Mr. Speaker, today the House will deal with the first two Orders of the Day, viz. the Committee Stages of the Financial Institutions Amendment Bill and the Financial Arrangements with Bophuthatswana Bill. After that the discussion of the Indian Affairs Vote will be continued, and then, if there is any time available, the House will deal with legislation as printed on the Order Paper for today. On Monday the Foreign Affairs Vote will be discussed and on Tuesday the legislation of which the hon. the Prime Minister has just given notice will be before the House. On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday the House will deal with the Community Development, Tourism, Public Works, Immigration, Water Affairs, Forestry and Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations Votes.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”).

Mr. Chairman, in the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Minister a question to which he has not yet replied. It was in relation to the creation of the advisory committee proposed in this clause.

I asked the hon. the Minister if he could give us an assurance that the composition of this committee would be fully representative of the industry. For instance, would all insurance companies be represented on the committee?

Mr. Chairman, I have not yet applied my mind fully to the details of the constitution of the committee but, generally speaking, the aim is to have a strong representative committee. I will certainly endeavour to achieve that.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, this is the first of a number of clauses in this measure which gives effect to the budget proposals that financial institutions—banks, pension funds and so forth—be required to invest a bigger proportion of their assets in Government stock and prescribed assets. We have argued against this principle in the Second Reading and in other debates in the House and there is little more that I can add to the arguments that we have already advanced.

However, I would like to say that I regard it as bad economic policy to go on and on forcing the financial institutions to invest a larger and larger proportion of their investments in Government stock, and not giving them the option to invest where they consider those investments will do their customers and the institutions themselves the most good. The hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, did say that by forcing the financial institutions to invest in Government stock he was, in fact, offering them a good, safe investment. I would like to say that the purpose of this measure has nothing to do with the safety of financial institutions. Surely, the existing provisions whereby financial institutions are already required to invest a proportion of their assets in Government stock and in prescribed investments, is sufficient to take care of the safety of the institutions. This measure, surely, has nothing to do with their safety. This is purely a fiscal measure and aims to raise more money for the fiscus.

The hon. the Minister also said that this would be a good investment. Surely the correct thing for a financial institution is to decide for itself what is a good investment and what is not. If one allows the financial institutions that freedom, they are going to use the public’s savings of which they are the guardians, to the best advantage not only of the savers and the institutions themselves, but to the best advantage of the country as a whole. Once one starts forcing investments rather than allowing investments to be on a voluntary basis one is on the route to socialism and is not allowing the private sector to compete on an equal basis with the public sector for its requirements.

Under his Vote the hon. the Minister announced two excellent measures for mobilizing the country’s savings on a voluntary basis, namely the new defence bonds and a tax-free premium bond. We on this side of the House think that the measures which he announced then, were taking the right direction as far as the Government getting its capital requirements from the local capital market were concerned. He was taking a step whereby he was mobilizing and encouraging savings on a voluntary basis, the antithesis of what he is doing in this Bill. In this Bill he is commandeering savings. If one is commandeering savings, one is moving on the road to socialism. There can be no doubt about that.

Even at this late hour I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to have a further look at this. By doing so, he is not forfeiting the loan income he is going to get from the financial institutions, but would merely be substituting a voluntary basis for a compulsory basis for getting them. He would be showing his confidence in the capital market and in the economy. If the hon. the Minister is not going to show the confidence that he can raise the money that is required by the Government in the capital market, how is he going to expect the business community as a whole to show confidence in the economy? I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this measure.

Mr. Chairman, we on these benches shall vote against this clause. We have given our reasons for it during the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not want to enlarge on those reasons. The important factor we should like to draw attention to and which arises out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, is that if Government stock is such a good investment, one would assume that the institutions would choose to invest in it without being compelled to do so. The hon. the Minister is now depriving them of this right of choice by forcing them to invest in it. He regards it as being good for them. That is not a good argument. The hon. the Minister is increasing these percentages because he wants to compel them to invest in Government stock to provide money for the coffers of the State. The investment merit decision is one for the institutions and not one for the hon. the Minister to make. He has already prescribed in the Act that percentages must be laid down in order to provide certain safeguards. However, this particular increase in the percentage is not based upon good investment grounds, but purely on the so-called requirements of the State in these particular circumstances. The hon. the Minister spoke about the Stock Exchange. People, from the president of the Stock Exchange down, are on record as having said that this has affected the ability of institutions to invest in the equity market. There is no doubt about it that the availability of money has an effect upon a Stock Exchange which already experiences grave problems in so far as the volume and price levels are concerned.

The third point I want to make is that there is little doubt that having to invest in this type of stock will have an effect upon the return which can be obtained for the people who are fundamentally concerned with it, viz. the pensioner and the holder of the insurance policy, because there is no doubt that returns in excess of these returns can be obtained on safe investments in South Africa at the moment. To that extent it is a form of discriminatory taxation against the beneficiaries of these institutions. This is another reason why we cannot support it.

During the Second Reading debate yesterday, the hon. member for Johannesburg North raised the issue as to what the reasons were which the hon. the Minister advanced for this when he had met the pension funds inter alia. The hon. member for Johannesburg North quoted from a document which reflected the notes of a meeting held in the Hendrik Verwoerd Building in Cape Town on Thursday, 14 April. The notes, purporting to quote the hon. the Minister, read—

Yesterday the hon. the Minister said—

The hon. the Minister then said a variety of other things. This morning I read the following report in a newspaper—

He is then quoted as having said—

I have further extracts which perhaps I should also read—

A whole lot of other things are said in these extracts, but I should like to read the following—

It goes on to refer to a Select Committee which was appointed, but to which I do not want to refer at the moment.

That is interesting.

In fairness to the hon. the Minister, I am reading the reports in which he exculpates himself as well. I shall not read the whole, but only what I think are the material parts—

I think I am obliged to read both sides, the denial of the hon. the Minister and the other allegations.

I think this is an extremely important matter. Firstly, these are the reasons which the hon. the Minister of Finance is alleged to have given to the Association of Pension and Provident Funds of South Africa for having to increase the percentages. Secondly, I believe that when a Minister of Finance speaks, he speaks with the full knowledge of all the material facts and therefore his statements have to be taken as being of extreme importance and must be taken as being absolutely reliable. We now have a situation, not for the first time but again, in terms of which there is a dramatic conflict which has arisen between on the one hand people who are—I think the hon. the Minister will agree—held in great esteem in the community and who also are regarded as people of importance in the financial community and on the other hand the Minister himself in regard to a fundamental matter, viz. the foreign capital inflow. This is important to South Africa. It is important to all of us in this House. It is relevant to the issue as to whether we have to provide more money for this purpose in the particular manner which the hon. the Minister is proposing. We find that the one person who should be above controversy, whose word should be accepted throughout, once again becomes a matter of controversy in this situation. This is something which cannot be allowed to happen. The hon. the Minister has a duty to tell the House and the public of South Africa at the earliest opportunity the actual accurate facts and figures in regard to this matter to the last detail so that the public can judge for themselves. There must be the same situation independently from the Reserve Bank. I believe that if the public of South Africa, on the basis of those figures, believe that we are in difficulty, they will rally around and will try to help to the greatest extent possible. I believe that.

Is that what you are doing now?

