Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs presented his Second Reading speech to this hon. House yesterday evening we noted with interest that it was in a sense a special plea for a special section of our community, namely the Indian community. We noted, too, that the Indian community, according to the hon. the Minister, had in fact requested, as had the Indian Council, the hon. the Minister to make representations to the Cabinet for the introduction of this Bill. I want to state forthwith that we on this side of the House, perhaps more particularly than any other people in the House, have recognized that the Indian community has held a special place in the province of Natal and elsewhere in South Africa where they have been economically active. Over the years they have shown an acumen and a sophistication in economic affairs …

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I am presenting my speech.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member whether he does not feel like issuing a statement on Durbanville. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before this House today is a serious one, and one which merits the serious attention of all hon. members sitting in these benches. It does not merit frivolous interjections such those from the hon. Chief Whip on the Government side. [Interjections.] We regard the presentation of this Bill, in the form in which it has been submitted to the House, as a plea for special interests. I also want to add that nobody could be more keen than those of us on this side of the House for the Indian community and other economic communities in South Africa to have the opportunity of making progress in industrial affairs, particularly in secondary industry. When, therefore, I say to the hon. the Minister that we cannot support the principle of this Bill and will be voting against it at Second Reading, I want to motivate my case very clearly.

We believe, and have always believed, that the South African economy should be seen in its entirety as a single economy. We believe that the series of industrial development laws, the Coloured Industrial Development Act and the Bantu Investment Corporation Act, have merely been milestones in the further introduction of stages of the apartheid policy of this Government. I believe that, in the case of this Bill, it is just another apartheid measure which we intend to oppose. I want to state, too, that at a time when our economy is going through most difficult and troubled experiences, and when the hon. the Minister has made reference to the State refraining from further intervention in private enterprise, this Bill is extremely ill-timed. If we go into the objects of the Bill, we see, in clause 3, that—

Secondary industry is referred to on a number of occasions in the Bill, for instance, in clause 4(a), where it says—

In the Industrial Development Act provision was made, in a Bill introduced by the UP in 1940, for the industrial development of South Africa as a whole. The Bill, at that time, was never seen as an apartheid measure, and there was no reference in the Bill to its being exclusively for the benefit of the White population group or any other population group. Its objects were considerably wider, but again they did make provision for the Government to arrange financial assistance for sound development of industries throughout South Africa. The general term “industry” is referred to in the Industrial Development Act, and not the term “secondary industry”. We find it puzzling, therefore, that in the case of the Bill before the House “secondary industry” is in no way defined by the hon. the Minister. This could easily lead to difficulties in the interpretation of the Bill, and I believe that a definition of the term “secondary industry” should be included. I myself believe that many people in this House believe that they understand what “secondary industry” means, but I have difficulty in finding an economic definition in an economic dictionary …

I will give you one.

… or a technical definition …

I will give you one.

I believe that it is important that the hon. the Minister should define “secondary industry” in the Bill itself. The hon. the Minister has been at pains to make sure that he could interpret this, but without the introduction of the definition into the Bill it would leave tremendously wide scope. If we look at the definitions which are available we find that not only “primary” industries, but also “secondary” industries and “tertiary” industries are defined. The overlap between secondary industries and tertiary industries could be such that if the Bill is proceeded with there could be confusion in the minds of those persons who eventually have to interpret the Bill.

We do not take our stand on the fact that the Indian community has asked for this Bill, because we believe that they have a sectional right to ask for the Bill and that they have a need for development. However, we ask whether the principle involved in the Bill is sound, because we are not only legislating for the Indian community, but we are also legislating in the economic interests of South Africa. Looking at the Bill, I must make the point that it is another apartheid measure. Furthermore, it is a further fragmentation of our already fragmented economy, into further groupings and watertight compartments. We do not believe that an economy is capable of absorbing the application of a colour bar. If we have to have a sane, sound and healthy economy, it must overlook group interests and must take into account the total interests of all our country. We also believe that if the Indian community need and desire assistance in developing their secondary industries, there may also be White people who desire and feel the need for development in secondary industries. There is already a Coloured Development Corporation, against which Bill we voted on the same grounds, i.e. that it was another apartheid measure.

Further, we do not believe we should be differentiating in South Africa in favour of a particular economic group. We believe sincerely that our whole economy would be very much stronger than it is at the moment if we were to concentrate the endeavours and efforts of the House on ensuring that our total economy gives ample scope and opportunity to all sections of the community to make their rightful contribution to our economic wealth and to share in the total economic wealth which is available.

The Bill makes provision for auditors. We believe that in the case of the other development corporations hon. members of this House have been singularly ill-informed as to the activities of these corporations. The reason for this is that in those Bills, as in this Bill, the hon. the Minister has seen fit to introduce a clause—clause 21(2) in the case of this Bill—which provides for the appointment of private auditors. We on this side of the House hold the accountancy profession in the highest regard, but we believe that Parliament has the right to have more detailed information about any State corporation’s accounts, particularly at a time when many State corporations are showing losses. We most sincerely believe that if this Bill is proceeded with, the hon. the Minister should give thought to allowing the Auditor-General to audit these accounts, so as to give Parliament the opportunity of knowing, when the accounts are presented to us, that we have control over the audit.

Before moving an amendment which indicates our attitude to this Bill, I would like to sum up by saying that we are very strongly in favour of all sections of the South African community being given the opportunity to develop industrially and to engage in the development of secondary industries per se. However, there is legislation on the Statute Book which allows just this, and we cannot help but feel that it is because of the Government’s apartheid ideologies that it is seeking to place the various race groups into watertight compartments. If one studies the objectives of the Industrial Development Corporation as embodied in the Act which was passed in 1940, we note that with the approval of the State President, the Act seeks to establish and conduct any industrial undertaking and to facilitate, promote, guide and assist in the financing of new industries and industrial undertakings, as well as schemes for the expansion and modernization and the more efficient carrying out of operations in existing industries and industrial undertakings. This is the Bill to which we subscribed when it was first introduced in the House. We still believe that that Bill was designed to give all the assistance that is required in South Africa to entrepreneurial industrialists. In 1962, however, the NP, which was the Government at the time, introduced the Coloured Development Corporation Bill, which had slightly different objects and provided not for the industrial development of the Coloureds, but for the general economic development of the Coloureds living in Coloured areas and industrial areas. If there exists any doubt that at the time the Government envisaged these measures to be apartheid measures, I shall read the comments of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, Mr. H. E. Martins, in Hansard, Vol. 99 of 1959. Referring to the Bantu Investment Corporation Bill, he had this to say (col. 454)—

He went on to endeavour to give to the Industrial Development Act a similar connotation. I quote—

That leaves beyond doubt the fundamental ideologies and thinking which the Government is applying. With regard to the Coloured Development Corporation, that particular Bill again provided for the advancement of the Coloureds in commerce and industry in a far wider field that bore no reference to secondary industry. Here we have the Indian Council coming to the Government against the background of its being compartmentalized into an Indian community as distinct from a South African community. The hon. the Minister tells us that they have made an appeal for the introduction of an Indian Development Corporation for the promotion of secondary industries. It is well known that the original capital is mooted at some R3 million in A and B shares. We take no issue on this, because, as in the case of the IDC, it is not the starting capital that has any real purpose, but the finishing capital, because this can always be expanded. If the hon. the Minister was sincere with this House, he would have taken the Indians’ request to the Cabinet and suggested that the terms of the Industrial Development Act of 1940 be interpreted to give the Indians all the support they need. The IDC has in fact given the Indians on occasion, as during the last few months, some R3 million or R4 million.

Are you suggesting that the IDC has up to now been differentiating against the Indian population?

If the hon. the Minister had paid attention, he would have heard that I made the comment that if the hon. the Minister had been sincere in presenting his case to the Cabinet, he would have told the Cabinet that the application of the Industrial Development Corporation Act is completely wide enough in its present form to allow the Indian community all the assistance they require.

Are you suggesting I did not do so?

I did not suggest that. I went on further to say that we are aware that the IDC has assisted the Indians during recent years. We cannot see any real motive for lating the Indians and for taking them out from the control of the Industrial Development Act. We would go further and say that it would be much sounder if the Government, that is if the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet were sincere, would consider the appointment of an Indian director to the board of the Industrial Development Corporation and the appointment of other non-Whites, representatives of industry, to the board of the Industrial Development Corporation. In that way we shall get away from the concept we have in South Africa, namely a fragmented economy which consists of a White economy, a Black economy, a Coloured economy and an Indian economy. The creation of these independent development corporations merely gives rise to further State intervention. We know that the hon. the Minister is touchy about State intervention, but does he realize that the creation, at this day and age, of a further Industrial Development Corporation for assistance to the Indians in secondary industry, is merely a further extension of State interference in private enterprise? There is no reason whatsoever why the secondary industries, as they are envisaged, should not be able to raise the necessary funds in the open market, backed by the acumen, the integrity and the background education of the Indian community. There is no more reason for differentiation in their case than there would be differentiation against a White person, a group of persons or a company developing secondary industry in South Africa.

I want to indicate the belief of members on this side of the House in moving the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my speech I shall return to certain allegations made by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, both in his amendment and in his speech. I should first like to refer to the confusion and embarrassment which prevails among my hon. friends on the other side of the House today. Sir, elections are won by a party because it governs well. Elections are not won with slogans, vague words and all sorts of promises. Therefore I should like to convey my congratulations to the leaders of the NP in the two provinces, Cape and Transvaal, for the successes achieved in the by-elections. I should like to see whether the hon. member for Sea Point, or his colleague the hon. member for Randburg will have anything to say in this connection.

Order! The hon. member should not go too far.

I return to the Bill, Sir. When one listens to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, and when one looks at the hon. member’s amendment, one is amazed that the political party to which he belongs can be and remain so politically dense. Fourteen years ago, when the Bill which established the Coloured Development Corporation was introduced, there were the same objections on the part of the Opposition. In 1962 the hon. member for Durban Point raised the same objections as have been raised against the Bill which is before this House today—

In spite of the things which were said at that time, not one of those prophecies of doom came true. Indeed, in the intervening years, the Coloured Development Corporation has grown and helped a large number of Coloured entrepreneurs establish themselves, and today many of them have flourishing businesses. One wonders why the Opposition is so dense. They keep on talking about State intervention. However, I am waiting for the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens to tell me whether the IDC was guilty of State intervention over the years or whether it did not, instead, help a large number of people in the private sector to establish themselves and finance them with its funds.

What about National Selections?

Can the activities of the Coloured Development Corporation be considered to be State intervention or was it perhaps rather a case of granting State support and assistance to people who applied for it and had the aptitude and qualifications, in order to help them establish business undertakings. I ask: Why are these people so dense? They are probably so dense—if you are going to allow me to say so, Mr. Speaker—because they are in such a shambles. They are in a shambles and tom apart by all the in-fighting. Not only are they in a shambles from all their in-fighting, but the PRP is also snapping at their heels. The NP is aiming straight lefts and rights at the chin. In addition their own leader is forcing them to disband their own party.

They are punch-drunk.

The hon. member for Rissik says they are punch-drunk. This is a fine example of what they are, but we shall leave them at that. I now want to hazard the prediction that the PRP is also going to oppose this Bill. I am also going to say why they are going to oppose the Bill. We know that the people who are sitting there, and their supporters outside, control the capital market to a large extent. I now want to say that they are going to oppose the Bill for a selfish reason, because they are afraid that when the Act is implemented and Indian entrepreneurs are assisted, those entrepreneurs are also going to acquire a share of the capital market and a role there. They are going to oppose the legislation for a selfish reason and no other.

What we are doing here today, is not to make history, but merely to re-emphasize, re-write the principle, which was laid down in 1962 with the establishment of the Coloured Development Corporation, for this other population group as well which lives and works in South Africa. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on bringing this legislation to the House. I also want to congratulate the Government of the day on having given this matter such penetrating and rational thought as to give this population group those opportunities which the Coloureds and the Whites have enjoyed for a long time now. I also want to congratulate the Indian Council on making the request and initiating the idea, because I believe that they too will play a role in assisting in the further expansion of the economic infrastructure in South Africa. We must congratulate and thank them. Other arguments were used in 1962 as well, and today the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens raises them again and speaks of “another apartheid measure” and of State intervention. However, he also came up with something new.

In his speech he accused the hon. the Minister of wanting to withhold information from this Parliament by appointing a private auditor. With his accusation, it seemed as if the hon. member wished to indicate that the hon. the Minister had something to hide. Clause 21(2) does indeed mention a private auditor, but one also has to look at what is stated in clause 22(2). It is very emphatically stated there—

This is the auditor’s report which has to be submitted to him—

Therefore, the accusation that the hon. the Minister wants to withhold information from this Parliament by means of his action, is therefore untrue.

Then there is the third complaint, a complaint which we also heard in 1962, which is that this is another step to fragment the economy or to divide it into compartments. However, the economy of a country is indivisible. Whether one acts as an individual or as a population group, one makes a contribution towards the development of the economic climate. I therefore submit that when this legislation is carried through, it is going to assist in creating a larger, balanced economy in our country. This new input and further expansion will form an integral part of our country’s economy and in due course, we hope, of a greater Southern African economy. I want to emphasize once again that this is not an apartheid measure. It is not something which has been initiated by this Government or by this hon. Minister. It comes from those people themselves, and the fact that it does so is to my mind a further demonstration that consultation took place between the Government and those people. Therefore we have a Bill here today which is a product of that positive, constructive consultation. It is not the type of consultation which some people practise by first breaking down South Africa’s economy and then trying to grab political power. Why is the Opposition so negative and uneasy with their amendment? The Indians have proved over the years that they have an aptitude for business. This Bill is going to develop and assist the hidden potential in those people. Just as we helped White, Coloured and Bantu entrepreneurs by means of various corporations, we are now offering these opportunities to the Indians as well.

Let us consider the economically active Indian. One may ask—if I may digress for a moment—why a Bolander is speaking on this subject and not a Natalian. This is not because we have no confidence in our colleagues in Natal, but any hon. member on my side may make a positive contribution to the debate, I almost want to say without any preparation. Everyone will be able to do so, because the matter speaks for itself. However, there is another reason why I am participating in the debate and this is because in the Boland I was very closely concerned with, and was acquainted with, the establishment of the Coloured Development Corporation, its expansion, its successes and its initial problems. That is the reason. I now want to refer to the economically active Indian, and my source is South African Statistics 1976, of the Department of Statistics.

