R600 million in respect of injuries, deaths, etc. One must realize that in that case even the family of the man who caused the accident would be able to claim compensation in the event of that man’s death. I processed the medical costs and found that it may amount to approximately R30 million. I processed the legal costs and found that it may amount to virtually R12½ million. In this way I found that assessors’ costs could amount to approximately R2 250 000. In the end I arrived at the astronomical total of R772 million, the amount accidents may cost our country per annum. Now, if one divides this amount by the two million vehicles in South Africa, one finds it comes to the terrible burden of R386 per vehicle. If I may interrupt myself, I want to say that this is the amount of damage suffered today as a result of motor accidents on our roads. The only thing we do not have is the figures concerning how and where this is paid, and I wonder who the people are who pays this amount of R386 per vehicle at the moment. We know that some of the compensation is paid by the insurance companies and that guilty victims themselves have to pay their expenses. The facts are, however, that if we process these figures which the Department of Transport has at its disposal in respect of claims put in under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, we find that motor accidents in our country cost us R727 million at the present moment. If the hon. member for Port Natal looks at this figure alone, he will know that he must be very circumspect as to how he makes these proposals. I cannot see how he can simply accept the principle of general compensation, compensation regardless of whether or not negligence was involved. However, if he tells me that he is prepared to consider insurance on the basis that only non-negligent persons will be compensated he will, of course, considerably restrict the extent of the claims against this fund he wants to establish. I say once again, however, that the extent of the claims will be no less than at least R202 million, because that was the figure last year. Essentially these are my two problems with regard to this motion. If this motion were to go any further and were to be embodied in legislation, I would have the further problem that to me that would be legislation which would smack of socialism. I know that in many cases we have gone a long way on this road and I know that there are analogous cases in our legislation, but here I should like to issue a warning that we should look twice and thrice at legislation which takes us further along the road of socialism. Therefore we must be doubly sure, because, after all, it will be the more well-to-do section, I nearly said the White section, of the population which will have to pay.

Something else which bothers me with regard to the motion of the hon. member for Port Natal is that he and his supporters seem to have in mind that they want to restrict traffic on the roads, and consequently limit accidents, by imposing such a heavy burden on the motorist by means of this premium that it will not be possible for a whole group of people to take their vehicles out on the roads. Now I do not know whether this is indeed a principle which will elicit wide support. I do not think the United Party itself will be prepared to propagate this matter actively and to propagate that people should be burdened so heavily that they cannot come out on the roads. To me this is in conflict with their argument the other day when they did not want to add even 50 cents to the motor insurance premium. My calculation is that the hon. member will have to charge a premium of at least R100 per motor vehicle per annum. Will the hon. member be prepared to propagate this actively to the outside? It seems to me hon. members opposite believe that the smaller the number of motor vehicles on the roads, the smaller the number of motor accidents will be. Or otherwise, and actually I find this even more wrong than the previous argument, the hon. member argues that R100 can in fact be paid, but what about bicycles and other vehicles on our roads? What about pedestrians and some of the other various parties who contribute to the various motor accidents? If I may give the hon. member some advice, and I do this in all modesty, I should like to have a further discussion with him about the possibility of extending the scope of this Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. In that case, however, we must be very circumspect as to how far we extend it. I am afraid the costs thereof will be of such magnitude that the motorist will simply not be able to shoulder the burden. There will have to be financing from another source as well. Contributions towards these astonishingly high costs will have to be made from the side of other road-users, such as cyclists and pedestrians, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have made the points I felt ought to be made.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to draw the attention of this House to the inevitable consequence it would have if we were to accept the motion moved by the hon. member for Port Natal. It would lead to much more carelessness on our roads. During the time that I was a member of the South African Road Safety Council, a great deal of research was done on this very matter, i.e. that people think they are safe because they are protected by insurance. I am also thinking of, for example, the research carried out by PUTCO in Johannesburg on this same matter. They specially appointed a psychologist to investigate the various facets of the accidents on their roads in which their buses were involved. The conclusion reached after a considerable amount of this research work had been completed, was, firstly, that drivers had to be sorted out. They then applied specific psychological methods to sort out their drivers. Secondly, they established that it would be more profitable for them not to insure the buses, but to carry the risk themselves and to impress upon the drivers that the company itself, not an insurance company, was responsible for the repair of damaged buses. I can also mention other examples in regard to this matter. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance referred to the South-West Africa Administration, where, for example, they carried out experiments in this regard for five years and established that it would be more profitable for them if they themselves bore the responsibility for costs arising from accidents.

I must say to this House that I feel it is really unfair that the motorist who takes care to avoid accidents should be penalized. I suggest that that hon. member who is so obsessed with road safety in South Africa, enquires from the South African Road Safety Organization how many people there are who consciously dedicate themselves to promoting road safety. There are many such motorists. Now the hon. member requests in his motion that those people should be penalized. There are many families today—fathers, mothers and children still at school—who are trying to promote this idea of greater safety on our roads. This motion of the hon. member for Port Natal is in total conflict with the idea and endeavour of these people and of the main organization responsible for it, namely the South African Road Safety Council.

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

Mr. Speaker, I personally investigated this matter and if I had to tell this House of my personal experience in this regard, that hon. member would be shocked and would perhaps request that this motion be withdrawn immediately. I have five vehicles registered in my name. Throughout the years I have paid insurance premiums in respect of these vehicles. Unfortunately I do not have the figures with me, but there is a difference of thousands of rands between the amount spent on the vehicles in respect of which insurance premiums are paid and the amount spent on the group of vehicles in respect of which the principle established by the South African Road Safety Association is applied, namely that the risk of damage to vehicles is carried by the company itself and that it is impressed upon the drivers of those vehicles that no other organization besides their own employer will pay for that damage. It must be brought home to the driver that he is the responsible person and that his employer, who is, after all, the one who provides him with bread and butter, will have to pay for the damage. This will help to reduce the number of accidents in our country.

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