I am trying to deal with this matter in a way which I consider to be in the public interest. I believe that the public of South Africa, if they know the facts and they see that we are in difficulty, will seek to help in every conceivable manner. We cannot allow a situation to be perpetuated, a situation where there is a dispute and a controversy over whether the hon. the Minister made statements or is alleged to have made statements. That is a situation which is adverse to South Africa. It is adverse to our financial standing and is something which the community cannot allow to continue in the manner it is happening at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches do not intend rehashing the arguments used in the Second Reading. We will oppose this clause for the reasons stated in the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad this issue has been raised by the hon. member for Constantia, because I would like to reiterate my standpoint on the proposal to raise the percentages required to be invested in prescribed assets by these important savings in institutions. I would like to reiterate that viewpoint, and I believe I can do so with great confidence. We find ourselves in a situation where various developments have taken place in Southern Africa and elsewhere which were beyond our control. As a result we have had to provide R1 650 million in one year for defence, when three years ago it was approximately R700 million. This is, however, left out of account altogether by the Opposition parties. Our defence commitment today, had normal conditions prevailed, would have been perhaps something of the order of R1 000 million—which I think is a fair figure to take as a basis for argument; it would probably have been somewhere in that vicinity according to my estimate, and we would not have had to find the extra R650 million on one Vote alone. I could then virtually have dispensed with this measure. However, this is left out of account altogether, despite the extraordinary situation we are in. Are the hon. member for Constantia, the hon. members of the PRP, or anybody else, saying that this defence budget is wrong? If so, they have not said it at any stage in my hearing. That lies at the root of this issue. When one looks at the matter in complete isolation, it is easy to talk of socialism. I would reject that out of hand. There in no one in this House who is more antagonistic towards socialism than I am. The hon. member asks why I do not raise the money on the capital market, whether I do not have confidence in the capital market. Did the hon. member for Constantia not look at the budget statement to see what, in fact, the provision is that I have made for raising capital in the capital market?

I have done so on a very big scale indeed and I have the confidence in the capital market to say today that I believe that I am going to obtain that money. If the hon. member wants to test that, he only has to look at what happened to the last public issues of the long-term loan and the shorter-term loan to see how successful we were straightaway. We are going to issue others, but we cannot go on doing this ad infinitum. We have got to take into account what the capability of the market is in relation to all the other schemes that have to be financed. The hon. member for Yeoville is already saying that we are taking too big a share. He says that we are already prejudicing the Stock Exchange. I say again: One cannot look at these things in isolation. It is dangerous to do that. I would like to say that the institutions themselves, with whom we have discussed these matters in detail, take a very much better, a much more constructive and a very much more positive view of this than any member I have heard speaking on the Opposition benches on this issue.

They have no choice.

No, nonsense! They are not slavish people; they talk openly to us. From the Press I can quote senior members of these institutions saying that in the circumstances they support us. So I think to read into this measure that we are now moving towards socialism, is exaggerated as to be manifestly absurd, with great respect. I do not think that I need to take the justification for this issue any further and want simply to conclude this argument and my position on this by asking hon. members opposite to test this position in the light of the budget, both last year and this year, but particularly this year. In my opinion I have held Government spending to the absolute minimum. Since August last year right up to February we were discussing these issues in the Treasury with the different departments, with the public corporations and other public organizations and the provinces. We told them all along that they would have to cut more. In fact, we cut hundreds of millions and even then, on the final figures, we asked them to cut a further R200 million, which in some cases was almost impossible.

I want to say that when you come to a position where, including this all-time record of defence expenditure, you have an increase in your total Government budget of only something between 7% and 8% compared with the previous year and where the inflation rate was something like 11 in round terms, I think it was an achievement which we probably have not matched for a very long time indeed and, moreover, will not see easily matched in other countries. Of course, we look to see what other countries are doing. This achievement has impressed overseas experts more than anything else, more than any other single aspect of our policy. I have this in writing from several sources. I believe that our Government expenditure is at a minimum. That being so, I have to finance the budget based on those figures. Despite the fact that we have held Government expenditure down to an absolute minimum, we still had to adopt the course of imposing a surcharge on imports; we have extended the idea of defence bonds to take into account the new series which I referred to a day or two ago, and we are still having to draw a small amount—admittedly a small amount—we are drawing an amount on the Stabilization Account. I am limited there unless I want to start an inflationary influence. Despite that, I still had to find between R700 million and R800 million. Had I not adopted this course, with the support and active co-operation of the institutions concerned, what was left to me? I would have had to raise income tax. I have already raised indirect taxes. There is an elasticity of demand and an inelasticity of demand which you have to take into account on those products. You cannot simply put up the duty on liquor or cigarettes as much as you might think you can. You might start reducing sales and in the end you might get a smaller amount than before. All I was left with was to put up income tax on individuals and companies, and I decided that I could not possibly do that under the prevailing circumstances. Therefore we came up with this measure. I say that I was absolutely justified. I believe that it is a sound measure. It is a fiscal measure. Of course it is. But at the same time it does offer these institutions with these huge growing funds a very excellent type of investment, and I maintain my position on that as well.

The other point which I must refer to is the very unfortunate point which the hon. member for Johannesburg North thought fit to raise yesterday when he read from a document which I would have regarded as a confidential document in the sense that these were notes apparently made by certain members of the pension fund movement on the basis of discussions with me and my top officials, and it is quite unusual to have a document like that bandied about in this House and outside. I had these discussions with many interests and many parties, and the procedure is that you do not issue a document like that to the public unless you have the approval of the other party concerned. I would not do it. And the other party does not normally do it. But this has been done. Obviously the hon. member has an ulterior motive.

It is quite clear from what the hon. member for Yeoville said this morning, that this is quite deliberately being made into a political issue. I will defend myself. I want to say in the first instance that I have a very high regard for the representatives of the pension fund movement and the Pension Funds Association whom I meet from time to time. I have a very high regard for them, as I have also for the representatives of the other important financial institutions. We had an excellent discussion. It was constructive and helpful. I had no problem. I set out my position and I found an excellent co-operation. I want to say quite categorically that at no time whatsoever in that discussion or at any other time have I said that I was doing anything because capital was drying up or was almost drying up. I checked again with my senior officials and they said: “Good heavens! That is the very last thing you ever said”. In fact, one of them said that, had I said such a thing, he would have fallen off his chair. I accept the good faith of these people. I do not say they put that in order to mislead anybody or to misrepresent what I said. I most certainly do not say that. I say there was a misunderstanding.

In my reply yesterday I said I would take this further. This morning I asked the Registrar of Financial Institutions to talk to the chairman of the Pension Funds Association about the matter. He did so, and it was a very cordial and pleasant discussion, as usual. On the basis of what the Registrar of Financial Institutions told me this morning, I want to say quite clearly that the chairman of the Pension Funds Association said that, where this matter was now being raised with him, he could not say that I had in fact used those actual words. He was prepared to say that. This is what has been given to me categorically, and I have written it down. He could not say I had used those precise words, but he said that that was a general impression. Of course it was a general impression. I referred to the scarcity of capital. I accept the good faith of Mr. Dietrich, as I always have done. I accept, Sir, that there was a misunderstanding. I think it is a great pity that that statement in draft form was not shown to me beforehand, because I and my officials would immediately have pointed out that error. We would immediately have done so on the facts.

I am perfectly certain that Mr. Dietrich, being the type of man he is, would have accepted that explanation from me, as he has indeed done now. I want to say that the Registrar of Financial Institutions informed me this morning, after his talk with Mr. Dietrich, that there was no issue between us. I say that in the light of the great political issue the hon. member for Yeoville has suddenly raised. I am authorized by the Registrar of Financial Institutions to say on his authority, after he talked with Mr. Dietrich personally, that there is no issue between us. As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed in so far as it relates to Mr. Dietrich. Indeed, there never was an issue, because I was quite sure that this was a genuine misunderstanding of what I had said. It is the very last thing I would ever have said or ever will say under these conditions, because I know that capital has been coming in and is still coming in. Therefore I could never have said that. I did, however, point out that there was a scarcity of capital and that we had to mobilize our own resources more effectively. I also said that to the insurers, the banks, the building societies and others. Therefore I should merely like to say that I think it is extremely unfortunate that this matter should have been raised here. It was an obvious attempt—one only has to listen to what the hon. member for Yeoville said this morning—to sow discord where it does not exist and to reflect on me where I think no reflection is possible, because I stand absolutely by what I said, and so do my senior officials, who are men of the greatest integrity—I work with them every day. I reject out of hand this slur which the hon. member for Yeoville, on the basis of what the hon. member for Johannesburg North did, is now trying to bring into this matter. I say again that I have no issue with the Pension Funds Association or its chairman. The matter is closed as far as they are concerned. He accepts my good faith and I accept his. There was a misunderstanding. That has been said, and I accept it too. I think that for this matter to be raised in this way is a very poor commentary on the sense of responsibility of certain members of the PRP. I think it is a very great pity indeed that this matter was ever raised, because it is something that never should have been raised in what ought to have been an objective discussion of an important financial matter.