I note that there were 149 700 Indian employees employed in the secondary industries in that year. These are employees, and not entrepreneurs. These employees are found in approximately 20 different occupations. There were 5 225 employees in the primary industries, in other words, there is a large number of Indians who are economically active people and who have the potential and desire to become entrepreneurs in the secondary industries or even in the primary industries. Bearing in mind the business acumen and capacity for hard work of the Indians, it is very clear to me that many of the people who are employees in the secondary and primary industry at the moment, would also like to become entrepreneurs. They have the necessary experience, knowledge and background for it. This is another reason why the Indian Council requested that the Indians should be helped, as was done for the Coloureds and others, to become entrepreneurs by means of State financing by the State in an industry or industrial sector, in which they have been working and active for many years.

I want to ask the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens once again why he and his party are opposing this principle. Why do they say: “This Bill furthers the concept of a racially divided economy?” Does the hon. member not yet accept the principle that South Africa is a multi-national country with everything which that implies? Is their latest federation policy not based upon the principle of separate peoples? Will the separate peoples not be helped, according to the federation plan of the UP, to obtain the franchise on the basis of their economic power and their contribution towards the country’s economy? They always say that the voting strength will be determined by the contribution to the country’s economy. If this is the case, if they believe in the ethnic situation in South Africa, if they believe in their own federation policy which declares that the voting strength of peoples will be determined by their contribution to the economy of the country, why do they not want to help these people, who desire it, to develop economically so that they can also make an economic contribution to the country, and have a say as a population group in their own affairs and in the politics which they practise? How can one apply that policy if one refuses to give such a population group as this an opportunity to diversify economically?

Mr. Speaker, since this principle is already 14 years old, since this principle has already been applied in practice successfully for 14 years, since this principle has ensured good results and, finally, since it is a well-tried principle which is now merely being transplanted to another population group, it is a privilege and an honour for me to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I think that both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Worcester are taking an altogether superficial view of what is involved in this measure. I support the stand taken by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and I also support the amendment which has been proposed by him. In saying so, I have no thought whatsoever of taking any advantage from the Indian community—certainly not in the long run, certainly not in the medium run and I do not think even in the short run—an advantage they think they may derive from the formation of an Indian Industrial Development Corporation to assist in the establishment of secondary industry for the Indian community. It may well be an attraction to this community to have an amount of R3 million provided by Parliament to assist in the formation and establishment of Indian secondary industry. I believe that that advantage to the Indian community would be a short-lived advantage and would be outweighed, certainly in the long run and probably also in the immediate run by all the disadvantages of having Indian secondary industrial development but into a separate racial pigeon-hole of its own.

That is what the Minister wants.

In taking this view I have taken into full consideration the fact that the Indian business and commercial community are able and hard-working people and enterprising businessmen who can stand up in competition on their own merits against businessmen of any other racial group.

Yet, according to members of your party they do not know what is good for them.

I have great respect for the commercial and business acumen of the Indian community. I have also taken into consideration the fact that Indians do suffer when it comes to raising capital, mostly as a result of the Group Areas Act as applied to the Indian community in that their property is less valuable as a result of the group areas legislation …

What evidence do you have to make that statement?

This reasoning, however, applies mostly to residential and commercial properties, rather than to properties occupied by secondary industry. The force of that argument, although there is some force in it, is less than it would have been if it had been applied to other types of property. I have also taken into consideration that such disabilities as the Indian community suffers in connection with the raising of finance, is to quite a large extent offset by the penchant of the Indian community to trade on credit and on other people’s money. This is a penchant which is much more pronounced among the Indian community than among any other race group.

My objections to this legislation are twofold. My first objection, as indicated by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, is that this is an apartheid measure. It is extending separation into a field where it least belongs, i.e. into the field of economic activity. It is treating Indians in secondary industry as being economically separate from other race groups. Theoretically it may be possible to treat as economically separate the homelands which are geographically separate, but even then I do not believe that it does the homelands any good to have economic separation forced on them unnaturally. But when one comes to the Indian community the position is quite a different one. The Indians are part and parcel of the South African economy as a whole. There is no question about that, and it is sheer stupidity to think or to plan in any other direction.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Government will ever realize that an integrated economy, where people, irrespective of their race, can use the abilities and resources which they have to the best advantage, without confinement or restriction, is an absolute prerequisite for productivity, for economic growth, for increased employment opportunities and for the achievement of maximum wealth and prosperity in our country.

Apartheid, on the other hand, is an impoverishing measure. It makes us poorer, not richer. Bending the economy to the ideology of the Nationalist Government, is such a measure, and, as I say, is an impoverishing measure. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is basically one such measure.

Now, apart from our objection to this measure as an apartheid measure, I also believe that it is totally unnecessary. We already have the Industrial Development Corporation. Its objects cover completely the objects of the proposed Indian Industrial Development Corporation, and are, in fact, much wider and not merely confined to assisting secondary industry. It can assist all types of industry. The powers of the Industrial Development Corporation are very similar to the powers embodied in this Bill, except that the Industrial Development Corporation is confined to assisting companies, whereas this Bill allows individuals and partnerships to be assisted. I believe, however, that, in practice the number of individuals and partnerships that will ask for help will be very, very small indeed.

The general lines along which the Industrial Development Corporation’s powers should be exercised, are also similar to those contained in this Bill, and I believe that they are worth quoting—

That is the Industrial Development Corporation—

In other words, there is no question of any discrimination of any kind being exercised by the Industrial Development Corporation. The IDC also has a division for assisting small industries, and this would be well suited to looking after the requirements of Indian secondary industry. However, most importênt, as far as the IDC is concerned is, I believe, that it has a record of giving valuable assistance to the Indian community. Only in its most recent report it makes mention of the construction of 24 factory flats at a cost of R2,7 million, in Chatsworth, Durban, for the exclusive use of small industrialists from the Indian community.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore cannot see in practice what need there is for an Indian Industrial Development Corporation, except to satisfy the apartheid policy of this Government. If you want to improve …

[Inaudible.]

Will the hon. the Minister please listen to me? If one wants to improve the functioning of the IDC, as far as the Indian community is concerned, I would recommend that an Indian, or Indians, be appointed to the board of the IDC. [Interjections.] I fear that if the proposed Indian Industrial Development Corporation is established in terms of this Bill with a modest capital of only R3 million, the IDC, with its huge resources of capital, is going to lose interest in the Indian community as such, and I think it will be only natural if it were to do so if the Indians will have their own development corporation. For these reasons I expect that the Indian community will be worse off and not better off as a result of the establishment of an Indian Industrial Development Corporation.

My second objection to the establishment of this corporation is that it is yet another instrument of State participation in the economy. It is setting up yet another bureaucracy, yet another board and another staff, all of which are going to involve themselves in participation in the private sector of economy.

The same old story. [Interjections.]

The State is going to provide money, probably at the expense of the taxpayer, and is also going to provide guarantees to private enterprise, presumably on conditions which will satisfy the requirements of the State. To that extent I can describe the State’s activities as nothing else but participation in private enterprise.

Socialism!

You may say that the IDC is already doing that and would do so if it is to take the place of the proposed Indian Industrial Development Corporation. I know that the IDC is doing that. I know that it is participating in private enterprise, and in many cases I do not approve of the corporation’s participation in the private enterprise. I believe that the IDC should limit its activities to those that for any reason cannot be performed by the private sector and that the corporation should shed its interest when private enterprise is in position to take that interest over. That was the original purpose of the IDC, but the principle has not been followed very closely during recent years. You have only got to look at its participation in corporations such as Industrial Selections and National Selections to see the extent to which it does participate in the private sector.

I believe that these are principles which the IDC should follow, not only in general, but also with Indian businesses. If an Indian Industrial Development Corporation is formed then, to the extent that it operates, it also is largely going to involve itself in private enterprise, and it is going to do so relatively on a larger scale than the IDC does. I say this because there are very few cases where secondary industry—I stress the word “secondary”—cannot be established and operated by private enterprise itself. I do not see the need for State assistance in this area. It is primary industry and strategic industries such as iron, steel, oil from coal, and so forth, which entail huge outlays of capital which require State assistance. It is not secondary industry which requires the State finance.

During this session so far we have heard a great deal about how much the Government is committed to the private enterprise system. I have viewed the protestations on this subject from that side of the House with a somewhat jaundiced eye. Sir, this measure is one which makes me believe less in those protestations.

Mr. Speaker, we have now heard two speakers from the United Party and it seems to me they became stuck in a groove and did not really know why they are opposing this Bill. The groove they are in is characterized by the fact that their objection is that this is another apartheid measure. Have they given any thought to which Minister it is who is introducing this Bill? After all, it is not the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs who is introducing the Bill, but the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. This Bill is aimed at assisting the economic development of a population group of South Africa. Surely it is a fact that South Africa does not have a homogeneous population, but various population groups. There are various groups who are in various stages of development. Will the hon. members of the UP deny that the Indian population is generally at a different level of development than the Coloureds, the Bantu and the Whites? After all, they themselves know that the Indian population, seen as a whole, is at an average stage of development and that a need arose to grant assistance to this particular community by means of an economic measure. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens spoke about “watertight compartments” which are arising in the economy. Surely he knows that it is utter rubbish to say that this measure is an attempt to bring about watertight compartmentalization in the economy. Just like anyone else, we are aware of the fact that in the economy of South Africa there is such intertwined development and such an interdependence that it is quite impossible to introduce watertight compartments into the economy. To imply that this is an attempt to create watertight compartments is therefore wilful nonsense, because the hon. member knows that this is not true.

Order!

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I made an analysis of the number of Whites who are operating in the manufacturing industry as entrepreneurs. Of the 4 million Whites there are 10 489 White entrepreneurs, but of the three quarter million Indians there are only 707 operating in the manufacturing industry as owners and entrepreneurs. In order to obtain the same perceptual proportion as the Whites, it would be necessary for the number of Indian entrepreneurs in factories to be increased from 707 to almost 2 000. They would then have borne the same proportion as the total population to the number of entrepreneurs. In other words, I want to point out that the Indian population has a backlog of 1 200 Indian entrepreneurs in the manufacturing industry. In my opinion, it is a proof positive that there is a need for an economic development measure especially with a view to the Indian population, not in order to have a separate economy, but in order to give it special attention and encouragement to develop within the mutually interdependent economy of South Africa. I shall even go so far as to say that if the point of departure of the UP is that there is no need at all to adopt special measures to encourage the Coloureds, Indians or Bantu, then this is their way of discriminating against the less developed population groups of South Africa. By withholding special assistance and attention from less developed groups, they are actually advocating that special aid or encouragement should not be given to the Coloureds, Indians or Bantu. I am not referring to hon. members of the House, but I should like to go so far as to say that it is the UP’s hypocrisy concerning the pattern of development of South Africa.

A second point which the hon. member for Constantia mentioned in his argument is “It is yet another instrument of State bureaucracy in the South African economy”. It is interesting to note how parrots can repeat things. I do not know how much original thought occurs when this type of cry is uttered. I think that what happened in this case, is that the hon. member read a certain book entitled Assault on Private Enterprise, but whether he can think for himself or whether he is aware of what the situation is, and whether he himself made a survey of how South Africa’s economy compares with the economies of the whole world, I cannot say. I have an American newsletter on South Africa in which they say—

They quote a long list of minerals which are available in South Africa and add—

These are the ideas of people in America who are aware of the value of free economy and of what private enterprise needs. They issue this testimonial on South Africa and say that South Africa has one of the most aggressive free enterprise systems in the world. However, the hon. member for Constantia must parrot-fashion, repeat anything which in his opinion can harm the Government and the economy of South Africa. Words are not really necessary here, but I suppose one must have patience and simply keep on asking the Opposition please to be positive in their approach and not always negative.

I have figures available on the number of employees in the various sectors and it is interesting to note that in recent times there has been a definite change in the pattern of employment amongst the Indian community. For instance, I have the employment figures of 1973 and 1975. This was not very long ago and the interval between 1973 and 1975 is not a long one. For instance, in 1973 there were 9 568 professional, semi-professional and technical employees. In 1975 there were 11 564. This is an increase of 2 000, or 20% in two years. For instance, in 1973 30 967 persons were employed in clerical positions. In 1975 there were 40 558, which represents an increase of 30% over a period of two years. In other words, there is a shift to more sophisticated employment.

This measure to establish the Indian Development Corporation, is aimed at giving the Indians special encouragement to create more work opportunities for the Indian population in the secondary industry sectors. The Indian population is the most advanced, most dynamically developed group of all our non-White groups. However, there has always been a greater emphasis on commerce than on secondary industries. Therefore, in my opinion, it must be emphasized that there is a special need in the Indian community of South Africa. It must done for the sake of their autogenous development in the overall economy of South Africa. Therefore it is desirable that they should be encouraged to show greater development in the sphere of secondary industry, and not only in the sphere of commerce and the service industries. The Department of Indian Affairs says in fact that in all these years they have never yet had an application for financial assistance in the sphere of service industries. However, they did receive applications for assistance from time to time for the establishment and expansion of factories.

Surely this is not a request from the Government which is suddenly coming forward with a new “apartheid” measure now. This is being done at the request of the Indian Council, for it is that body itself, after all, that requested that this corporation should be established. It is something in which they can have a very large and positive share, a decisive share in helping and encouraging their own community to develop so that the Indian community may be brought to a level of equality in the collective economy. It is not an apartheid measure or an oppressive measure to make the Indians as a group worse off than they are, it is a measure which is being adopted at the request of the Indian Council and it is a positive measure to help them. I want to ask the other speakers on the Opposition side who will participate in the debate after me, to be positive and to think of these positive measures and to think that the measure is being introduced at the request of the Indian Council. They must make a positive contribution to this debate, and we shall welcome it.

Mr. Speaker, I will come back to the hon. member for Klip River, and in particular to his question where he is asking us whether, in view of the request from the Indian Council, we are going to support this motion or not. Before I do that there are two other points which the hon. member made. In the one instance he referred to the great wealth that we possess in this country. Nobody in this House is going to argue with that. The argument between this side of the House and that side of the House is how best to turn that wealth to account for the benefit of all the people who live in South Africa. He also made one other remark. He kept saying that the hon. member for Constantia was repeating like a parrot certain allegations which were made in a book. I think for the purposes of the record we should read what the author of that book has to say about the IDC—

That is simply to put the record straight in regard to the allegations that the hon. member for Constantia is repeating certain statements like a parrot.