Order! Before I call upon the next hon. member to address the Committee, I want to point out that I regard this clause as containing one of the main principles of the Bill. Accordingly, in accordance with the practice of the House, I allowed one member from each of the Opposition parties to reiterate his party’s opposition to this clause and the hon. the Minister to reply thereto. Any further discussion must be confined to the details of this clause. Hon. members must observe Standing Order No. 63 in this regard. I am not going to allow any repetition of the discussions or of the issues raised during Second Reading. I now call upon the hon. member for Yeoville to address the Committee.

Sir, I want to deal firstly, with the issue which the hon. the Minister raised, the question whether in so far as this clause is concerned, the increases— because we are discussing whether it should be increased or not—have the support, to use the hon. the Minister’s words, of the members of the institutions concerned.

The “co-operation.”

I think the hon. the Minister used the word “support”. That is what I have written down. I think there is another issue which has now arisen. The hon. the Minister put his case to the Association of Pension Fund and I quote what is contained in this document, and the hon. the Minister can say whether that is also wrong—

That is not support. It is anything but that. We now have another issue. I quote further—

Order! The hon. member can raise that matter in the Third Reading. I am not going to allow a repetition of that argument now.

Mr. Chairman, will you hear me on a submission which I wish to make?

Yes.

The issue under this clause is whether this House should vote to increase the percentage or not.

That is a principle.

We have to decide whether to vote for it or not.

Order! That we have discussed during Second Reading.

I am advancing reasons why we should not vote for an increase in the percentage.

The hon. member did so during the Second Reading and I have allowed him to do it once during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask you …

Your “jakkalsdraaie” will not get you anywhere.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “jakkalsdraaie”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Yeoville may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you, firstly, whether you will allow me to advance no reasons why this amount should not be increased?

Order! The attitude of the association is a matter that the hon. member may raise in the Third Reading, but not in the Committee Stage.

An issue has arisen here which I think is an important issue, an issue of credibility, and I ask you : Will you allow me to reply to the hon. the Minister?

Order! I have told the hon. member to observe Standing Order No. 63 and would like the hon. member to read that Standing Order.

I am familiar with it, Sir.

And I cannot allow the hon. member to argue with the Chair.

Sit down!

How many chairmen are there in this House, Sir? I thought there was only one, but now there appears to be at least six of them.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Well, Sir, may I then deal specifically with the clause as such? I want to make the submission that in so far as this clause is concerned, it increases the amount beyond what is required on the basis of the budget submitted by the hon. the Minister. May I say that?

Order! That is actually on the principle.

Mr. Chairman, everything in this clause is principle because there is only one principle involved.

Order! That is so, but the hon. member may speak for 30 minutes in the Third Reading on this particular issue.

All that I then content myself with saying is that nothing that the hon. the Minister has said has convinced us that we should vote for this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it is not too late to appeal, in the words of the hon. member for Constantia, to the hon. the Minister to think again about this clause. We received a report only two days ago of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. In that report they say that South Africa needs for its future, primarily based on a question of unemployment, a growth rate of 5%. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if he is going to continue as he has started out, taking away from the sources of capital in this country amounts like this, how are we going to maintain a growth rate of 5%?

Order! That is not under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, with respect …

Order! I have given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, …

Order! The hon. member is trying to discuss the principle. I have given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I wish to point out to the hon. the Minister that certain capital is required, and that if he is to take …

Order! That is not a matter for discussion during the Committee Stage. The hon. member can raise that during Third Reading. I am not going to allow him to discuss it now.

Mr. Chairman, am I going to be permitted to appeal to the hon. the Minister to reduce these amounts?

I have already allowed the hon. member for Constantia, on behalf of the UP, to reiterate his party’s opposition to this clause and to raise matters relevant to their opposition to the clause. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South must abide by my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I must always abide by your ruling, and I always do. I will abide by it again today. However, I must state that this makes our opposition to the clause even more resolute than it was.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—89: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobier, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treumicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—42: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, this is also a clause which deals with the percentages. I would like to read to the House the following—

As I said earlier, Mr. Dietrich had earlier replied that while appreciating that the Minister had a problem, he nevertheless wished to register a strong protest on behalf of the pension fund movement. Therefore, to suggest, as the hon. the Minister has expressly said, “that senior members of the movement support these proposals”, rises another issue to which the hon. the Minister must reply. He cannot say these things when there is such a document on record. Maybe he will allege that it is another misunderstanding. I do not know. In the face of this document he cannot ask us to vote for it by telling us that senior members of the movement support it.

There are senior members who support it.

There must be somebody who does. However, this man is the chairman of this association. He speaks in the presence of the vice-chairman of the council, of a member of the council and of the person who represents the secretary. The document starts off by stating: “Representing the Association of Pensions and Provident Funds of South Africa.” How can the hon. the Minister say this? How can he possibly ask us in this House to accept it? That is another issue which is perhaps as important—if not more important—than the original issue which has been raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. These are issues which cannot be allowed to remain as they are. The hon. the Minister cannot just get up in the House and say exactly what he thinks.

I shall speak the facts whenever I wish to.

Then the hon. the Minister must get his facts right. I challenge the hon. the Minister to say whether that also did not take place at this meeting, because this issue is as important as the other one.

That is quite irresponsible.

It is no use saying it is irresponsible. I think it is irresponsible of the hon. the Minister to get up in this House and say that senior members of the movement support this, when there is a document in our possession which, in fact, states that they registered their strongest protest. We also cannot support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, under the previous clause we claimed the reasons for our opposition to the proposal that long-term insurers should be required to invest more of their assets in Government stock and in prescribed investments. Our opposition to this clause is based on exactly the same premises. I merely want to record at this stage that we are opposed to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, we oppose this clause for the reasons we gave during the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walmer will in time come round to support us on this issue. It does not matter however. It doesn’t worry me. [Interjections.] What does concern me is the attitude which the hon. member for Yeoville has taken up on behalf of his party. He is doing his best to cast reflections on everybody, including myself. He thinks that that is something which is constructive in a financial debate. I said that certain senior members of the pension fund movement supported me on this. I stated that as an actual fact. In two cases I have it in writing. Senior members of the pension fund movement took the trouble to write to me and say that they would like me to know that in the circumstances in which I find myself, they support me in what I am doing. I stated that emphatically and categorically. So the hon. member might like to withdraw the slur he cast.

Who are they?

I am not prepared to bandy any names across the floor of the House. Mr. Chairman, do you think it bothers me if the hon. member accepts my word for that or not? He has already shown his hand. He is going to be as mischievous as he can. I am only concerned with the facts. I shall stake my integrity on it. I shall go further and say in regard to that document that it is perfectly correct that when we started—I recollect it clearly—that discussion, the chairman did say that they had to state their case and that they opposed this in the hope that we would possibly find some ways of financing our budget without involving the pension funds. We discussed the matter at some length in the presence of senior officials who also took part in the discussion. I cannot say that there were not members who were not opposed to this when the meeting came to its end, but when we ended that discussion, which had taken place in a very constructive and a very cordial spirit, we agreed that we should go ahead. I told them that I had to go ahead with this. At the point when I said that, we ended the discussion on that note. My clear impression was—I have just checked it with the Registrar of Financial Institutions—that the attitude of these people was that in those circumstances they would obviously not make things difficult for me. This is what I meant when I said that we had that co-operation.

There is nothing in here to the effect that they said that they agreed.

The hon. member can now try to be very clever and he can be as mischievous as he likes, but he is not going to cause any difficulty between me and the pension funds’ representatives for whom I have the highest regard. I reiterate that certain senior members of the pension fund movement informed me that they supported this measure. That is the position and regretfully I must say that I am not prepared to budge on this issue.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—89: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobier, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—41: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; VAN ECK, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton. Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 10, in line 26, to omit all the words after “days,” up to and including “sixty” in line 30 and to substitute:
   and in respect of premiums received after 1 October 1977, within ninety
2. (2) on page 10, in line 34, to omit all the words after “deposited” up to and including “date” in line 38;
3. (3) on page 10, in line 39, to omit all the words after “insurer” up to and including “sixty” in line 43 and to substitute “within ninety”;
4. (4) on page 10, in lines 46 and 47, to omit “with a due date earlier than 1 October 1977”;
5. (5) on page 10, in line 51, to omit all the words after “question” up to and including “date” in line 55;
6. (6) on page 12, in line 38, to omit all the words after the second “rand” up to and including “rand” in line 41;
7. (7) on page 12, in line 51, after “policy” to insert:

The main purpose of these amendments is to return to the status quo …

Order! Hon. members must not engage in conversation as they are leaving the Chamber because it makes it impossible for me to follow the hon. member’s argument.

The main purpose of the amendments is to return to the status quo. I want to make a few brief points, because the hon. member for Randburg will pursue and motivate further the points we raised in the Second Reading. I am very concerned about the remark made by the hon. the Minister when he said that by increasing the amount of the guarantees he was not acting discriminatorily against the small man because the small man still had other options. However, to deprive a small man of one of three options, is to my mind discrimination when one allows the larger firm to exercise all three options. There is no doubt that furnishing a guarantee is a far more satisfactory thing than exercising one of the other two options. To my mind it is a measure which is prejudicial to the small man. That particular amendment is one that I feel very strongly about.

The aim of the remaining amendments is to reduce the periods to what they were before.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to talk about the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. Our concern is that the object which clause 6 seeks to achieve is, in fact, counterproductive. It seeks to get income presently earned by the insurance brokers to the insurance companies because it is felt that it should rightly be that way being interest on monies owed to the Insurance Companies. The effect of this will be twofold. It will end up in a lot more administrative work having to be done and that will increase the cost of insurance to the man in the street, because in the end he is the person that will have to pay. Secondly, it will be very prejudicial to the small insurance brokers who do not have very large sums of money to support them. I will give the reasons for this. Previously the majority of small insurance brokers took the 45 day option. This enabled them to bank the money which they received from their clients in a trust account and 45 days after the end of the month in which they received the money, they could pay the insurance company. This enabled them to run their business fairly effectively on the commission which they could take out of this trust account. But what is happening now? Although this period has now been increased from 45 to 60 days, the 60 day period is counted from the due date—in other words, after the premiums are due. Most insurance broking firms run on a book of 60 days and to do so they have to be efficient. If you get a situation where an insurance broking firm is running on a book of 70 or 80 days or even, in the case of a small firm, on a book of 90 days, or if you get a down-turn in the economy when people tend to pay their accounts later, or if you get major insolvency, because in terms of this legislation the insurance broker will be responsible for insolvency, the small broker with a limited amount of finance, if he has not received the money from his clients within the 60 days, will have to pay that money himself out of his own reserves. This means that he might not be able to pay his staff and that he might not be able to pay his own commitments. He could go out of business. There is just no way in which he will be able to survive unless he has the backing of a bank. There is only one other alternative for him. If he is a prudent businessman he will look at his situation and say: “I cannot take the risk of insolvency; I cannot take the risk of my client paying late; therefore I must go for the six day option”. The six day option still gives him the right to pay the insurance company six days after he receives the money from his client. In other words, he does not have to pay the insurance company six days after due date, but in fact six days after he has received the money.

If he takes the six day option he is no longer responsible for insolvencies or for late payment by his clients. However, it is impossible to reconcile accounts in six days. One cannot do it. All you can do in six days is that you can get the cheque, deduct your commission, split it up as you think it should be between the various insurance companies you have to pay and send it off. The accounting problems that this will bring about are absolutely astronomical. I can accept that the huge insurance brokers, the big international firms that have massive bank shareholdings or good bank connections, who can go round to a bank and ask for a R3 million or R4 million or even R10 million or R15 million overdraft to take them through a difficult time, will be able to survive. However, even some of those will go for the six day option because there will be no money in it for them to take the solvency risk, to do the reconciliation, to do the heavy accounting or to incur the heavy expenditure which they did in the past. As the hon. the Minister knows, the six-day option was designed for the tiny little broker who has few and very small connections. It was really never meant to be a serious form of accounting.

In this legislation the hon. the Minister is doing two things. He is making it virtually impossible for the relatively middle-sized to small broker to remain in the insurance broking business unless he goes for the six-day option. He is also making it economically unattractive for the big insurance broker to adopt the 60-day option; the big broker is also therefore going to use the six-day option. This is going to bring about an accounting disaster, but this will qot be to the detriment of the insurance broker, because he will still get his commission. The money comes in and he simply takes his commission off it. In the end there are going to be so many problems of reconciliation that the premiums are not going to move out of the clients’ hands to the companies concerned on due date because of the absense of an efficient broker with tough credit control who runs a tight organization, analysing the figures, getting the money on the due date and pumping it through to the insurance company. The broker is going to leave it to his client because the insurance broker himself will not have the staff to undertake this enormous task of reconciliation that he is doing at present. It will be left to the insurance companies and the clients, and they will simply not be in a position to handle the thing effectively.

Therefore I think that, whilst the intention is good and whilst I can perhaps agree that it might appear to be the right thing to do to get the revenue the brokers have received across to the companies quickly, in actual practice it is in the first place going to cost the man in the street more for his insurance and, in the second place, it is virtually going to make it impossible for the smaller broker to operate unless he operates on the six-day option basis. In the case of the larger broker, who can operate on the 60-day basis, it is going to be economically unattractive for him to do so. Therefore he is also going to operate on the six-day basis. Any businessman knows that it is absolutely impossible to reconcile accounts within six days after receipt of payment. There is no accounting system anywhere in the world which is geared to do this.

Mr. Chairman, the amendments moved here will have the effect of maintaining the present unsatisfactory status quo whilst in at least one instance making the present unsatisfactory situation even more unsatisfactory. I must therefore say at once that I regret that I am unable to accept these amendments.

I think that a very strange situation has come to light.

†I say that because the fact of the matter is that lengthy negotiations over a period of years have been conducted between the Registrar, the brokers and the insurers with regard to the amendments proposed in clause 6. The Registrar informs me that the proposals in the amending legislation represent measures which have been agreed upon between the insurers and the brokers and himself. How on earth then am I to give credence to the representations made in this House by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Randburg, unless the hon. member for Yeoville, running true to form, wants to cast a reflection on the credibility of the Registrar of Insurance? He did it to me …

You must not try to make that kind of trouble now.

I will say it because that hon. member has a few things to answer for.

I said no such thing.

Sir, I have not finished with him yet. He has cast certain reflections on me and I am saying that he, running true to form …

I have not said a word about the Registrar …

I am asking whether you are doing it.

You are trying to make trouble where none exists.

What I want to know is whether you are doing that?

You must stop with this nonsense; I have not said a single word in that regard.

Sir, it is the hon. member for Yeoville who started with this this morning.

Order! I do not think the hon. the Minister should continue along those lines.