When we come to this particular Bill, we find there are three questions we have to ask about it. Firstly, is it necessary? Secondly, is it a reasonable Bill to bring before the House from the point of view of the Indian community, because even if it is unnecessary, it is still going to be passed? Thirdly, we must look at the particular clauses, and we shall come to that when we get to the Committee Stage. Not a single person on that side of the House has as yet answered the question: Why must it be separated from the IDC? We have the evidence from the hon. the Minister that R4 million in assets previously handled by the IDC itself are going to be taken over. Secondly, the hon. the Minister confirms that staff is going to be seconded from the IDC to help get the Indian Industrial Development Corporation off the ground. That, of course, is quite laudable in itself, but the question we want to know the answer to is why it must be segregated. Why are we going to segregate the Indians by taking them out of the IDC and giving them their own industrial development corporation? Basically, this all comes back to the old story. Those people sitting on that side of the House, including the hon. the Minister, look at South Africa and see eight Bantustans, the Transkei and ten separate economies. However, they are actually going further because they are adding to that the CDC and now the Indian Industrial Development Corporation. That is the basic difference between that side of the House and this side of the House. It is a question of seeing the country either as one unit, with an economy much greater for all those of us who live here, or a process of segregating, separating, fragmenting and generally reducing the economy. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to come forward with slightly better reasons than those he gave in his Second Reading speech, for having this done.

Were you here when I delivered it?

I was not here but I had the opportunity to read it, thank you very much. I was up in Johannesburg where we did rather better … [Interjections.] The Indians have, on the whole, done rather well … [Interjections.]

Order!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In practice the Indian community, as a whole, has done rather well in the economy of this country.

When we come to what is actually set out in this Bill, the first thing we must do is to look at the size of the enterprise we are talking about. Of course the hon. the Minister will quite rightly say that this is only the initial stage and that the capital can be increased, but we are not arguing about that. At this point in time, however, the capital is restricted to R4½ million, i.e. R3 million of equity capital and R1½ million which they are entitled to borrow. So let us give the hon. the Minister the benefit of the doubt and call it R4½ million. The Corporation is very particularly restricted to secondary industry. In his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister said “exclusively to the creation of permanent productive assets in secondary industry”. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to tell us how many “permanently productive assets in secondary industry” of any importance to the Indian community can be created with a sum of R4½ million, bearing in mind the present cost structure in South Africa. That is a very important point as far as we are concerned.

Why do you not move an amendment to increase the amount?

I have already said it is an initial amount. I am merely revealing the intentions with which the hon. the Minister comes to this House. There is another point we want to raise. Even if this Government is going to push this Bill through, we want to know why the Indians are treated in a different and worse way from the Coloured community of this country. One only has to compare the Coloured Development Corporation Bill with this one. Making such a comparison, one finds very substantial differences. Let us simply look at the objects of this particular Bill, as set out in clause 3. In that clause it is stated—

The corresponding clause in the Coloured Development Corporation Act provides that “mining and fishing, and or any other activity may be proclaimed by the State President to be an industry for the purposes of this Act”. Why are the Indians not treated in the same way as the Coloured people in that respect? Then, too, the Coloured Development Corporation Act refers specifically to “the field of industry, trade and finance”. So, on the one hand, the Coloured Development Corporation has an open field, whilst the Indians, on the other hand, are simply restricted to secondary industry. I hope the hon. the Minister will explain that, because when he said that since a lot of people are involved in commerce, commerce is excluded and that, similarly, banking and finance are excluded, he did not make a case at all. He has simply come with a generality while we want to hear the details of why this Bill limits the objects of the corporation to secondary industry.

There are a number of other separate items which we shall deal with in the Committee Stage. May I ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to something that is not actually clear in the Bill? The Coloured Development Corporation is exempt from income tax. Will the hon. the Minister tell us, when he gets up to reply, whether the same thing applies to the Indian community because, quite honestly, the position is not clear to me. It seems to me that there is a presumption that that is true.

The Government’s whole justification for this measure is, finally, that it was requested by the Indian Council. Before I come to that point, I should like to refer back to the debate of 12 June 1975, when my colleague, the hon. member for Randburg, asked the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs: “Are there any plans on the part of the Government to form an Indian development corporation on the lines of the Coloured Development Corporation?” The hon. the Minister replied as follows (Hansard, Vol. 57, col. 8237)—

He never closes his mind.

You can take an example from him, because yours is closed.

The Government’s case rests primarily on the basis that this has been asked for by the Indian community. On the one hand there is that request and, on the other, one has to ask oneself: If there were none of the bars which at present face the Indian community; if they were allowed to participate equally and fully in the economy of South Africa, which, whatever the Government may say, it will never be able to break up into units; if they were allowed to participate without the colour of their skin forming any impediment whatsoever—would they then be asking for this Bill? To my mind the answer to that seems to be absolutely and clearly “no”. We shall therefore not support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if yesterday’s happenings could not bring the Opposition to its senses, one wonders what would. This legislation is being referred to as apartheid legislation. Does the Opposition not realize, even if only since yesterday, that this party has been put into power precisely because it advocates parallel development for the various population groups? That is why we are here and that is also why the representatives of the two Opposition parties forfeited their deposits last night. It is not only the Whites who are beginning to support our policy to an ever greater extent—the non-Whites are also doing so. That is why the request came from the Indian community to have this corporation established for them. They accept the policy. As one of the minority groups in a country, I think that they are one of the groups who realize most keenly that their interests must be protected. If they had to rely on the policy of any of the Opposition parties, there would be no future for them.

You are being paternal.

What is more, if the NP had not come into power in 1948, the Indians would not have had the opportunity today of developing in this sphere too, for then he would still have had his Indian shop in the country or in the city. But it is the NP which has brought him to where he is today and from where he can now develop in this sphere too. In 1976 there were 2 276 students at the H. M. Sultan Technical College, and this does not include technologists. Work must be found for thèse people. Now it is being asked: Why should this corporation be separate from the IDC? It is not a corporation which excludes the IDC; it is complementary. The IDC still performs its services as in the past and can still make funds available to any of the population groups, as it finds this necessary. However, here we have a specific fund for a specific population group, a group which has certain requirements which have to be satisfied at this stage, as a result of the opportunities which the policy of this Government created for them.

The hon. member for Klip River furnished certain statistics showing how these people are now beginning to change. An important aspect is that the number of Indian employees in the selling and allied industries, in which they have mostly been found up to now, has dropped from 20 000 to 18 000 since 1973. Therefore, we have a shifting in interest here. The importance of this is that work opportunities have to be created for these people too, who are now entering a new sphere. Where can we best create them? They do have a large share in the tertiary industries. Forty-seven per cent of those who are economically active, are there at the moment. On the other hand only 40% are in the secondary industry. This is the industry in which opportunities can really be created for these people, who are now entering a new stage of development. Nor is it in this sphere only that they have developed. We find that the number of students at university rose from 1 700 to 5 000 between 1961 and 1974. These people live mainly in the cities. Of the total Indian population of approximately 720 000, there are approximately 84 000 in the rural areas. Of this number, 3,7% are working in agriculture, in the fishing industry and in forestry. In this connection there is one interesting fact and this is that this particular population group shows no interest in mining. Of the total Indian population there is only 0,3% in the mining industry, and therefore it is necessary for opportunities to be created for a population group like this, a population group which has reached that stage of development where it can hold its own even on an entrepreneurial level. To say that we are in this way creating a separate economy, is as far from the truth as one can be, for what we are doing here, is not to create economies for specific peoples; it is to make funds available for this activity. No one can understand why this argument which was begun in 1961 already, should still be repeated now, the argument of a separate economy in a country with, as has already been stated, an absolutely integrated economy. The Bill reads—

1. (a) that every application or proposal for assistance dealt with by it is considered strictly on its economic merits, irrespective of any other consideration.

It is therefore very clear that provision has in fact to be made in this legislation for our economy to develop properly. There can therefore be no question of a divided economy.

As I said at the outset, this measure is directly in line with the Government’s policy of separate national development, and we make no apology for that, we are working in the interests of all the population groups of the country in this matter, and therefore I should like to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, who was the first speaker for the official Opposition, said that this was an apartheid measure. Now, I want to tell the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens in all sincerity that I believe he is totally wrong, because, if he reads this Bill—and I have read the Bill very carefully—he will find that this Bill deals with the upliftment and with the development of the Indian people in a particular sector of the economy. I believe …

And so does the Coloured Development Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, now the hon. member raises the Coloured Development Corporation. I want to ask the hon. member why he keeps on repeating his mistakes of the past. He was wrong in opposing that Bill in the past. Why does he repeat that mistake of the past? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, that hangs like an albatross round the neck of the UP. The Indians have asked for this Bill to be introduced because it is in their financial interest, and the hon. the Minister has to consider the financial interests of the Indian people who have asked him for this Bill. Now, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens says that taking the Indians out of the Industrial Development Corporation is what this Bill will accomplish. That is not correct. There is nothing whatsoever in any clause of this Bill which takes the Indian people out of the Industrial Development Corporation. They can make free use of the IDC or any other corporation they want to. There is nothing in this Bill that prevents it.

The hon. member for Constantia said that the advantage of this Bill would be a short-lived advantage in a separate pigeonhole. I want to ask the hon. member what is short-lived about three million shares and R1,5 million in loan capital, plus the fact that the sky is the limit, because if the hon. the Minister is satisfied that this corporation is running its affairs efficiently and profitably, he has the right to authorize further loan capital. So, the sky is the limit. It is not R4,5 million that we are talking about. It is R4,5 million today, but it could be R50 million in a few years’ time.

I believe that there is nothing short-lived about giving R4,5 million in cash to the Indian people, because this is only a start. The only thing short, is the short-sightedness of the official Opposition in opposing this measure. By opposing this measure, I want them to understand—I am not worried about the PRPs; I am worried about the official Opposition—that they are opposing the wishes of the Indian people. The hon. the Minister …

Did they have a referendum? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I will come to that. Did they have a referendum in the constituency of the hon. member for Berea to elect him as a member of Parliament?

On the Kowie Marais principles? [Interjections.]

On the Kowie Marais principles? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, what would happen if the hon. the Minister accepted the advice of the official Opposition today? If he accepted that advice, he would withdraw the Bill. What a slap in the fact that would be to the entire Indian community in South Africa and to their leaders! It would intensify and stir up the feelings between White and Indian people throughout South Africa. I do not believe that that is what some of my good friends in the official Opposition want. I do not believe that they will be happy with the state of affairs if they ask the hon. the Minister to withdraw this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to a decision by the Indian Council, dated 25 March 1975, and I would like hon. members on the opposite side of the House who were not here last night, to listen to what that decision was. I quote—

I want to warn my good friends in the official Opposition that a party that ignores the legitimate aspirations of another race group in South Africa is a party that does so at its own peril, at the peril not only of its own future, but at the peril of South Africa, unless they are looking for a common ground with the PRP’s. If that is what they want, then this is the way to go about it.

I appeal to my friends in the official Opposition to vote for this measure and thereby reflect sensitivity for the wishes of a community who are not here to speak for themselves. This Bill is the result of a democratic decision by the Indian Council and it is now rejected by the official Opposition and by the PRP. The question arises as to whether democracy is only going to count for them when it suits their party or their Progressive associates. This Bill represents a democratic request and I am convinced that the hon. members of the Opposition took the decision to oppose the Bill not today, but at a time when they had electionitis. Today electionitis is over, and I would have thought they would come forward with more rational thinking than the thinking they have displayed today. As I have said, the official Opposition and the PRP are opposing this legislation. I am surprised at the official Opposition, because it is known to me—I emphasize that—that senior members of the Indian community advised some members of the United Party’s caucus to accept this Bill, but they asked them strongly to appeal to the hon. the Minister to enlarge the scope of the Bill as defined in clause 3. In other words, they wanted the hon. the Minister not to limit the Bill to secondary industry only. I will deal with that matter later on. The attitude of the PRP does not really surprise me as they never see the positive side; they concentrate on the negative side of things.

That is not true!

I am not saying that the Progrefs are always wrong but they are again concentrating on the debit column of the ledger. They are not concentrating on what is on the credit side of the ledger. When this Bill becomes law the Indian community will be getting access to funds to which they did not have access previously.

For example?

An example, for the information of the hon. member who made that inane interjection, is the R4½ million. [Interjections.] Why do the official Opposition and the Progrefs want to deprive the Indian community of a further opportunity of improving their position in the economy?

Why does your leader support the Nats?

My leader never supported the Nats, but your leader was set on marrying the Progs, until the Progs jettisoned him. [Interjections.] The wish and the will of the Indian leaders to have this legislation seems to count for nothing as far as the United Party and the PRP are concerned. We on this side of the House have consulted with the representatives of the Indian people and the Indian people themselves—we have gone to a lot of trouble—and those whom we consulted accept the fact that there must be legislation. We were informed that they wanted the legislation to be introduced and that it came at the request of the South African Indian Council as a result of a resolution taken by them. I would like to know if the official Opposition accepts that this legislation came as a result of a request by the South African Indian Council. [Interjections.]

Who is going to say “No, thank you” to cheap money?

There you have it, Sir! The hon. member wants to know who is going to say “No, thank you” to cheap money. Well, let us give the Indians of South Africa cheap money. What has the hon. member got against that? [Interjections.] There you have it! The official Opposition does not want to give the Indian people of South Africa cheap money! That is their motivation. [Interjections.]

The legislation heralds a new era for the Indian people and it promotes their advancement in secondary industry. I hope the Indian people make the fullest use of this opportunity. We accept this Bill and would like to point out that this Bill in no way detracts from the right of an Indian person to raise funds through the normal channels like the banks, building societies, the IDC or any other institution inside or outside South Africa. This Bill must in other words be seen as providing a supplementary source of funds for Indian entrepreneurs.

There is one aspect of this Bill we are most unhappy with and that is that this Bill does not go far enough in promoting the commercial and industrial activity of the Indian people. This Bill confines the field to secondary industry. We should like to see it extended so that they can have the same rights as the Coloured Development Corporation. This was mentioned by the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

Are they against it?

I do not know if the official Opposition is against it, because they just keep to themselves. If the hon. the Minister would agree to this, this would be in line with the wishes of the Indian people. We should like the hon. the Minister to consider extending the scope of clause 3. With the approval of and in consultation with the S.A. Indian Council, he could enlarge the scope of clause 3. I realize that the rules of this House do not allow me or the hon. the Minister to motivate an amendment to clause 3 and the scope of the Bill and therefore I shall not do so but I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this point once the Bill has become law. I am not asking for an answer in today’s debate. I should merely like him to consider the question of enlarging the scope of clause 3.

There are many thousands of Indians who could uplift themselves if they were given the same facilities as the Coloureds were given in the case of the Coloured Development Corporation. I understand—and I am subject to correction here—that the Erika Theron Commission makes mention of the fact that the economy is indivisible and that the Coloured Development Corporation should not fall under the Department of Coloured Affairs. In other words, I presume that they would like. It to be transferred to the department of the Minister of Economic Affairs. The Indian Development Corporation will fall under the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and if the hon. the Minister were to act consistently, he would also encourage the Coloured Development Corporation to fall under his Ministry. He would, however, obviously have to consult with them first, to see what their feelings were on the subject.