I accept that, Mr. Chairman, I shall come back to the proposed amendments as such. The hon. member did not motivate in detail the specific amendments. He simply spoke in general. I can comment on each one, but in view of the fact that the Registrar of Financial Institutions has gone to great trouble over a long period to negotiate directly with the parties concerned, and has in fact reached this position of agreement with the parties concerned, it obviously places us in a very difficult position to be told now that the status quo should be maintained. It is for those reasons that I regret that I cannot accept the amendment. I can give detailed reasons for each specific one if it is wanted, but I am not able to accept these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, as I said in the Second Reading, what the hon. the Minister says is quite correct. The Brokers’ Association, which represents the broking interests, did concur with this legislation, but the reason why they did concur with it was not because they agreed with the Bill or thought that it was good. The reason is that they were frightened that it could be even worse. That is the reason. There has been great pressure on the hon. the Minister and the department by insurance companies which feel that the present dispensation is not fair and correct. The registrar’s office has done everything they can to reconcile the situation and they have been very good about it. But what the brokers have had to realize with regard to this matter, is that the pressure the insurance companies have been bringing to bear, has been very, very large. The brokers have their own idea of what the motivation is why the insurance companies are coming out with this. That is a whole different subject and I shall not discuss it. However, it is a mistake for the hon. the Minister to believe that because the brokers actually agreed to it, they agreed to it because they thought it would be a good thing. They did not. They agreed to it because they were frightened that if they did not agree to it, that the resulting measure that would come forward would be actually worse. The matter does not end there. I have put forward arguments to the hon. the Minister as to why previously smaller brokers could use the trust account. It was because they had no solvency risk and they were not responsible for paying the moneys across to the insurance companies if the moneys were received late. The argument that I put is that in this clause they now have a solvency risk and they are also responsible to see that their clients pay timeously. My argument is that small brokers do not have the kind of capital to take those risks. I would like to know, therefore, how the hon. the Minister sees the smaller broker financing his business in that situation. Does the hon. the Minister not agree with me that they will surely have no alternative but to go for the six day option because that is the only one on which they will not take an insolvency risk and where they will not be held responsible for late payments by their clients?

Secondly, I have motivated this point and I do not intend to motivate it again, why the bigger broker has no financial interest in this issue. There is no reason why he should go on the 60 day option. It would also pay him to go on the six day option. Does the hon. the Minister not agree that if the whole insurance broking industry went onto the six day option, there is no accounting system in the world that can handle the kind of volume that goes to the broking industry and reconcile it all within six days. It is just not possible. This whole load will therefore be dumped on the insurance companies. The impact of this is going to be increased costs of insurance. Nobody is going to make any money and in the end the public will have to pay for it. It is a bad bit of legislation. It is as simple as that. That is why we are against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say one brief thing, namely that throughout the whole of the discussion, both in the Second Reading and during the discussion of this clause, I have never said one word about the registrar or that there was not an agreement between the registrar and the brokers. I just want that on record. The suggestion of the hon. the Minister is really without foundation.

The hon. member may make that point, but I do not want him to take it too far.

That is all I want to say.

Amendments (1) to (5) negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendments (6) and (7) negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. R. M. de Villiers, R. E. Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. J. Lorimer, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G.

F. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the percentages once again and on the same grounds that we have previously stated we want to record our objection also to this clause. I just want to say one very simple thing about the whole issue of the Association of Pension Funds and the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has not dealt with one very important issue. That is that we believe that the facts relating to the capital inflow should be put to the public. The hon. the Minister says that the Registrar of Financial Institutions had indicated to him that Mr. Dietrich had said that the words were not used exactly as they stood and that there might be a misunderstanding about this. That is a matter between the hon. the Minister and Mr. Dietrich and the other members who were present there. What is important to us is that the question of what the Minister says in respect of financial matters must at all times be such that it is accepted by the public without question. That is the position we want to see re-established. The hon. the Minister should really not have any quarrel with us on this issue. Instead of getting worked up about it, he should be pleased that that is what we are seeking to re-establish in the financial community. That is why I do not want to come back to the controversy. I want to leave that over for the moment, because it has to be settled between the hon. the Minister and the Association of Pension Funds. We are merely relying on what is being said in the document and what has been reported in the Press. We hope that by the time the Third Reading of this measure is taken, the matter would have been satisfactorily resolved, because the situation cannot continue that when the hon. the Minister makes a statement in respect of any matter, whether it be the inflow of capital or any other financial matter, it cannot be accepted by the community without question. That is what we want to establish.

As far as the increases of percentages are concerned, there is no reason to add anything further to the grounds that we have already advanced. Therefore we shall vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, for the same reasons as I advanced in the discussion on clause 3 we will also oppose the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Yeoville I want to say that I have stated what I wished to say as far as the Association of Pension Funds is concerned. I rely absolutely on what the Registrar of Financial Institutions told me this morning. There is not any issue between myself and the Association of Pension Funds. That is my own clear impression and I am not prepared to take the matter any further, whether the hon. member for Yeoville would like me to or not.

As far as any announcements I have made about overseas capital, the inflow of capital or the position of capital in South Africa are concerned, what I say is on record. What I have said in the House is in Hansard and what I have said in the Other Place is in the Hansard there. The contents of my speeches which I have made in public are invariably in writing. I stand absolutely by everything I have said. I have not misled anybody. I have stated the facts that have been at my disposal, and I am not prepared to do anything more about it at this stage.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, for exactly the same reasons as we recorded our opposition to clauses 3, 4 and 11, we record our opposition to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I endorse what the hon. member for Constantia said. We in these benches shall also vote against the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to record my party’s objection to the clause.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition, Progressive Reform Party and South African Party dissenting).

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 28, in line 44, after “institution” to insert:
   : Provided that all suspensions or reductions shall, subject to any security which a creditor may hold and subject to any preference in law, be treated equally
2. (2) on page 28, in lines 47 and 48, to omit “at such time, in such order and in such manner as he may deem fit” and to substitute:
   pro rata to their claims subject to any security or preference in law
3. (3) on page 28, in line 49, after “cancel” to insert:
   , subject to any claim for damages,
4. (4) on page 30, in lines 12 to 14, to omit paragraph (b).

I shall quickly motivate this because in replying to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister did not deal with the issues I raised. I ask him now specifically to deal with these issues. The amendments which I have moved have at the back of them one fundamental principle, viz. that it is accepted in our law, it is a fundamental principle of our law, that unless a Statute in so many words gives preference to one creditor above another, all creditors must be treated equally. If that does not happen in a business community, nobody knows what will really happen when an institution, a company or a person gets into difficulties.

The difficulty we have with this clause is that the hon. the Minister is here authorizing a curator to deal with creditors on an unequal basis, although by law they may be regarded as having no preference of the one over the other. This is something we cannot accept.

This is not an insolvency Bill.

That makes it worse. The purpose of a curatorship is in fact to seek to save an institution so as to prevent it from going into liquidation. It is similar to a judicial management. What is happening in this case, is that some of the provisions which relate to judicial management have been included others have not been included. We have, for example, a situation here that the rights of the creditors under a judicial management to receive reports or to attend meetings, have been done away with. What one is really doing here, is that one is removing the board of directors of an institution and substituting for them a curator. One is giving that curator powers which the board of directors never had. Let us take a simple example.

If a board of directors say that their institution is in trouble and that because they only have a limited amount of money, they are therefore going to pay their friends only and not the others, those directors will end up getting into very serious trouble, because that is obviously quite wrong. However, when one appoints a curator—I am not suggesting that a curator will act on the basis of friendship—he may, for example, decide that a particular class of depositor should be paid in full and should be given his interest in full while another class of depositor should not. Already—and that is the reason for this being retrospective—there are signs that in respect of some depositors of institutions which are under curatorship, this is going to happen. Maybe the hon. the Minister will say that it should not happen or that the registrar will intervene. However, the simple situation is that if one depositor knows that he has deposited his money with an institution, he expects to be treated the same as any other depositor when any trouble arises. In other words, if everybody is going to get 75c in the rand, he must get the same. However, one cannot have a situation where some get 50c, some 75c and some 90c. It is not logical, fair and proper. That is why we fundamentally accept that one must have curators who have certain powers. The amendments we have moved are merely to make sure that when there are suspensions or reductions, then subject to any security a person may hold or any preference in law which may exist, the people are treated equally. That lies as the basis of our first and second amendments.

As far as our third amendment is concerned, the curator is given the power to cancel agreements. We believe that when an agreement is concluded and the curator should cancel it, if there is a claim for damages which can be proved in a court of law, that claim should be capable of being brought, because otherwise one is taking away a contractual right without any possible remedy of compensation.