I notice that in terms of clause 11 the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has, in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, the right to appoint directors on the board and to designate a director as chairman. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister—I believe this is an appeal that should also have been made by the Opposition—to let the Indian people come into their own by the appointment of Indians only, or at least a majority of Indians, to the board. I should like to have the attention of the hon. the Minister. I do not know whether he heard my last appeal. I said I would like to see Indians on the board or at least that the board should consist of a majority of Indians.

It is not worth listening to.

The Opposition says that that is a suggestion not worth listening to! Is it not worth allowing Indians on the board of directors of this corporation? There can be no doubt that if the hon. the Minister applied his mind, he could find suitably qualified Indians to serve and be placed on this board. To make this point as strongly as I possibly can, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that during last year a mixed delegation of South Africans was invited overseas. They tried their best to promote relationships between South Africa and the countries they visited. I can assure the hon. the Minister that all the members were excellent ambassadors. As we are now dealing with the Indian leaders, I can only describe the Indian leader who came with us as an absolutely outstanding person. Every one in that delegation will confirm that. There are many outstanding Indian leaders and that is why we are totally convinced that they will only be too willing to accept positions on the board and to accept the responsibilities, if only those responsibilities would be conferred on them. We should like to see the Indian people diversified to a far greater extent into the manufacturing industry. They must be given every possible incouragement.

In terms of the Bill the corporation has the right to subscribe for shares in industrial undertakings. I presume that what this corporation is going to do, is often to get an industry launched. They will subscribe to some of the shares of that particular industry themselves. I believe that when that industry in which they have subscribed their shares, is successful, then the hon. the Minister should encourage the board to sell those shares off in that subsidiary company and place them amongst Indians. I do not believe that it can ever be the intention of the corporation to hold shares in perpetuity in flourishing industries. I believe they should take shares to launch the industry, but that once it is launched, going successfully and well run, the shares should be placed amongst the Indian people.

The share capital is limited to R3 million and the borrowing power is limited so that it will not, except to the extent authorized by the hon. the Minister, exceed one half of the aggregate of the amount of paid-up shares in the corporation and the amount of any reserve funds of the corporation. In other words, in terms of this Bill they can start off with R3 million and can borrow up to R1½ million, which means that they will have R4½million at their disposal. This amount can be increased to the extent authorized by the hon. the Minister. To this extent I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has any yardstick or any ceiling in mind. We believe that the way in which he should apply his authority with regard to authorizing loans, should be that when he sees that they are doing well, if they are making profits and if they are rendering a service to their people, the sky should be the limit and the hon. the Minister should authorize loans as long as they are doing business on a sound and economic basis. We in these benches wish the Indian people every success with their corporation and we hope that this is the sign of things to come.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be able to congratulate and thank the hon. member for Walmer this afternoon on a very sober approach to this important matter. This is in strong contrast to the absolute political chaos which reigns on the other side of the House. When I listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Pinetown, who wants to deny the Indians their so-called cheap money and who does not want Indian directors on the council, it seems to me that he will be known in future as an Indian hater.

That is untrue! I did not say that they ought not to serve on the council.

The principle … [Interjections.] Would the hon. member for Pinetown mind saving his speech until I have finished speaking? The principle in regard to a development corporation in South Africa is nothing new, after all. We have debated and accepted the principle repeatedly in this House and I think that it is really a serious waste of time to debate the merits of the principle all over again. The hon. Opposition could have made a very good contribution to the debate, if they had concentrated on certain practical problems, certain functions and certain recommendations in regard to the functioning of the corporation. Then we should really have conducted a meaningful debate. After all, the Opposition itself has in the past appealed repeatedly for the capitalist system to be adopted so as to meet the demands of modern times. Those members of the hon. Opposition have said themselves that these adaptations have to serve as a counter to socialism, that capital has to be supplied to the entrepreneur in South Africa who does not have it, and that it must serve as a stimulant to free enterprise. Today, however, we get a complaint about State intervention in this regard. I should like to know what the figures are in respect of the concerns in South Africa which have been assisted by the development corporations in eventually developing into sound, established economic industries in South Africa, supplementary to the free enterprise of the private sector. I believe there are literally thousands of such concerns. I do not know what the basis is of the charge that this step is an example of State interference. Consequently, if the hon. Opposition believes in free enterprise in South Africa, it dares not vote against this legislation. The same goes for the hon. members of the PRP. I quote what the hon. member for Yeoville said in the House last year—

It was at that very time that he appealed in this House for greater facilities for obtaining capital to be created, particularly for the non-Whites in South Africa, who in this way would also have a part in the free enterprise in South Africa. This legislation is one of those very measures aimed at adapting the rigour of the capitalist system in order to achieve exactly that which the Opposition now wants to oppose, and which they appealed for in the past.

We have also heard another point of view this afternoon, namely that the measure will bring about a split in the economy. The measure envisaged by the Bill, is nothing more than a facet of the economy which is, in any event, inseparable from it. We must emphasize that this request, as has already been pointed out this afternoon, did not simply appear out of the blue. It has not been forced upon the Indian community, as the hon. member for Pinetown wanted to imply this afternoon by way of an interjection. We did not tell them they had to take it. On the contrary. The extract which the hon. member for Johannesburg North quoted this afternoon and the answer to a question put to the hon. the Minister last year, prove this very point, namely that this measure is a request to the Government emanating from a democratic system. I would like to see the UP accounting for the fact that they are today opposing a request which has its origin in the workings of a democratic system in South Africa.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North put the question: Why must it be separate? This is precisely the point, since, as the request came from the Indian community, it proves that it is proud of its individuality, and for that reason it must be separate. It is praiseworthy at least to have a sense of pride in one’s own individuality.

In one’s identity as well.

Yes, one’s own identity as well. The Opposition cannot undo this desire for individuality and identity in South Africa, no matter what their standpoint is. If they do not accept this fact in South Africa, all the political parties on that side of the House will come to nothing.

This legislation does not detract in the slightest from the unity and indivisibility of the total economy. The IDC comprises only one facet of the overall economy which, ultimately, operates as a unit.

We could have conducted a very useful debate by holding a more in-depth discussion, along the lines which the hon. member for Walmer proposed, on certain recommendations or practical problems which could possibly arise from the legislation, or by giving certain guide-lines as to how we propose this commendable corporation is to function. However, we are now wasting time by discussing principles accepted a long time ago.

However, I feel I have to make a few remarks about certain guide-lines as I see them. I hope that the Indian Industrial Development Corporation will pay particular attention to the creation of capital for the smaller business concerns. I think there is a very great need for this, because there has perhaps been a tendency in the past, to concentrate mainly on the larger concerns. I think that the larger concern may be assisted more readily by the IDC. Another condition which I should like to see, is that the borrower be relieved of his obligations as quickly as possible in respect of loans from such a corporation. In other words, once a business has become established economically and can continue under its own steam, it could perhaps even make another loan in order to dissolve this commitment to the Indian Industrial Development Corporation. I do not believe that the State can readily be accused of interfering in the private sector. The primary aim of a development corporation must always be to assist a private concern, to get it off the ground and moving, and then to have it stand on its own two feet. This is how I see the matter.

A development corporation must not become the instrument of the State intervention. Nor ought the State to keep a hold for too long over the private companies which are assisted on his basis. In clause 7 of the legislation, certain provisions are made for the sake of security, because in the nature of the matter, this corporation is dealing with State money. I should also like to say a few words in this regard. I think that in the past, the approach adopted by certain of our corporations in South Africa, has perhaps been almost too conservative in many respects. Consequently, if this corporation really wants to come into its own, then perhaps we ought to make a point of not keeping such a tight grip on such a company, whether by way of a manager, a director or some other form of control. I think that some of the minimum specifications or demands made by certain corporations in the past, were too high and that the smaller concern, which could have been assisted to a reasonable extent, was unable to comply with those conditions. I am mentioning these things because I believe that this Indian Industrial Development Corporation will have to consider these matters. In their first years of operation—if the principle of this Bill is accepted and is approved in this Chamber—they must really stay away from all the luxuries which are sometimes considered necessary by certain of our undertakings in South Africa. I believe this proposed corporation will function well and I also hope—and in this regard I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Walmer— that the control and the direction will be handed over within a reasonable time to the skill of the Indians in South Africa, because I believe that their skill is very great. They must be able to administer this corporation themselves. The legislation before us is further proof of the fact that when the economy tends to create a vacuum in the free enterprise of the capitalistic system, the system must be supplemented in order to keep pace with the demand of the community. It then becomes the duty of the State to fill precisely that void. Moreover, this legislation is a further step on the road of the constitutional development of the Indians in South Africa. We can only wish them everything of the best.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newcastle and the hon. member who spoke before him wanted to know why we call this an apartheid measure. They asked why we referred to it as an apartheid measure and why we say that they are trying to separate the people into pigeonholes. They want to know why we say they are trying to break up the economy into separate segments, and so on. I want to refer the hon. member for Newcastle to the Bill, which I hope he has read, because I do not believe that he understood what he read. In clause I we find a definition of “Indian”. Does that not immediately bring to mind a picture of segregation? That definition is followed immediately by a definition of “Indian company”. This again conjures up the picture of a separate bunch of companies who do not form part of the economy of South Africa, but who are a crowd who must be separated and kept to one side.

That is idealistic.

Sir, the hon. the Minister’s whisky is over there in the gallery, waiting for him. That is the picture that is conjured up.

Clause 3 provides that—

Only Indians! Funnily enough, I think the hon. the Minister must have had a bit of a joker as a technical or legal adviser when he drafted clause 5 because that clause provided that—

I can just hear my Nationalist friends waxing eloquent over this legislation which will do away with discrimination. They will say: “We are not discriminating at all”, but, Sir, it applies only to Indians. Yet there we have the noble sentiment that every application for assistance shall be “considered strictly on its economic merits, irrespective of any other consideration”.

Let me go further. Clause 16(8)(b) provides that—

Again the apartheid stands out. It stands out throughout the Bill, and not only apartheid, but also the separation of peoples. They are now trying to divide our economy. They are trying to say that these companies and these Indians must go and sit on one side by themselves and that they must have nothing whatsoever to do with us.

Sir, the hon. member for Newcastle seems to have run away after speaking. I do not know why he has run away, but he is not here. I thought he could at least have shown us the courtesy of waiting till we finished replying to his speech before leaving. I thought that that was an unwritten rule in the House. Certainly the members on this side of the House follow that rule. Perhaps the hon. member has gone to fetch the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. I want to draw attention pertinently to the fact that that hon. Minister is not here this afternoon, while this is a matter which concerns the community over which he has control.

Leave him alone. At least he does his work.

Sir, he controls the lives of those people almost from the time they wake up in the morning to the time when they wake up on the following morning. Every facet of their lives is controlled by that hon. Minister, but he is not here this afternoon to listen to matters which relate to the community which is his particular concern. He was not even prepared to show the Indian community the courtesy of at least holding a watching brief over their affairs.

Oh, come on!

Sir, I am serious about this. I believe that the Indian community must take note of the attitude of the hon. the Minister who is supposed to have their affairs at heart. I do not know whether he has perhaps gone to inspect some bulldozers on the Cape Flats but, certainly, I believe he should be here.

He is in the Other Place.

… and I wish to register my protest that he is not here this afternoon to participate in, or at least to listen to this debate.

Warwick, were you referring to me earlier on?

I see the hon. member for Newcastle has come back. Now I can talk to him. He said that this request “spruit voort uit ’n demokratiese stelsel”.

*I want to ask him, in all honesty: What democratic system? He does not reply. I can only suspect that he is referring to the Indian Council. He has only to nod if that is so. The hon. member does not want to reply.

†But, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what he is referring to because he said that this request came from the Indian Council and referred to “a democratic system”. Since when is the Indian Council democratic?

It has 2 000 people on the voters’ roll.

That hon. member too is wrong. There was no voters’ roll when the Indian Council was elected. This, therefore, does not come from any democratic system at all; it comes from a council which has been appointed by this Government. I think that cognizance must be taken of this when we listen to all the please that are made from that side of the House to accept what has been asked for by the Indian Council. I want to mention later in my speech that I have consulted with Indian businessmen and I have also consulted with Indian industrialists.

May I ask you a question?

That hon. member has had his turn and he made no proper use of it! There is no need to waste my time as well. As I said, I have consulted with Indian businessmen, Indian industrialists and Indian farmers and the Indian man in the street. I have also had correspondence through another organization with a member of the S.A. Indian Council who sat in on a discussion of this very Bill and to whose report I shall refer a little later. I find very little support amongst the Indian people for this Bill. When one has the hon. member for Worcester, who started the debate on the other side, saying that the idea here is simply to transfer the principle of the Coloured Development Corporation to the Indian people, one can only conclude that he obviously has not read the Bill. He obviously did not even read the title.

You are talking nonsense!

The hon. member says that I am talking “onsin”, but the “onsin” came from that hon. member when he likened this Bill to the Coloured Development Corporation Bill, because the Coloured Development Corporation …

What are its objects?

What are its objects? Does the hon. member know what the objects of the Coloured Development Corporation are? I do not believe he does. The objects of the Coloured Development Corporation are to assist in the development of the Coloured people in all spheres, therefore not limited only to industrial development. It is not the same principle at all. It is to assist in all spheres. There is no limitation to industrial development only. I believe that I might have found more support for this Bill amongst the Indian people if the scope had been wider and if the scope had involved assistance to all sections of the Indian people. I believe that the hon. the Minister in his reply to this debate should tell us why it is specifically limited to secondary industry, not even to industry generally, but to secondary industry, which limits it even further. Why should service industry not be assisted by this Bill? I know that something like 80% of the service industry in Natal is provided by Indians in one way or another, either as owners or as technicians. But this hon. Minister, who has not got the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs to assist him, does not think about them at all. The only ones he thinks about are those Indians who are specifically catered for by legislation which was passed by this House.

Nonsense!

Who said “nonsense!”? There is an ignorant member on that side who said “nonsense!” When he says “nonsense!”, the only section of the Indian community who are specifically provided for are the industrialists, who are provided for by the Industrial Development Corporation.

Then we had the hon. member for Klip River saying that there was a demand for financial assistance and encouragement to the Indian people. I cannot agree with him more. Once again: Why is this limited to only secondary industry, and why must it be a separate industrial development corporation? Surely it can be the same one? If we look at the latest report of the IDC, the report for 1976, we find on page 11—

No mention is made here that this should only be for Blacks, for Coloureds and for Whites and that Indians should not be included. In fact, it includes all industrialists in this country. So I believe that there is no need for this legislation because we already have that provision. If the Industrial Development Act were properly administered, there would be no need for this Bill. I shall come back to that a little later.

The hon. member for Klip River made a point about small industries and said that amongst the Indian people there were small industries. The IDC has a special section for small industries, and I want to refer the hon. the Minister to page 10 of the report of the IDC, where there is a whole table of how much support has been given to how many industries over the years. On page 13 it is stated specifically—

And then, when we look specifically at the question of the Indian people, we find which was mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia earlier—

That was for the year which ended on 30 June 1976. But since then we have had a reply to a question put to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. Therein we are told that five Indian manufacturing undertakings received assistance from the IDC during the year 1 July 1975 until 30 June 1976 amounting to R1 130 000. These were five large industries, not small industries, that received this assistance, However, he went further in his reply and he said—

And hon. members must please take note of this because I am making out a case that this legislation is totally unnecessary if the IDC and the Act pertaining to it are properly applied. The hon. the Minister says in his reply—

It is quite apparent that there is assistance available for Indians, that it is being given to Indians, but there is still a feeling amongst the Indians abroad that they are being discriminated against and that they are not getting a fair slice of the cake. However, just to complete this particular question, the hon. member wanted to know what the estimated additional employment created by this was. That is what is of interest, especially to the hon. member for Klip River, who is worried about the number of Indians who are entering the industrial sector. These five new industries which were assisted by the IDC have created additional employment for 810 Indians and 20 Africans.

That is the answer to those hon. members who so piously plead for something which they believed will be in the best interests of the Indian people, or which they try to make out will be in the best interests of the Indian people. However, I firmly believe it will not be in the best interests of the Indian people. That is why I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, viz. that this legislation should be rejected by this House today.

The basic problem which this Bill attempts to remedy, is the problem which is introduced, firstly, by the Group Areas Act, and, secondly, by the Community Development Act. These Acts do not allow members of the White group to lend money to members of the Indian group, because, in the event of a mortgaged land being called up, the mortgagor himself is unable to purchase the property at a sale in execution, unless he has obtained a permit from the Minister of Community Development authorizing such acquisition on conditions which the Minister may impose. Because of these conditions, one finds that the commercial banks and other financial institutions, which are primarily in the hands of the White population of South Africa …

[Inaudible.]

It is a fact of life, but that those are hesitant …

But you want to keep it there.

No, it is the hon. the Minister that wants to keep it there. The hon. the Minister is the one that wants to keep the control in the hands of the White people. My hon. friend from Cape Town Gardens suggested that at least one Indian should be elected to the board of the Industrial Development Corporation. Will the hon. the Minister do that? Will he recommend that? Now he does not want to answer. The hon. the Minister can answer now. Will the hon. the Minister answer? All the hon. the Minister has to do is to nod or shake his head.

I will answer when I reply to the debate.

Sir, we will hear from the hon. the Minister, but I do not know why he will not answer now. Why is he so shy about this? [Interjections.] As I have said, this is the reason why financial institutions are hesitant about lending money to the Indian people and this is why they feel that they are being discriminated against. The traditional form of financing amongst smaller businessmen and industrialists has been the security of money on mortgage. The result is that the Indian population have a far lower credit rating and are unable to gear the financial operations of their businesses to the same extent as members of the White group. The hon. the Minister need not look surprised. He knows that that is a fact of our economic life because of Government legislation. Thus the position has arisen that secondary industry in the Indian community has been deprived of its growth due to lack of easily obtainable finance on credit.

Whom are you quoting?

This is not a quote. Why does the hon. the Minister think it is a quote? Why is he so sensitive about it? Is it too close to the bone? Does he not like what is being said? This Bill is an attempt by that hon. Minister and his Government to remedy the situation which he acknowledges exists. In his heart he acknowledges that the problem exists, but instead of having the courage to say to the Industrial Development Corporation and to commercial enterprises that they can exercise their rights even in Indian group areas, he comes with this measure, which is a further extension of the apartheid legislation of this Government.

One cannot help but be sympathetic with those members of the Indian industrial community who are in this predicament. They are now being literaly forced to support this legislation in order to obtain growth within their secondary industry, and hence the support of the S.A. Indian Council for the legislation. The Minister looks surprised. I will repeat it for his benefit. They are being forced today to accept this legislation because of the situation which pertains in South Africa today. Why has the Indian Council asked for this legislation? Because, rightly or wrongly, Indians feel discriminated against, by the Industrial Development Corporation and by other financial institutions in the country simply because they are Indians. That is why Amongst Indian industrialists to whom I have spoken there appear to be two views of the Industrial Development Corporation. Two divergent views appeared from discussions with them. The first group had been rather overawed by the IDC. They had the same impression which some hon. members expressed earlier today, namely that the Industrial Development Corporation was there only to help the big man and that the small Indian businessman in his own group area was not really being catered for by the Industrial Development Corporation.

The Industrial Development Corporation in the past few years, particularly with the development at Chatsworth and on the north coast of Natal, has gone a long way towards removing that mistrust and suspicion amongst the Indian industrialists of the Industrial Development Corporation. However, it has not been wholly removed and, especially if you look at the development and the situation in Pietermaritzburg, where there is a separate industrial area set aside for Indians. The area had been set aside by the Pietermaritzburg city council and Indians have developed the area with the assistance of the Industrial Development Corporation. I have had the privilege of attending openings of factories in the area which have been developed with the assistance of the Industrial Development Corporation. They are proud of the fact and so are we in Pietermaritzburg. However, we also have an industrial area which is open to all industrialists, but not one Indian industrialist has been granted a loan or assistance by the Industrial Development Corporation in that area. Why not? It is no wonder that the Indian industrialist feels that he is being discriminated against. That is why. As I have said, this first group feels rather overawed by the Industrial Development Corporation and they feel, rightly or wrongly, that it is not altogether friendly towards Indians. They see this specific Indian Corporation, which will be introduced by this Bill, as likely to be more approachable than the Industrial Development Corporation.

And you are against it.

Of course I am against it, but I am now going to tell you why. There is a second group of Indian industrialists who believe that the IDC is indiscriminately difficult to all people and to all industrialists, irrespective of race. They still believe, however, that the IDC is preferable to an Indian corporation, because they believe that an Indian corporation might be suspected of favouritism, and would perpetuate racial discrimination, which they want to diminish. There you have it, Sir; we are back again with the issue of apartheid. This Indian Industrial Development Corporation will perpetuate racial discrimination. I submit that the latter view is the sounder one. That is why we have moved an amendment to the effect that we accept that Indians should receive financial assistance and encouragement to develop as an integral part of the economic community, and that we believe they should have direct representation on all bodies designed to further that objective, most particularly on bodies such as the Industrial Development Corporation.

I want to put another thought to the hon. the Minister. If he does not accept the idea that there should be Indian directors or that there should be representatives of the other race groups on the directorate and board of the Industrial Development Corporation, I want to suggest to him that if he pushes this legislation through, he should consider making this Indian Industrial Development Corporation a subsidiary of the Industrial Development Corporation. In that way the doubts we have heard expressed about the amount of capital that will be available to the Indian people, can be removed. In that way there will be no question about dividing the economy. There can be an integration of planning. There will be no separate planning by an Indian Industrial Development Corporation in a different direction from the Industrial Development Corporation. The whole thing can be co-ordinated. They can have common funds and a saving of administrative costs. I commend this idea to the hon. the Minister, if he insists on pushing this through. Of course we do not want to see any separate body at all, not even as a subsidiary of the IDC, but if he insists on pushing this through it would at least soften the blow as far as the Indian people are concerned.

Concerning the last point of our amendment, that this furthers the concept of a racially divided economy, I pointed out to the hon. the Minister that in Pietermaritzburg we have these two separate industrial areas which have been proclaimed, and that the Indian industrialists have received assistance only in their own areas. The people of Pietermaritzburg themselves, however, i.e. the city council, the Chamber of Industries and the Chamber of Commerce, wish to consider these people as part of one integrated city, particularly from an economic point of view. They regard it as one integrated economy. The Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries have Indian businessmen and industrialists as members. Some of them have in fact been elected to the executive of both of those bodies. They have a full status in the economy of Pietermaritzburg, even to the extent that they attend social functions where they are not discriminated against. They are part of the whole institution.

This Bill is designed to break that sort of understanding which is being developed between the White community and the Indian community in this country. It is designed to effect a breakdown in those relationships. As such it should not be placed on the Statute Book at all. I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down attempted to summarize the matter as viewed by his side of the House. It more or less amounts to not wanting the legislation to be passed because there already exists an industrial development corporation which can perform this function. The hon. member’s second point was that the legislation before the House at present was not quite comprehensive enough because the secondary industrial development of the Indians was the only aspect which would receive attention in this regard. The hon. member said, for example: “If the scope had been wider, there would have been more support for the Bill.” I do not think one can justify that approach under these circumstances. I think it is time we realized that there are certain things of a positive nature which can be done for any community in the country. We must not adopt the attitude that we would rather have no bread than just half a loaf. Under these circumstances, I do not understand the argument of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South at all. One moment he is arguing that the IDC is against Indians and that it discriminates against them, but the next moment he is arguing that members of the Indian community will certainly accept the legislation, because they will not discriminate against the Indians. Surely the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South cannot advance all those arguments and then, in the final analysis, not be prepared to do anything at all. The hon. member belongs to a party with a policy, an approach whereby it wants to afford every community the opportunity of looking after its own interests, of managing its own community affairs. The UP recognizes that we have a plural society in South Africa. They all accept this, but whenever they have the opportunity to help a community, they adhere stubbornly to an old policy. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is one of those people who are always clamouring for change in South Africa, but whenever he himself has the opportunity of changing his policy in the interests of people and communities, the hon. member refuses to accept the change which is required. I make no secret of the fact that we voted against the legislation relating to the Coloured Development Corporation at that time. If the hon. member reads over the debates, he will see that I made a speech at that time—much better than the one he made today—on the same aspect. At that time, we advanced all the arguments which the hon. member has advanced today. That was 15 years ago, however. Just ask any Coloured entrepreneur whether he wants the Coloured Development Corporation to be done away with. Every argument which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has advanced today, viz. that they are discriminated against by banks, by financial institutions, that we are creating a divided economy, etc., was put forward at that time. But now I want to know from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, or from any other member on his side of the House, how divided our economy has become since we founded the Coloured Development Corporation 15 years ago. It has not divided at all. Even if we did advance those arguments, surely one cannot bury one’s head in the sand and refuse to accept that this is an opportunity for us to help some communities. However, they have to advance exactly the same arguments again, for example: “This is an apartheid measure.” Hon. members on that side of the House advocate a community board for Indians. Surely this an “apartheid measure”. The Indians in Natal have no representation on the provincial council. They are not on the common voters’ roll, nor are they on a separate voters’ roll …

Why not?

Because they do not have one.

Do you want to put them on it?

Now the hon. the Minister is asking him the question! Is this the hon. member’s approach, that because the 700 000 Indians of Natal do not have representation and because they live in separate areas—which that hon. member also believes in—he is going to do away with all the “apartheid measures”? The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South cannot do that, and there is a simple reason for this. Let us take a brief look at his philosophy. If every measure aimed at helping the Indians which comes before this House is viewed as an “apartheid measure”, how is that hon. member, any other hon. member on that side, going to apply their policy of federation? If they want to apply it in such a way as to preclude any separation, I want to allege that the hon. members on that side are unfair, if I may not use the word “dishonest”, in telling the South African nation that the policy they advocate is that the different communities are to look after their own affairs and to see to their own development. They are being unfair if they want to regard every positive step as an “apartheid measure”. Secondly, the Indians asked for this, after all. It is no good saying that the Indian Council comprises only nominated members. One still has to give heed to the board’s decisions, even if the members have been nominated. It is apparent from the report of the Department of Indian Affairs that this decision was taken a long time ago, about two or three years ago. The decision is to the effect that they are asking the Government to create such a corporation for them. If this is so, then surely the Indians themselves are in favour of separate communities? Surely the hon. member does not want me to believe that story? But these people made that request because they realized that something good could be done for them in this way. That is the reason why they made the request.

We must take a brief look at the position of the Indians in South Africa at the present stage. In the first place, we know that their unemployment figure, up to a few years ago, was negligible. In recent times, there has apparently been more unemployment than is desirable in the Indian community. In other words, more and more job opportunities will have to be created for the Indian community of South Africa. What is the best way of going about this? One could certainly do this by offering those people the opportunity of undertaking more and more industrial development. The second question which arises is whether the Indian community is in a position to make use of the facilities which are being created for it. I believe that it would, in fact, be qualified to do so if it were indeed to receive the facilities. What are the facts of the matter? I understand that, at the present stage, there are approximately 800 industries in Natal alone which are owned by Indians. It is said that in the clothing industry—and these are the facts—more than 140 industries in Natal are owned by Indians, whilst only 65 undertakings are owned by Whites. If we look at the various cities and towns of Natal, where the great majority of the Indians live, we see that more and more provision for industrial development is being made for the Indians. Let us take a look at a place such as Ladysmith, for example. In a place such as Ladysmith, there are quite a number of Indian industrialists, in the Nambiti area, for example. Let us take a look at a place such as Estcourt as well. More and more opportunities are being created for them there, too. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South mentioned his own city. The same type of thing is being done at Verulam, not to mention Chatsworth. Consequently, the Indians have already proved that they wish to put themselves on the road of industrial development. Why, then, should we not give them additional help? I have not heard one good argument, excepting the old threadbare argument about the divided economy which we are supposed to be creating. It is also said that this corporation is unnecessary because the IDC can do everything for them. This is the argument. However, the IDC is already going to help them. No one has been excluded. If an additional facility is to be provided, however, it is unfair, in my opinion, not to afford these people that opportunity. It is the boast of the whole House that we are a compassionate society. Why, then, should we not help these people?

If I was convinced that the hon. the Minister was doing the wrong thing by way of this legislation and that he wanted to keep the Indians under his thumb, we should never have supported this legislation. However, I am convinced that the hon. the Minister and that side of the House want to take steps to create greater industrial development, higher living standards and more job opportunities for the Indians. If these benefits can be given to them, why not? Why should we in South Africa not allow the leaders’ class, to which the Indians already belong, to develop further so that they can be at the service of their people to an ever-increasing extent? In my opinion, this is not apartheid legislation. Nor, in my opinion, is it a policy which would be adopted by a political party or a national administration which wanted to oppress the people.