Lastly there is the question of the operation of set-off. We believe that one can actually ruin people when, for example, one has a deposit which one gives to an institution as security for a loan. It happens in very many cases. We all know that when one applies for a bank overdraft, the institution often says to one, “Yes, we shall give you a bank overdraft provided you pledge a fixed deposit which you have with our bank in return as security for the overdraft.” What can happen as a result of this is that the poor man who has obtained an overdraft has to pay back the overdraft, but in so far as his deposit is concerned, he cannot have that off-set. On that deposit with the same banking institution he may end up getting back only 50 cents in the rand. On the other hand, in terms of one of the earlier arrangements that have been made, it may even be said that a 12 months’ fixed deposit will be reduced to 2%. There are various other things that can take place. With due respect, the effect of this is that people can be ruined by the legislation not allowing off-setting to operate in these circumstances. That is why I have moved the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House naturally view with very considerable reservations any measure which gives an official the right to interfere with normal preferences of creditors. I question whether there would be any case in insolvency proceedings where we would depart from that view in so far as a non-banking company or an individual is concerned. We on this side believe, however, that where banking institutions get into financial difficulty, one has, in so far as one’s priorities are concerned, to take a view which rather differs from that which one would take in the case of non-banking companies or individuals who get into difficulties.

The creditors of a bank are in the main the depositors with the bank and I think their nature as depositors is somewhat different from the nature of normal trade creditors. I think it is essential to take every possible step to save depositors’ money, not only in the interest of the depositors themselves, but also in the interest of the whole banking industry and even in the interest of the economy as a whole.

A bank failure where depositors lose their money or even a large part of it, can shake the confidence of the whole banking structure of the country and it can lead to a chain reaction which may be critical to the economy. We only have to look at the American experience of 1929 and subsequent years to see what disaster can result from a series of bank failures. If this is to be avoided or if this can be avoided by giving increased powers to curators I think it is clear where our duty lies; in other words, to support reasonable powers to curators.

I believe there are practical circumstances where interference with normal preferences can greatly enhance the chance of saving a bank which has got into difficulty. Take for instance the case of a bank with a large number of small depositors. I think it is well known, and it certainly stands to reason, that the cost to a bank of handling small accounts is proportionately much higher than the cost of handling larger accounts. If by repaying small deposits the bank can reduce its costs, there may well be cases where the chances of saving the bank as a whole are greatly enhanced thereby.

I am therefore convinced that curators need to be able to exercise powers that are greater than are provided for them under present legislation. Certainly, if their powers are to be limited to the provisions which apply to them at present, their hands are going to be greatly tied as far as the successful saving of banks who get into trouble is concerned. Judicial management, which is very similar to the powers that curators have at the present time, has not in practice produced results that are in any way impressive. In fact, only a minority of companies who go under judicial management are saved to carry on again. If one takes into account that the additional powers provided for in this clause are going to be exercised under the supervision of the registrar, they are powers under these extraordinary circumstances which we will support. It is necessary to say at the same time that by giving a curator powers of this nature one is putting a tremendous responsibility on him to act with good judgment and wisdom. Therefore the quality and experience of curators appointed becomes a matter of paramount importance. With those words I wish to indicate that we will support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect to the hon. member for Constantia who has just sat down, his argument basically amounted to the fact that he was trying to justify differentiation between various classes of creditors. He used an example that one may have a bank with a very large number of small depositors. He said that if they were repaid in some preferential way, it might well enable the bank to survive. I want to raise two matters in connection with that. Firstly, I assume that he will go along with the argument that the only way one can justify that sort of action would be to do so with the consent of all the creditors. Otherwise it is bad in law and in principle and there is no justification for such a step. I want to raise another point in regard to banks with a large number of small depositors. Banks, even the hon. the Minister will agree, are subject to the closest scrutiny and the most rigorous monitoring by the registrar. They also have a heavy volume of legislation which surrounds them compared with other institutions. The hon. member for Constantia is concerned about the effect on the economy if banks were to go under. It is a concern that everybody will share. However, the most natural way to deal with that is for the Government to guarantee the deposits of the banks as is done elsewhere in the world.

I look forward to hearing from the hon. the Minister the justification for granting a curator the right to differentiate between various classes of creditors. As regards the dates to which we are asked to make this legislation retroactive, hon. members may have heard that in certain instances over this period inducements or alternatives have been offered which in effect amount to differentiating between creditors. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is the motivation behind it. If that was done, it is bad in law. The only justification one can ever have for trying to differentiate within a particular class of creditor or between creditors in general is the natural sympathy that everybody on occasion has for the small people who get hurt. The justification is then simply to say that they should be treated differently out of natural sympathy, in the light of the fact that possibly large creditors have the ability to withstand this better than they can. That is, however, bad in law and in principle and therefore we, as the hon. member for Yeoville has said, cannot in any way support the giving of the powers contemplated in this Bill to a curator.

Mr. Chairman, I regret to have to say that I am not at all convinced by the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Yeoville. The attitude we adopt with regard to this Bill, is the result of experience which has been gained and we feel that the Bill is healthy as it stands. The principle of the equitable treatment of various creditors, envisaged by these amendments, is a principle which I have already said I support. It will be applied in practice.

†The practical circumstances which a curator may have to handle may necessitate a degree of flexibility. That was part of the point made by the hon. member for Constantia, and I appreciate the fact that he can support us in that regard. It is for this reason that I say that I am unable to accept the hon. member for Yeoville’s first and second proposed amendments to clause 21 as they are printed on the Order Paper. That is also why I have moved the following amendment—

The letter of appointment can then contain specific provisions governing a matter of this land if it is thought desirable. This amendment gives me the opportunity of doing that. In terms of this amendment the onus will be on the Minister to impose conditions on a curator which will ensure equity amongst creditors. That is what I am seeking to do in any case.

Dealing with the third amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville, as printed on the Order Paper, the amendment seeks to give a legal remedy to a party in whose favour a curator may not be able to carry out an undertaking previously given by the institution. Since curatorship must be seen as a rescue operation it stands to reason that a new legal situation is created by the appointment of such a curator, who must be in a position to avoid, if necessary, obligations entered into by the institution before curatorship. It is for that essential reason that I regret that I cannot accept that particular amendment.

The fourth amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville seeks to establsih that set-offs of debts to an institution under curatorship shall apply. I think it is logical that under the special circumstances of curatorship, and having particular regard to the necessities of a rescue operation, set-off should be suspended. In the end no one need lose anything on that score because the whole object of curatorship is to enable an institution to meet all its obligations to its creditors.

We have worded this part of the amending Bill with great care in the light of experience and I think it is fair that we should be afforded an opportunity to proceed on this basis. I think that we should obviously place curators in a more effective position than they have been, in the light of experience. For those reasons I regret that I cannot accept the amendments. I ask the House to see my point of view.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Finance agreed to.

Amendments (1) and (2) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (4) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, this clause gives the Minister certain powers in respect of building societies. This is something we have already debated and therefore I shall not prolong the debate, except to say that we cannot support this provision.

Mr. Chairman, we have also indicated our objection to similar provisions contained in clause 3 and subsequent clauses and for the same reason we wish to record our objection to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the building societies provide a function of assisting private home-ownership. If the hon. the Minister is compelled to tap these institutions for money, I should like him to tap the building societies last of all, if I may say so, and only in an emergency. Private home-ownership is the corner-stone of stability in our society. All I am asking the hon. the Minister is that he should not tamper with that corner-stone. He has already knocked the building society movement by taking 2% off the subsidy to private home-owners in the last budget. The hon. the Minister has mentioned that he is going overseas soon. I am sure he will be able to renew old acquaintances and will be able to come back with a lot of money. If he does, I hope he will let the building societies off any tangible form of requirement on his part.

Mr. Chairman, I want to react briefly to the point made by the hon. member for Walmer, by saying that he may rest assured that we on Government side have real sympathy with all the building societies. I think our policy and the way in which it is being implemented, go to prove that absolutely. I doubt whether I shall be able to make do without this contribution. In any event, I shall keep the hon. member’s point in mind. I hope the hon. member will accept it like that.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition, Progressive Reform Party and South African Party dissenting).