That is plural democracy.

In this way, the possibility of equal opportunities is being offered to people in South Africa so that they can play their true role, the type of role which we should like them to play.

As a community.

Naturally, as a community. For those reasons, we on this side of the House cannot but express our disappointment in the Official Opposition for not having adopted a positive approach to this legislation. We shall attempt, however, to make up for what they have neglected to do, in the interests of the Indian community and in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak for very long. I just want to reply briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Newton Park. Of course, the hon. member for Newton Park and his people have formed a separate party because they …

We have not formed a party. You are wrong.

You are still waiting …

We have not formed a party. You are wrong. We are taking over the United Party.

Because … [Interjections.] They are sitting in those benches because they can interpret this party’s policy better from there than when they are sitting in these benches. [Interjections.] They have appointed themselves chief interpreters of UP policy. It is for the very reason that they interpret the policy of the UP in such an extraordinary way that they feel obliged to sit in those benches.

But your party is going to be disbanded!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who is making such a noise there, has already had a turn to speak, but because he was very unconvincing, he is now attempting to interrupt me. The position is that the hon. member for Newton Park describes South Africa as a plural society. It is true, of course, that South Africa has a heterogeneous population, and consequently everyone must accept that large differences do exist between the population groups of South Africa. But to expand on that description and to conclude that everything done in South Africa is to be done on the very basis of plurality and that this is to be incorporated and institutionalized everywhere, is, of course, completely incorrect. That has never been the policy of this party, nor will it ever be. Allow me to remind the hon. member that we have always said that South Africa has one economy.

But who is denying it?

Here we have an attempt to divide the economy with regard to a very important aspect. I shall return to this. We have here a case in which an attempt is being made, in a very special manner, to divide the economy. The way in which help is being offered to the population groups of our country, is differentiated according to their race. Why this is being done in a single economy—the hon. members in those benches have always recognized it as a single economy—I do not know. I should like to ask the hon. member for Newton Park whether he would be satisfied if we were to establish a separate Land Bank for the Indian Community as well.

If it is necessary, why not?

How would it be if he were to create a separate Department of Agricultural Credit for them? [Interjections.] How would it be if we were to create a separate Department of Commerce and Industry for them? If he accepts all that, how can he pretend to be advocating the true policy of this party? Surely he is then advocating the policy of the party opposite? He cannot pretend to be the champion of this side of the House if he comes along with arguments like that.

You have thrown your principles overboard, man!

Of course, it is very easy to allege, as the hon. member has done, that due to the faults and deficiencies in the present set-up in South Africa, one could, in fact, be obliged to do such things. For example, he pointed out the shortcomings and deficiencies in the Indian community. On those grounds, he wants to justify their obtaining separate amenities. Would it not be far better to eliminate those deficiencies and allow everyone to share the benefits of the IDC on an equal footing? Why should separate amenities be created just because the other shortcomings have not been eliminated as yet? It seems to me that he is putting the cart before the horse.

No reply has as yet been given to a point which was made by my colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. He pointed out that clause 5 provided that the corporation was to exercise its powers in such a manner—

This is UP policy. This is our approach to the economic question. But then we have to look at the definitions in clause 1. There we read that an Indian is a person—

An Indian company is defined as—

How can this be reconciled with the provision in clause 5 that every application for assistance “is considered strictly on its economic merits, irrespective of any other consideration”? Surely the two are incompatible. I think they can only be reconciled with each other by someone who goes in for that type of reconciliation. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to call upon the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation to explain to us how they can be reconciled with each other.

Mr. Speaker, there is clearly a difference. When one speaks of a plural society and of a federal system, as that hon. member did, there are certain respects in a plural society in which it is necessary for those communities to do special things for themselves within the plural structure, for their own reasons, in their own interests. That is decentralization, where it is allowed. Where it is not necessary, however, as in the economy, for example, things are done together. That is the difference between the kind of plural society sketched by that hon. member and the kind of federation which is the policy of this party. One does not do everything separately, because it is not necessary. One only does separately those things which it is in one’s own special interest to do, things which one wants to have that way. When one wants to do things together, however, because it is in the interests of the whole country, and of every community …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am concluding my speech. If it is in the interests of the community, it is a federal policy. Of course, the plural idea, if carried through all the way, is not the policy of this side of the House, but is in fact the policy of that side of the House. The hon. member for Newton Park will have to make his choice.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Von Brandis caused me some surprise. I had not expected him to take part in the debate, but he did make a few very interesting statements which one really cannot allow to go unanswered. Before dealing with them, I should like to say something to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. It has been said here that the Indian has no representation in the Provincial Council of Natal.

Why?

The hon. member asked the question: “Whose fault is that?”

Whose fault is it?

I want to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South whether he wants to give the Indian representation in the Provincial Council of Natal?

Answer now!

I think the hon. member is saying “no”. I do not know what he is saying, but it seems to me he is saying nothing. I do not want to quibble with the hon. member, except to tell him that it is pointless for us to argue on this basis about matters which are fundamental to South African politics. If the hon. member wants to make such an accusation as regards whose fault it is, he should follow through his argument and tell us: “If, then, it is someone’s fault, then I shall rectify the matter when I come to power. I shall give the Indian a seat in the Provincial Council of Natal.” I do not expect him to remain silent.

Let us consider the other remark made by the hon. member for Von Brandis.

May I ask a question?

When I asked questions, the hon. member was as silent as the grave. There are still just a few things I want to mention to the House. The hon. member for Von Brandis said that this Indian Development Corporation was supposedly a bad thing. The Coloured Development Corporation has been in existence for 16 years now, and at the time the introduction of the Bill to establish that corporation was opposed by the official Opposition in the light of arguments they voiced then. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Von Brandis: “If the UP were to come to power tomorrow, would the hon. member be in favour of that corporation being declared null and void?” Of course not! Because the corporation has done outstanding work for 16 years. The hon. member next to me here is therefore correct in saying that when we ask the Coloureds today whether they want to do away with the corporation, the reply would be “no”. [Interjections.]

Now I come to my third argument. The hon. member asked why Coloureds bought liquor stores. Is the hon. member opposed to the Coloureds having their own liquor stores. It is pointless for us to discuss these matters. If anyone is opposed to the Coloureds having their own liquor stores, he should say so. Then we shall know where that person stands.

There is another matter to which I want to refer. There have of course been other debating points, but after all, I too am seeking enlightenment. The hon. member said that the UP stood for a plural society. The statement made by my hon. colleague is that the UP is paying lip service to the plural idea, but when it comes to the practical implications of the idea, they oppose it. They do what the PRP does and I give them every right to do so. That is their point of view. If the hon. member maintains that I can interpret the policy of the UP better, I am sorry for him.

As I understand that party’s policy, I have always argued that we should see South Africa as a country of separate communities, and that through a process of the devolution of power, we must give each of those communities as much power as possible to regulate their own affairs. Now, let us take it, for the sake of argument, that the hon. member’s policy is implemented, and I hope it will be implemented because there is quite a lot of sense in it. If that is the case, and a community council for the Indians does exist—I do not believe that the hon. member will refuse to accept that the Indians are in fact an identifiable community—and that community council approaches the central Government, the federal Government, or whatever he may want to call it, and say: “We should like to establish a corporation for ourselves for investment purposes. Will the central Government give us money to make a start with it?”

A Land Bank as well.

A Land Bank as well. An Industrial Bank, too. Will the hon. member then say: “I shall not”?

Does the Indian want this institution or not? If the hon. member is satisfied that they do in fact want it, and if he is satisfied that the White Government of South Africa, or the Government of South Africa, can give it to them, will he stand in their way because he is of the opinion that it is in conflict with some supposed philosophical dispute he has with the Government? Of course not. Surely we are not doing the Indian community harm. Or are we? Have we prejudiced the Indian community with this Bill? That is why my hon. friend here states that we are concerned with positive steps in furtherance of the society and the community of the Indian population of South Africa. What objection can we raise to that? It is being requested. The Government is of the opinion that it is capable of doing so, and the hon. House says: “Let us do it if we are able and if the people want it.” To me this seems a fair situation and I really cannot understand why hon. members of the official Opposition oppose the matter. They refer to it as an apartheid measure. This cannot be the case. There must be something else behind it. I am very sorry about it, but those hon. friends of mine … The past hangs like a millstone around their necks. Fifteen, sixteen, twenty years of debates are looked up, and then they again adopt their old standpoint. That standpoint has to be adopted even though South Africa has undergone revolutionary change in the meantime. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, they remind me of those prehistoric animals who died out because they were unable to change, while the whole world was changing around them. [Interjections.]

South Africa is changing radically. Perhaps not fast enough, in the opinion of some people, and perhaps I could agree with them. After all, the UP, the official Opposition, cannot always shout “Change!” whereas it is only they that do not want to change. After all, it cannot be that the whole world is wrong and only the UP is right. Surely that simply cannot be the case.

It was against the fourteen points. [Interjections.]

Oh, really, Mr. Speaker, the poor man … You know, after Durbanville and the municipal elections on the Witwatersrand, I am surprised that the hon. gentleman still refers to the fourteen points. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a good piece of legislation. It is legislation that has been requested by the Indian community, and I believe that it would be a mistake if the White community, which holds the reins of political power, were to turn down that request. I believe that this must be done, and it is for that practical and positive reason that my hon. colleagues, too, say as I do: “Come on, let us support this legislation. We can only do good thereby. We shall not harm the Indian community in any way.”

Mr. Speaker, I have followed this debate with great interest. I took particular note of the standpoints of the official Opposition. I think it is important that I deal with one specific aspect right at the outset, before I come to the arguments of the hon. members. The main speaker of the official Opposition in this specific regard, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, began in his customary manner by speaking flatteringly of the Indian community and its exceptional ability to make a contribution to the development of our country in the economic sphere as well. Secondly, the hon. member said in very pious terms that he would support any assistance given to this community, but that he had certain fundamental objections in respect of the method and the concept in regard to the establishment of an Indian Industrial Development Corporation.

†It is true that talk is cheap, but it is the money that buys the whisky. I think it is time for the official Opposition to put their money where their mouths are. I would like to suggest that before the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens accuses me of insincerity—he in fact did just that—he should try not to throw stones, particularly if one considers in what glass houses they live. I therefore think that it is most important that one should dispose of this one issue before I discuss the merits of the arguments and the merits of this Bill. Where can we best try to ascertain whether the hon. members of the official Opposition do not stand accused of insincerity? I would suggest that the fact that they are suffering one defeat after the other can directly be ascribed to the fact that they want to be all things to all people at all times.

*In all fairness I must say that the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. member for Newton Park were right to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South whether he would give the Indian population representation in the Natal Provincial Council. The reply to this question is essential in order to determine whether a separate community which we call the Indian community exists. But is it not a fact that the dispute between the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the Progrefs is precisely the question of group identity? Is that not why the proposed marriage between the two parties was called off? [Interjections.] In Natal the UP is in power in the Provincial Council. I should now like to test the inclinations of the hon. members of the official Opposition in the one place where they can transform their inclinations into deeds. Let us now apply the test, not on the basis of inferences from which we want to score debating points, but on the basis of the factual standpoints of the fellow party members of those hon. members on the Natal Executive Committee. In all fairness I must admit that the circumstances of the time in which we are living are serious. These circumstances are so serious that we should not be prejudicial towards communities simply because we want to score political debating points off one another.

There is a second important matter. I want to give those hon. members some good advice, for I do not like standing at the graveside of a great party that had a wonderful record, as I am doing today. I would prefer to believe that if my party is no longer governing, the alternative that has to govern in its place will not want to change our way of life but improve it. Because there is among their number an inherent split on the formulation of standpoints, those members are sitting where they are in ever-dwindling numbers. A report appeared in a Sunday newspaper on two specific aspects directly affecting the life of the Indian population, which lives primarily in Natal. This report referred in the first place to Cato Manor, a group area that had been declared White in terms of the Group Areas Act. The report referred, in the second place, to the possibility of the Indian population receiving the franchise on the municipal voters’ rolls in Natal. If I now had to take the arguments advanced here today by hon. members as the basis of their standpoint on this question as well, there is, inevitably, only one conclusion I can draw and that is that those hon. members ought to be in favour of the re-proclamation of Cato Manor.

Are they?

Are the hon. members in favour of this? Surely they want to abolish it, do they not? If they do not recognize the existence of these communities, surely they must be in favour of their getting representation in the municipalities of Natal. What was the decision of the Executive Committee of Natal? I shall quote it. What did the official Opposition decide, the United Party Executive Committee of Natal, i.e. members of a party who, with pontifical indignation, accuse my party of wronging these people with group stratification and group identification? As a result of the report the Administrator conveyed the following decision—

These are the people of the members on that side of the House who say this—

†They now have the audacity to come to this House and to argue, as the hon. member for Constantia did, that the reason why the Indian people cannot obtain capital funds, is because of group areas.

What is the date of that letter?

It is dated 5 July 1976. Have you since changed your policy?

*I quote further—

We are now dealing with the principle—

What is involved here is not some municipality or other, but the principle of whether there should be a common franchise on a municipal level. What are hon. members on that side of the House doing? They are putting forward precisely the opposite argument in regard to this legislation. I should like to say that hon. members on that side of the House must decide where they want to stand in South African politics. Their standpoints must not be formulated in the light of any fortuitous advantages or disadvantages that may result. This side of the House is so frequently accused that the Government’s relations policy contains only negative facets. The policy is so frequently presented and condemned as supposedly being an instrument of separation, separation per se, separation as an end in itself.

For many years now that side of the House has held this Government to be amoral, or anti-moral, as a result of a negative interpretation which is given to its policy. When we then introduce a measure of this nature—a measure which emphasizes one important aspect, and not only do that but also want to implement its development aspect—what is the reaction of hon. members on that side of the House? Then the determining factor is not the needs of that community, but the question of whether we are creating a lebensraum for those people in the economic sphere. We must see the arguments of those hon. members as a whole and relate them to their amendment, and then take note of whether their arguments support their amendment. Can we deny the existence of this specific population group?

How can one do that?

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South wants to deny it because he maintains that we may not even have a definition of an Indian.

I never said that.

He is a “tweegatjakkals”.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “tweegatjakkals”. It is unparliamentary.

I withdraw it, Sir. May I say “driegatjakkals”?

A second question I want to put to all hon. members on that side of the House is whether it is not a fact that the level of development and the degree of participation in the economic life of our country differs according to the group to which we belong? Is it not true that if we admit that fact, special measures are required to create special circumstances so that the people who do not have full participation may be afforded the opportunity of fulfilling their economic role more effectively?

It is not a fact; it is merely in your mind.

That hon. member has just entered the chamber. If he had remained outside, it would have been better for the debate.

The Progs have taken his constituency.

I want to ask a third question: Must we still do today as was done in the past, viz. to protect the sectional interests of a limited, small group, economically speaking, at the expense of the great masses outside? The hon. member for Johannesburg North quoted an author in order to attack the hon. member for Constantia. I do not want to be drawn into this debate, but if the hon. member is correct, is it not a fact that there was a need to create the instruments to afford that section of the population of the country that had no participation in the economic life, such participation? The hon. member has known the history of my country for a very short while and the sources he has at his disposal to tell him something about it are of a highly dubious nature. I want to ask the hon. member whether he knows why a Reddingsdaadbond had to be established in the country to give certain population groups in the country participation in the economic life of the country?

He has never heard of it.

I want to tell the hon. member—and I am saying this with all the responsibility at my command—that as long as this Government is in power and as long as I occupy this position, I shall create the instruments which will afford all people the opportunities to participate in the economic life of the country. If the existing instruments for that purpose are inefficient and ineffective, we shall create new ones. If I analyse the argument of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South in respect of the approach of the IDC, then surely he made out a case for an Indian corporation and not against it. However, I want to deal with the second argument. The hon. member for Constantia argued against the participation of the IDC in the private sector. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens argued that I should use the same instrument which that member condemned to fulfil the functions for the Indians. How on earth can one reconcile such conflicting arguments as those of the hon. members? Let me put a question in regard to the IDC to the hon. member for Constantia: Has the IDC succeeded in broadening the base for industrial development in our country? I think he will be the first to confirm it. Secondly, I want to ask him: Has the IDC succeeded in making South Africa less dependent strategically on the outside world? He will furnish the answer himself because the answer is “yes”. Thirdly, I want to ask him: Has the IDC not helped thousands of business undertakings in the private sector of the country? Over the last 36 years the IDC, an institution which those hon. members condemn, has succeeded in helping 2 000 private undertakings to the tune of more than R1 billion and thus enabling the private sector to develop, to broaden the base for our industrial development and to strengthen our country strategically and economically. When will those hon. members plead South Africa’s case for a change?

When will those hon. members, for a change, come forward as the champions of the instruments which have to strengthen South Africa economically? What argument or factual evidence exists to indicate that this legislation implies the divisibility of the economy? Hon. members will be able to argue, quite justifiably, that such evidence has never existed because this legislation has not been placed on the Statute Book before. However, let us take an analogous case, the Coloured Development Corporation. Has its existence and success over 15 years caused an element of division in the economic activities of the economic life of this country, or has it allowed 1 600 businessmen in the Western Cape to share in the business life of South Africa? Has it not afforded them an opportunity of having all of 70 active industrialists today? Does the test of one’s argument not lie therein that one must judge according to the evidence. If I do that—with reference to the case which can in fact be tested—I find no division of the economy. What I do find is the positive element that this population group, which was never able to compete on its own in the private sector for this position, has now in reality reached that position. Surely the development of the Indian population also assumed certain patterns, not patterns which I alone or the Government alone identified, but patterns which the Indian leaders identified for their own people. They said that their participation in the economy was not as horizontally widespread as they wanted it to be. Surely this is also substantiated by the evidence. What is the important fact which the hon. member for Newcastle, the hon. member for Klip River and other hon. members on my side made quite clear? They indicated that one found among the Indian community an over-establishment in the commercial sector of the economy and that there was a need among them to have greater participation in the industrial development of our country. Hence the fact that their children were studying in certain other vocational fields as well.

Let us now consider the essence of this legislation. There is the fact that it has to initiate and stimulate the industrial participation of the Indian population, and that it must diversify the activities of the Indian population effectively, so that their contribution on their own behalf and for the country may be greater. How can one then speak of a divisibility of their economy, which was the main argument of the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens? Surely there is no merit whatsoever in those arguments. Let us take the matter further. We have so frequently heard the accusation that we are governing by dictate in this country and that there is only one group, i.e. the White group, involved in the decision-making process as it affects other people. Now, when the Government comes to this House to give effect, as a result of the instruments for consultation and as a result of that consultation which took place within those institutions, to collective decision-making by the Whites and the Indian population for the sake of the interests of the Indian population, it is opposed by the so-called apologists for the rights of all people in this country. How long is it still going to be before those hon. members realize that one cannot ensure one’s existence on the basis of the difference between one’s work and one’s deeds?

The second argument advanced by hon. members was that this measure represented a further example of State intervention in the private sector, in our free economic system. Is this true? Does the State, as public sector, not have the function of supporting the private sector in its development? And what is more: Do we not have the responsibility of satisfying the special requirements—which can be identified—of specific population groups? Is this being done in order to increase the State’s participation, or is it being done in order to strengthen and to give a broader base to the private sector’s participation? Surely there is no merit in those arguments.

I shall debate the separate clauses when we come to the Committee Stage. I want to say that it astonishes me that there should be an hon. member in this House who can oppose a measure of this nature. I want to go further and say that we in this country have a responsibility to all the groups which exist here. Any attempt to deny the existence of group identities, any attempt to deny that there are various levels of development, any attempt to deny that there is a need for special measures for specific groups, can only be harmful and can only give rise to our being accused of paying lip service to the concept of the development of all people in this country.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North said that the test which we should apply is the question: Is it necessary? The evidence adduced by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South demonstrates more than any argument I can advance, the need for this. He asked: “Is this reasonable?” My reply to that is that the concept was tested 15 years ago with the Coloured Development Corporation.

As I said, I shall discuss all the separate clauses with hon. members during the Committee Stage. Let me make one thing clear: The hon. members of the Independent UP are not supporters of my party. They do not profess to be. But what do they profess? And this is something for which I want to praise them. If hon. members of the official Opposition had done years ago what the hon. members of the Independent UP are doing now, South Africa would now have been a better place for all its people. Then we would not, with every positive step we wanted to take to allow the development of our policy to unfold, have come up against a wall of resistance, as happened again today.

It is already a one-party State.

It frequently demonstrates the advantages of a one-party State, that it can tolerate fools and foolish remarks. The hon. member for Walmer asked me whether I would not expand the legislation so that it would not remain confined to assistance to secondary industries only. I want to say at once that the legislation is the result of the pattern of development, economically speaking, within the Indian community. One bottle-neck has been identified, namely (a) that industrial development, relative to the other aspects, has lagged behind and (b) that its capital requirements in this sphere is greater than in the service industries or in commerce. I am quite prepared to consider the contribution this legislation is making to the total participation of the Indian community in the economic life, and if this should cause an imbalance, I am prepared to reconsider it. In the second place I want to say that not only is this corporation being established to try to meet the capital requirements and to afford them technical guidance, but also to train them, within this corporation, in managerial techniques. That is why it is obvious that in the future course of development there will not only be Indians on the board of directors, but also that they will eventually administer this corporation themselves. The contribution we have made through the IDC, is to lead the Indian population along that road, and to hand it over to them when they and we are of the opinion that they can manage without those services. Then I believe we would have made an addition to the total expertise in our country in causing the economy of this country to develop to its optimum extent. Then there is no question of the division or the divisibility of the economy; then it is a matter of a collective effort, even if it is within separate instruments, to improve the total economic strength of our country. I hope the hon. member will accept it in this way.

May I ask you whether you will appoint Indians to serve on the first board of directors of this corporation?

The reply to that is “yes”. There will also be Indian staff members within the corporation.

With that I think I have, as far as the principles are concerned, replied to the fundamental objections. I am prepared to deal with the individual clauses during the Committee Stage. I now want to conclude by saying that I think the hon. member for Newcastle was right when he said that this was a useful opportunity to conduct a debate on the efficiency and the effect of this corporation and to see how we could achieve this, but the hon. members opposite did not avail themselves of that opportunity. Once again, as in the past, they were unable to avail themselves of an opportunity to make a contribution to total development.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, J. P. C. le Roux, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendement dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, altered circumstances have necessitated the amendment of the Fuel Research Institute and Coal Act, 1963, on several occasions. The time at which the principal Act and the relevant Amendment Acts may be consolidated to good effect has arrived. Before this consolidation can take place, however, it is necessary for certain further amendments to be effected to the principal Act, primarily to facilitate and simplify the administration of the Act.

I shall now deal briefly with clauses 1 and 5 of the Bill. According to the present provisions of section 15 of the principal Act no coal may be exported or used for bunkering unless a grading certificate in respect thereof has been issued by the Fuel Research Institute.

With a view to the export of coal through Richards Bay, however, the institute has received requests from certain buyers of coal for analysis certificates rather than grading certificates to be issued, and in order to comply with this need, it is being proposed that the scope of sections 2 and 7 of the Act be extended as indicated in clauses 1 and 5 of the Bill. This amendment is being effected in order to expand the objectives of the institute to include the analysis, in addition to the grading, of coal in the concept of the issuing of certificates for purposes other than for the bunkering or export of coal.

†In terms of section 3 a Fuel Research Board is appointed by the State President to manage the affairs of the institute, while the remuneration and conditions of service of members of the board are determined by regulation in terms of section 19.

As it is considered unnecessary to burden the State President with these functions which are of a purely administrative nature, it is proposed in clauses 2 and 7 to amend sections 3 and 19 of the Act, where applicable, so as to enable the Minister of Economic Affairs to perform these functions in future.

In terms of the present provisions of section 5 of the Act the service conditions of the director and personnel of the institute are likewise prescribed by regulation by the State President.

Clause 3 is intended to amend section 5 in order to enable the Fuel Research Board—as in the case of other statutory boards and bodies—to determine, in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs, the service conditions of the director and personnel of the institute and to make rules in this connection.

At present the provisions of the Act prescribe that levies are payable on coal produced and sold in South Africa, except on coal used for the production of coal by collieries. It has, however, come to the department’s notice that certain coal mines which also use coal for industrial purposes other than the production of coal, do not pay the prescribed levies on the coal so utilized. As it has never been the intention that this coal should be exempted from payment of the levies, it is considered necessary to remove this shortcoming in the Act.

Clause 4 accordingly contains an amendment to section 7 of the Act to eliminate this anomaly.

*Clause 6 contains a consequential amendment and clause 8 contains the short title.

I believe that I shall, this time, have the support of hon. members on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has rightly anticipated that we shall not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

I see his charm has worked.

I think that the hon. the Minister has, however, over-anticipated our enthusiasm for this Bill. We shall not oppose the Bill, because it does in fact, in our view contain a few necessary provisions. They are required for the export of coal in a more efficient way than is possible under existing legislation. The reason why we support the Bill with less than warm enthusiasm, is that it falls somewhat short of our expectations in respect of the Fuel Research Institute. It may be that the hon. the Minister is going to come to the House with other Bills at other times, but the task of the Fuel Research Institute and its responsibilities in respect of the beneficiation and improvement of our fuel system taken as a whole in South Africa, are urgent. Our disappointment springs from the fact that that urgency has not been understood or realized by the hon. the Minister. We believe that the Bill is sufficient for the limited purpose to which it is directed, but wholly insufficient for the greater purpose which has become so urgent in our economy.

I refer, of course—without ranging too widely—to the recommendations made last year by the Petrick Commission, which relate directly to the Fuel Research Institute in certain respects and to the coal industry in other respects. Under the present administrative arrangements in respect of energy one experiences great difficulty in the House in not knowing how to address oneself to a particular Minister, because the subject is so hopelessly divided amongst a number of them. Last week or the week before it was necessary for me to put questions with regard to these or related matters to the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment and the hon. the Minister of Mines. Today I find myself addressing the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs on a question which is hardly distinguishable from the subject of my questions of two weeks ago. I think it is depressing in the extreme, when one deals with a subject as important as that of our coal resources, the provisions in relation to the efficient export of our coal resources and in particular in relation to the research being done by this most important institute and the potential it has to make a further contribution to our coal resources, that one has to speak in turn to those Ministers as the opportunity arises, and that one has to deal with the subject through an inadequate Bill of this nature. I do not wish to labour the point too much, but I believe that it is of the utmost importance. The Fuel Research Institute deals with a range of matters which, though relating to a single fuel, namely coal, is of the widest importance within the energy economy taken as a whole. Fuel has a significance within that economy stretching far beyond the mere export or bunkering and the mere burning in power-stations. It has a great deal to do with our chemical industry and with the manufacture of oil derivatives and many other uses. The Fuel Research Institute has, for example, been charged on the basis of recommendations by the Petrick Commission, to investigate the burning of low-grade fuel. The Fuel Research Institute needs additional powers, additional money and wider authority to do these things. Yet, what do we find in this regard? We find that, in respect of the Fuel Research Institute, there is a change, essentially of an organizational nature, which appears to go in exactly the wrong direction and I shall tell the House why.

I have already argued that because coal, its derivatives and its application fall in such a wide field, there is an admitted need—it was admitted by the hon. the Minister of Mines last year—to have a special Cabinet Committee to deal with it. There is also an admitted need to have an inter-departmental committee to deal with it and an admitted recognition that the question of fuel, and coal in particular as our major fuel in South Africa, needs to be investigated interdepartmentally and needs to be dealt with on a multiple basis. In clause 2 of the Bill we have the reverse of that principle. The position used to be that all these powers, referred to in clause 2 of the Bill, were to be carried out by the State President. When we refer to the State President, in terms of our constitution, we interpret it to mean that “save where otherwise expressly stated or necessarily implied, any reference in the South Africa Constitution Act to the State President, shall be deemed to be a reference to the State President acting on the advice of the Executive Council”. The principle there is quite clearly that where reference is made to the State President or where the State President carries out certain powers, he is acting on behalf of a number of Cabinet Ministers, the Executive Council. Therefore his powers are carried out on the basis of consultation between the Ministers concerned. This is precisely the point we are trying to make about the conduct of our fuel and energy policies. We have argued repeatedly, and hon. Ministers on that side have sometimes conceded, that it is desirable that fuel policies should be carried out on the basis of consultation between the whole range of Ministers involved in the spectrum of energy. That provision was already implicit in the Act which is now being amended. It provided that these powers should be carried out under the State President and that he should take the steps necessary to do this, that and the other in terms of the clause. Now the hon. the Minister says that because these tasks are of a purely administrative nature it is not worth troubling the State President; in other words, it is not worth troubling the Executive Council, because that is what is implied by the State President. It should be left to the hon. the Minister himself to carry out these administrative powers. Therefore we come back to square one. The hon. the Minister, as Minister of Economic Affairs, has a very real interest in the subject and I agree at once that he should be one of those to be consulted and he should be one of those directly concerned. However, I am sure he will be the first to concede that where coal is concerned and where the use of our major fuel resource is concerned, surely the Minister of Mines is also concerned. If we are concerned with the planning of our fuel resources, the Minister of Planning and the Environment is also concerned. We therefore have a principle in this Bill which moves away from consultation within the Executive Council towards single control of this multiple subject by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. We believe that the principle is entirely wrong and therefore we propose to say more in that regard in the Committee Stage.