Clause 23:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I regret the fact that a mistake slipped in during the drafting of the Bill. I hope that it will be accepted like that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, when the Committee adjourned I had already raised the matter of removals and resettlement of Indian traders and also the removal of Indian families. I requested that the hon. the Minister stop the tremendous waste of money involved in resettlement.

I now want to proceed to two other matters which I wish to raise in the very short time which I have left to me. The first concerns the matter of land near Lenasia. I understand that land in the Lawley or Grassmere areas adjoining Lenasia is being proclaimed. Could I ask the hon. the Minister when this land will become available for Indian occupation? At the same time as putting the question, I urge the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power to expedite the procedures as far as this and other land is concerned to ensure that development for Indians can take place as soon as possible. The whole question of the shortage of land for Indian people is a very vexed one. Even here in Cape Town land for Indian occupancy is at a premium. Because of shortage, values become artificially inflated and we are getting back to a situation rather like the bad old days of the pegging act, when those provisions in the pegging act were having a very serious effect.

The final matter which I wish to raise on this Vote concerns the number of Indian people who have registered as voters for the Indian Council. On 3 February the hon. member for Randburg asked the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs the following question—

1. (a) How many Indians registered as voters during the registration period 1 October 1976 to 31 December 1976; and
2. (b) what percentage of the total number eligible for registration does this figure represent?

The reply was—

1. (a) 21 211. (b) Approximately 5,4%.

It was approximately 5,4% of those who were eligible. This was a pretty terrible figure, the result of inadequate registration. I think the hon. the Minister was quoted in January as saying that so few Indians had registered that no meaningful election could be organized. A further registration period came about and on Tuesday 12 April the hon. member for Randburg asked the hon. the Minister how many Indians had registered as voters during the period 1 October 1976 to 31 March 1977, and what percentage this number represented of the total number estimated to be eligible for registration. The answers were that 44 034 had registered and that that constituted 11% of the total number eligible for registration. Well, 11 % of a total registration is a very, very poor figure indeed. I believe that this really constitutes a vote of no confidence in Government policy. When one gets 11% of the Indians eligible for registration registering, it indicates that the Indian community want to have nothing to do with this sort of thing, because they do not trust the Government. The vast majority of them want to have nothing to do with it. It is an indictment of separate development; they do not agree with a separate Indian Council. They do not want to have anything to do with it; they do not want to be part of it and they are rejecting it.

The Indians distrust the Government’s motive in this. They are not prepared to accept second best, and they believe that they are entitled to share in the political procedures of South Africa with meaningful representation. I indicated earlier in my speech the poor example of moving the Indian traders. When the Indian Council made a request to the hon. the Minister he was unable to reply to that request. He said that he was going to go ahead with moving the Indian traders, that he was going to go ahead with moving the Indian families. This is the life-blood of the Indian community. What are they going to do? What does the hon. the Minister expect the new Indian Council can achieve when the council is totally powerless to do anything about these things? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when he began speaking today the hon. member for Orange Grove was a little calmer than he was yesterday, but I think that towards the end he began to get restless again. In life one is restless when one carries uncertainty around within oneself and when one does not know where one is going. When Cain killed Abel, he fled to the land of Nod. If my knowledge of Hebrew serves me, Nod means restless. That is the problem with many of our modern people. They are restless. They have no certainty and no clarity.

The hon. member for Orange Grove and his party display a certain restlessness when we discuss the problems relating to the situation of Southern Africa. Of course it is very easy to say that the Indian community or the Coloured community rejects this, that and the other thing or that the Black people reject certain things. However, one thing which the hon. member for Orange Grove does not want to know is that the White people of South Africa reject him and his party. It is very important that he should know this. Therefore, since we are seeking a solution to the situation today, everyone—and I shall refer to this again later in my speech—every leader and every political party must realize that all communities in South Africa must be taken into account. However the PRP does not take the Afrikaner and the Whites into account when considering the problems of Southern Africa. As a result the PRP does not take the interests of the other population groups into account either.

For many years we in South Africa have been hearing that the world rejects us. However, that world is never defined. We hear how people reject us, but those people are never defined. Both sides of the case are never stated. We on the Government side are very conscious of all the problems which the Indian community is saddled with. We have created the instruments whereby those people can produce leaders, and, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, we are prepared to conduct in-depth discussions with those people until we find a specific solution. I want to quote the final paragraph of a doctoral thesis written by Mr. W. A. J. Coetzee, “The Role of the Indian South African in the Administration of his Community”. I do not know what the professor who presented Mr. Coetzee had to say about it, but in any event it is a long and thorough report. In his thesis the contradictions are indicated, but this man who has made a study of the subject shows far better understanding and speaks in an entirely different tone to the hon. member. The paragraph reads as follows—

There are differences. One can understand this because there are two interested groups. However they are not the only two interested groups. There are other groups, too, in Southern Africa. This student concludes his thesis by openly stating that there are differences and aspirations but there is a good attitude. What South Africa and the world need are representatives who are responsible and who are not only interested in the historic facts but also have a broad interest in and knowledge of present-day reality.

As a member of the NP, I am beginning to build up a resistance, not only to the outside world that has been criticizing us for decades for what we are not, but also against people within South Africa that criticize one about everything without, in the first place, giving a correct version of, or thoroughly analysing, what one is doing, or secondly, without having an alternative whereby to solve the problems of the country. I have said before in this house that we expect of the Opposition to be able to put forward an alternative policy. It need not necessarily be 100%, but it must at least be an alternative which will work better than the policy of the NP.

Not only do we expect this of the hon. members of the Opposition, however, we also expect of the leaders of the various non-White groups to come up with solutions. If Mr. Gatsha Buthelezi does not want to accept the NP’s solution, let him come and explain how he sees South Africa. Let the leaders of the Indian community come and explain how they want to solve South Africa’s problems. However, there are not only two or three communities involved; there is a diversity of communities in South Africa. That is why we in South Africa will never get closer to a solution unless we acknowledge and recognize the diversity as it has been revealed by history.

In the second instance one must have the right attitude. I can differ ten thousand times with a man, but if my attitude is right, then I can go a long way with him. In the third instance I also know that one generation cannot instantaneously solve the problems that have developed over the centuries. The NP cannot do it in one generation. The hon. member will not be able to do it in one generation. I know that there is no place for me in his system. However, whereas in my system there may not be a 100% place for many people, there will at least be a 70% or 80% place for them. In the Opposition’s system for South Africa there is not even a 1% place for me or for the Indian. That is why I am in no way able to accept this kind of argument.

What I wanted to indicate yesterday was that when one evaluates the policy of the NP to see whether it has succeeded, one evaluates it in the light of what one has adopted as one’s ideal and the way in which one has followed that path. Personally, I feel that in many respects progress should have been a great deal more rapid, that far more money should have been made available and that we should have reached the stage in South Africa where we did not only have a group of White parties that argued almost exclusively about non-Whites in the debates. I wish the day would come when we could keep that out of politics so that we could really discuss things which affect our everyday lives.

There are a few more matters which I should like to touch on, but first I want to say something else to the hon. member for Benoni. He made a very upsetting statement yesterday. I could understand it coming from someone with the surname of Van der Merwe, because all we can really claim is that there are many of us, and furthermore we have never produced anyone of importance, but I find it amazing that a man with the surname of VAN ECK should stand up in this House and say these things. I just want to quote from the speech he made yesterday, in order to point out to him what he said. I quote—

I quote further—

I want to say to the hon. member that he no longer knows where the Whites in South Africa live. They have become totally blind to the fact that there are Whites in this country. I want to tell him that I live next to a railway line. Every time a train passes I hear the noise it makes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik is obviously very excited about the fact that the hon. member for Benoni has brought to his attention a few home truths which will perhaps awaken the conscience of the Government. I also want to point out to him that during his speech yesterday, when he was waving Catherine Taylor’s book around and talking to us about a certain Mrs. Hazorika, he went on to suggest that there were many such Mrs. Hazorikas in the Indian community of South Africa. Am I correct? He nods his head. In other words, in the Indian community we have many such people. I just want to point out how the majority of Indians in this country feel and think. I quote—

The writer goes on to say—

Those were the words of Mahatma Gandhi and I think he expresses what the majority of the South African Indians feel.