As far as the rest of the Bill is concerned there is a further amendment to replace “State President” by “Minister” and our objection will be persistent in regard to that point. For the rest we have no particular objection to the limited purposes of this Bill and therefore, with faint enthusiasm, we will not oppose the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is with gratitude that we on this side of the House take note of the support of the official Opposition. It is interesting to note that when this legislation first was before this House in 1963, all its stages, from the First Reading to the Third Reading, took up only 15 lines in Hansard. At that time the legislation was referred to a Select Committee, and I think such a degree of consensus was reached in the Select Committee that all stages of the legislation took up only 15 lines in Hansard. It is very strange to me that now, suddenly, the Opposition can say that this is a very incomplete Act. The hon. member for Von Brandis referred to how incomplete the legislation was and that the legislation should give much wider powers to the board, the institute and the Minister. Unfortunately I cannot agree with him, because in my opinion the legislation covers virtually the entire field in connection with the research regarding fuel and coal and also provides for what purposes research may be conducted and investigations and analyses may be made. In this regard one should look especially at the amendment contained in clause 5 of the Bill before us.

As regards the hon. member’s remarks about the State President, I am not quite clear as to what the hon. member means, because the amendment substituting “Minister” for “State President” basically concerns administrative matters, such as the appointment of staff, the making of regulations and the determination of salaries, matters which do not influence the research function of the institute.

However, one point on which we agree, is that the amendments which are before the House for consideration today, are perhaps not very important and extensive. However, this legislation concerns an institute—and on this point we are in agreement—which, in the decades ahead, may probably become the most important research institute in South Africa, and perhaps in the world. I shall return to this point of view in a moment, but the reason I want to advance for this statement, is that this institute makes provision for energy research.

When we speak about energy and energy resources—about coal in particular—we see that the very thing this institute is concerned with is coal. If we consult the statistics for collieries in South Africa, we see that there were 62 collieries in 1966. In 1973 there were only 52 collieries, in other words, there was a decrease over the years in collieries mining coal. I do not want to elaborate on the reasons for this, but in spite of this the quantity of coal produced, increased from 48 million tons in 1966 to 69 million tons in 1973. However, I shall come back to this later on when dealing with clause 4 and the importance of the institute as far as energy is concerned.

Firstly, the amending Bill provides for wider powers. The question of grading was the only concern previously, a matter with which the hon. the Minister dealt very fully in his speech, and which I do not want to repeat. On account of a special need which has arisen to make the pattern of the consumption of coal more advantageous over a wider field, the legislation now also provides for analysis and testing. However, if we look at the matter of analysis, it becomes apparent that this concerns two aspects. As far as the matter of grading is concerned, as the hon. the Minister pointed out to us, this concerns self-combustion, the possibility of self-combustion in bunkering or storing, especially as regards export. However, when we look at the matter of analysis, it becomes apparent that this covers a very wide field, because it covers a wide field of energy consumption. As far as analysis is concerned, it is a good thing for this House to take cognizance of what aspects we are dealing with when we are considering the analysis of coal. This basically concerns heating value, and when one speaks of heating value, one must speak of power stations as well, i.e. the generation of electricity. Moisture content, ash content and volatile substances are also relevant here, and when we speak of volatile substances, we must also take into consideration the possibility of self-combustion. It also concerns solid carbon, sulphur, smelting points, swelling numbers, and so on.

The next question is, of course, whether it is necessary to make analyses. In my opinion it is particularly necessary for analyses to be made in South Africa and for us to transfer the power to make analyses to the institute. The reason for this is that there is a very great variation in the quality of coal in South Africa. One only has to look at two or three factors. There is a variation of 6% to 30% in the volatile substance content of coal, and this is the important factor in self-combustion and in the chemical industry. The sulphur content of our coal varies from 0,5% to 3%. In my opinion all these factors are very important in the wider field of application, i.e. this industry, and therefore I think it very important that we make this addition so that a wider field may be covered. In clause 4, which amends section 7 of the principal Act, a small loophole is being closed, as the hon. the Minister explained to us, so that a levy may be imposed on aspects of the coal industry other than the mining aspect. Provision is being made for the fact that these other aspects may be mentioned for levy purposes in the statement. There is one thing which we must realize, and that is that in the decades which lie ahead, we shall have to expand this institute, but the expansion of this institute cannot take place overnight. To expand this institute, we need funds. Consequently I am of the opinion that we should consider possibly increasing this levy, for which provision is made in the principal Act, particularly in view of the fact that the coal industry is experiencing better times at the moment. We should perhaps consider increasing the levy of 0,85 cents so that we may obtain more funds and may be able to develop the activities of this institute so as to enable the institute to undertake more research, in the mining industry in particular. I also want to mention a matter of principle which flows from this and in regard to which I shall move an amendment in the Committee Stage. Section 12 of the principal Act provides that grading may be done not only by the institute, but also by private chemical industries to which the institute may entrust grading tasks. The present amendment does not make provision for the principle of entrusting the analysis and testing of coal to private industries as well, and I shall move an amendment during the Committee Stage to rectify this matter so that the institute may employ private industries to analyse as well as grade coal.

In conclusion I just want to refer to the importance of coal, and in doing so, I just want to draw the attention of this House for a moment to the fact that it was pointed at the latest world coal congress that by 1980 oil and gas would still be providing 85% of the world’s energy needs, but that by the year 2000 this figure would be only 50%, and that as from that date coal would be one of the most important sources of energy in the world. On account of the fact that this may make the institute a very important establishment, I should like to repeat that we should consider expanding the activities of the institute. From this side of the House I should therefore like to give this amending Bill my very strong support.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I want to say about the hon. member for Wonderboom’s speech is that, in contrast, I intend to be very brief, if I may. We shall support this Bill. We also support the plea made by the hon. member for Von Brandis. Coal is very important, both for earning foreign exchange and internally as a source of energy. I conclude merely by saying that we look forward to hearing what the hon. the Minister has to say about that aspect.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that this Bill has come forward. We are particularly pleased that it gives us an opportunity to discuss the whole fuel problem on a slightly broader front because this Bill switches authority from the executive, the Cabinet itself, to a Minister. As I understand this Bill, there are four main changes being introduced. The first and most important is the fact that the State President or the executive is being deprived of the authority for controlling the Fuel Research Institute, and that this is being given to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. The second one is that the hon. the Minister now tightly controls the affairs of this institute and the board. I think he ought to explain to us why he particularly wants to do this. Is it because he wants to build the Fuel Research Institute into something more significant, something over which he has tight control in the national interest?

Another interesting aspect is the fact that the salaries, which he can fix, can be kept confidential, presumably to attract highly-trained scientists by offering them high salaries. I see that the hon. the Minister is looking puzzled. That is provided for in clause 3, if that will help him a little. I am referring to the proposed new section 5(4) on page 6 of the Bill. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister looks bored. If he knew how he bored us with his last speech on the previous Bill, perhaps he would just listen for a change. He is always good at appearing bored, but he should have seen two hon. members on his side while he was speaking. They were fast asleep; he was putting them to sleep. So let him listen for a change.

The fourth aspect of this Bill …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member say that two hon. members went to sleep, while this is not true?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Vryheid was also asleep. I do not think he was “whipping” the debate properly because otherwise he would have sent them a note and saved me the embarrassment of considering it. The fourth point is that the hon. the Minister is not merely introducing the grading of industrial coal. I am pleased to see that he is insisting that the chief executive of the colliery is to be personally responsible for providing the statistical information that is required. I welcome that.

I believe that the hon. member for Wonderboom made an important point, viz. that in this Bill we are dealing with the only primary energy producer in South Africa. We simply have no other primary source of energy. Hopefully, we will discover oil in usable quantities, but the source of energy we have has become increasingly important, particularly since the fuel crisis of the 70’s. We have also had the report of the Petrick Commission tabled last year. I know we had a new Minister of Mines last year and perhaps he was slightly embarrassed when his Vote came up. He had not got into his portfolio yet and tended to hold back any comment, as new Ministers often do, until he was more au fait with his portfolio.

You are very experienced!

The point is that we are looking to the Government for a proper energy policy, a proper statement of what is going on in this country in regard to energy. We have the Minister of Economic Affairs, the Minister of Mines, the Fuel Research Institute and the Minerals Bureau; we apparently have the Prime Minister’s Energy Advisory Committee and an interdepartmental energy committee—and all are involved in this matter. We are now busy shifting control from the executive, the Cabinet, to one Minister in respect of a very important and potentially a most significant institute in South Africa, as the hon. member for Wonderboom said. It is even doubtful whether the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is the right Minister to handle it. Should it not in fact be the Minister of Mines? I believe the hon. the Minister must tell us particularly why the control is being shifted from the executive and what the policy of the Government is in regard to the Fuel Research Institute.

The Minister of Economic Affairs is now going to have full control over the Fuel Research Institute, but what is happening, for example, in regard to its work? I have the annual report of the institute before me which includes a very attractive set of photographs. It is clear from the report that the institute deals fundamentally with fuel and coal in respect of which, again, we need statements from the Government.

As regards this Bill, what is the Government’s attitude to things like coal-corns and coal-plexes? The Petrick Commission has suggested that we should establish coal-plexes in this country. In other words, not merely the grading will be done at the coal mines, but there will also be factories, chemical production units, alongside them in order to co-ordinate in an ecological way the use of our coal. As the hon. member for Wonderboom also pointed out, we cannot simply talk about coal—we must think in terms of coking coal, metallurgical coal, low-ash coal, high-grade coal and also steam coal. What is the policy of the Minister in regard to the generation of electrical energy from coal? We are at present wasting a large amount of coal by burning it and losing all the other benefits that exist in the coal.

Regarding the Fuel Research Institute and the amending Bill, we must also inquire from the hon. the Minister whether, now that he has direct control over this institute, he is going to ask them to investigate, for example, the whole aspect of burning coal to provide gas as a fuel for the Bantu townships, as the Petrick report suggests. He, as Minister, will now have direct responsibility for this particular aspect. I believe he ought to tell us this kind of thing. I believe he ought to tell us whether he is now going to attempt to introduce regulations for an Energy Planning and Co-ordination Board on the lines of the Board of Trade and Industry, which falls under his portfolio. This was also a suggestion of the Petrick Commission. I believe he must also tell us whether he is going to appoint a Fuel Efficiency Service to see how we can use our fuel more effectively. Indeed, I believe that this Bill is a great disappointment—we will of course support it, and it is a step forward—because we get nothing from the Government as regards a general fuel or energy policy for the Republic of South Africa and that is what we really need. As coal is our primary energy source, we need this Bill to be put into a much more effective and comprehensive form. I believe that if this hon. Minister does not do it, his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Mines, ought at some stage to tell us what the policy of the National Party Government is towards fuel or energy—or is their policy simply to hop along, to go from hand to mouth, as best they can and whenever they can? Alternatively, do they intend something more in connection with this Fuel Research Institute than appears from this Bill?

Mr. Speaker, the Bill explains the aim of the corporation and we welcome the expansion of its aims. If the Fuel Research Institute can also expand its aims and do further research we would welcome that as well. The only point I would like to make is that the Act was passed in 1963 and there have been numerous amendments since then. The hon. the Minister has mentioned the possibility of consolidation, and I would like to make an appeal to him to have a consolidating measure brought in as soon as possible, perhaps even later this session, or early next session. With these few words I want to say that we shall not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Von Brandis supported the measure with hesitation. I can of course understand his interest in the energy question in general, because he has a special knowledge in; this connection, and I believe that he made a contribution which would be worthwhile in any debate regarding the energy policy in general. However, I first want to deal with his objections to the legislation, because, with all due respect, the extent and objective of the legislation which the House is considering are limited. Firstly and basically it deals with the expansion of activities of the institute in order to comply with the new demands which are being made on it. At this stage, it merely concerns the addition of the functions of testing and analysing coal, while the existing power is limited to grading. I think that in this particular connection the hon. member for Walmer pointed out very clearly that this new function is necessary for the purposes which have been referred to, and he also explained the distinction between grading and the analytic process.

The second point which is of importance in the legislation is the question of the appointment of the board which is to control the institute. The hon. member for Von Brandis argued quite technically that this change, an organizational change which ought actually to facilitate and speed up the functioning, is actually a retrogressive step, or a step in the opposite direction. With all due respect, I do not agree with him. The point is that the State President used to make the appointments on the recommendation of the Minister concerned. The only thing which is being done here is to bring this legislation into line with similar legislation as regards the function of the State President. Secondly, the hon. member will agree with me that the function of determining the conditions of service of the staff of the board is not one which is usually supposed to be the responsibility of the State President.

It is a principle.

The principle is supported by practice. I can explain the hon. member’s argument. They have never governed and therefore they do not know how it is done. I am afraid that I cannot agree with his point of view and I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown that variety is not a sin. He needs to leam something. Arrogance never strengthens an argument. I shall leave him there.

I want to go to the other subject which the hon. member for Von Brandis discussed, namely the whole question of energy seen in its broad context. Of course it is true that in regard to the various sources of energy, there are various departments which have various responsibilities in this connection. The hon. member is aware of the fact that since the oil crisis arose in 1973, the whole question of energy has taken on a completely new meaning for us and for the world. Secondly, coal, of which we have large supplies, according to the geological surveys, has also taken on a completely new meaning from our point of view and from the point of view of the world. Thirdly, the hon. member is aware of the fact that this importance has been accentuated by the Petrick Report in particular. Furthermore, hon. members are also aware of the fact that, in accepting the importance of energy, the Government decided to take two steps in this particular connection. The first step was to create a co-ordinating instrument under the Minister of Planning in which the contributions and results of the work of all the various departments and disciplines dealing with energy would be co-ordinated.

One meeting per year.

No, it is not one meeting per year. I should like to elaborate on this. After considering the recommendations of the Petrick Commission, the Government decided in the second place to form a permanent interdepartmental committee of scientists and others to advise the Government, as well as the co-ordinating department, on the broad concept of the energy policy.

I appreciate the co-operation of hon. members who support the legislation, and I immediately want to say that the whole question of the energy policy and the Government’s standpoint in this connection can be discussed during my Vote or during the Votes of some of my colleagues. There is nothing to prevent this.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.