I am sorry the hon. the Deputy Minister of Planning is not with us today, because I want to deal with a rather unfortunate remark he made during the Planning Vote when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was addressing the Committee and illustrating to it how Mr. Douglas Mitchell, during his period as Administrator of Natal, had drawn up a blueprint which gave rise to the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission. He said the regional city and guide plans were set up many years ago in Natal. It was at this point that the hon. the Deputy Minister interjected and said—

That inference is clear and unequivocal. The hon. Deputy Minister simply means that he considers Verulam a slum area. I feel this is a disgraceful statement to have been made by an hon. Deputy Minister of this House. Verulam falls in my constituency and I shall defend it from any unjust comment. It was the first town that was granted 100% town board status under an Indian administration. It had a fully elected Indian town board, and today it is a fully-fledged borough with a borough council and its own mayor. Anyone who knows this area must agree that Verulam is very, very far removed from being a slum. In fact, it is a town that can hold its head up high—and does hold its head up high—in the Natal Municipal Association. Its voice is heard in this Association and elsewhere.

You have made your point.

For the benefit of the hon. Whip, I shall take my point a little further. The report of the hon. the Minister’s department says the following on page 20—

That is the department of the hon. the Deputy Minister who calls the town a slum—

Fantastic! Is this indicative of confidence in this town or is this indicative of the fact that it is a slum?

I can assure you that it is not a slum.

Thank you. We have a split in the Cabinet ranks.

We will shortly be debating two Bills in the House which I feel will be further stepping stones in the political development of the Indians. It is with this in mind that I wish to discuss the important role that our Indians play in our everyday lives, particularly in the lives of those who come from Natal where the majority of the Indian population lives and works. At the turn of the century our population consisted of 2 million Blacks, 750 000 Whites and 75 000 Indians. The first of these Indians arrived in this country in 1860 when they came as indentured labourers to work in our sugar plantations. After five years of service they were given the option: either they could return home or they could remain in this country as free men. Needless to say, many of them remained here as free men, they brought their womenfolk out to South Africa and others followed them. 40 years after they first set foot in South Africa we find that the population was divided into three main groups, i.e. the Muslems, who were the merchants, the Hindus, who formed the bulk of the labour force, and the Parsis, who were the men of letters and the clerks.

It can also be stated quite categorically that these Indians very soon adapted themselves to their new environs and also completely identified themselves with this, their country of adoption. I venture to suggest that those 75 000 Indians, who then proudly called themselves South Africans, would derive a great measure of satisfaction were they to see how their descendants, who have multiplied tenfold to some three quarters of a million people, are as much South Africans as are we who sit in this Chamber today. It is a well-known fact that they are proud to be South Africans and that they are proud to be identified as such. One only has to travel overseas and meet a fellow South African who happens to be an Indian, to see what I mean.

Having sketched this background, I feel I should like to make my appeal to the hon. the Minister. I make the appeal in respect of the representation on the South African Indian Council. The current situation is that the council consists of 30 members. 15 members are elected and 15 are nominated. For the information of this Committee, I may add that Natal has 10 members elected and eight nominated; Transvaal has four of each; the Cape has one elected and three nominated; and the Orange Free State has none for obvious reasons. I feel that the time has come for the South African Indian Council to be a wholly elected body. I know that the hon. the Minister’s predecessors have made noises in this regard over the years. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give this Committee some concrete assurances in this regard. He must tell this Committee what his plans are and when he visualizes that the S.A. Indian Council will become a body of fully elected members.

My colleague, the hon. member for Durban Berea pointed out that the Indians are a law-abiding peace-loving people. This is true and we all know it. The Indian community has given every proof and justification for any claim that they may have for having their own, fully elected council.

The Indian people have taken their place in all spheres of commercial and professional activity. In the business world they have proved themselves time and again. Their community has produced doctors, lawyers, accountants and professional men of all kinds who have acquitted themselves nobly. Those of us who are connected with commerce in Natal will always speak well of them as employees in any type of business. They excel in the clerical field and on accounting machines. They are also fast making a name for themselves in operating data processing machines. They have a tremendous sense of detail and they are extremely neat in their work. They are also loyal at all times to their employers.

I know this because it stems from my own experience. It is gratifying to see that now that restrictions have been removed, they are taking their place in the trades as well. I am connected with that much maligned trade, the motor trade, which today is a trade of many factors!

What discount do you offer?

The Indians make competent mechanics now that they are permitted to train as such and they are extremely efficient spares personnel.

Since when have they been permitted to train as such?

Let me assure the hon. the Minister that they are being trained as motor mechanics in all workshops particularly those of the larger sugar companies. These men have been working as mechanics for quite some considerable time. The hon. the Minister knows it and so do I. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the position of endorsing most of what the hon. member for Umhlanga has said. I agree with him that Vervlam is not a slum. I agree with him that the Indians are good South Africans. They are not South African Indians; they are Indian South Africans. I agree with his third point namely that in the fullness of time we must have a fully elected council. In a moment I want to pursue his fourth point more fully, namely his reference to the position of the Indian in the labour field. However, before dealing with that matter, I want to refer to what the hon. member for Benoni has said.

*The hon. member for Benoni made a speech last night and I am sure that it did his reputation no good at all. The hon. member for Rissik had only started to reply to what the hon. member for Benoni said but then time, unfortunately, caught up with him. I should like to carry on where the hon. member for Rissik left off. As the hon. member knows, the name Benoni means “son of sorrow”. I want to assure the hon. member that it was a sorry speech that he made. He said, inter alia: “The Indian seems to be unwanted and an irritation to the Government” and also “The Indian community is the subdued stepchildren of the Government.” He also states: “This Government even begrudges them the living space they occupy” and also “They resent their proper education” and uses a string of similar expressions here. He speaks about “the Indian striving and hoping for a better world”.

Sir, at the moment the world outside is fulminating against South Africa. We all listened last night to a speech on television by a former Minister of the British Government in which he said that it was not putting it too strongly to say that we were waging a life and death struggle in this country. Then the hon. members for Durban Central and Benoni comes along and give these people a stick with which to beat our country.

The hon. member states that we have treated the Indians as step-children. Then he spoke about housing and referred to the shocking slum conditions prevailing. In doing so he endorsed what was said by his hon. colleague, the hon. member for Berea, who also spoke about the housing shortage. Surely those two hon. gentlemen are the very last people who have the right to speak about a need for housing. After all, what the UP did, or rather neglected to do, about housing for the Indians can only be described as an absolute disgrace. The hon. member for Berea told us that there is a shortage of 17 000 houses in Durban. That is true and there are many reasons for this, but the most important reason for the shortage in Durban is our legacy from a previous Government which did absolutely nothing about housing. The UP was in power for 15 years. After 1948, and for a number of subsequent years, housing funds in Natal were managed by the Natal Provincial Administration, viz. the old Natal Housing Fund. Therefore the UP had the opportunity for more than 20 years of providing Indian housing in Durban and in Natal.

Have you any idea of the number of Indian homes which have been moved in Durban as a result of the Group Areas Act?

We can discuss the moving of homes in a moment. I am talking about houses that have been built. Can the hon. member for Berea tell us—after all, he has been living in Durban for many years— where in Durban or elsewhere in the country the UP Government has established a housing scheme? I do not expect him to refer to major schemes like Chatsworth that are being built with money provided by the Nationalist Government, which supposedly treats the Indian as a step-child. There is the fine Meerbank scheme and the one which is being built at Phoenix at the moment. At the moment a scheme for 22 000 houses is being planned at Phoenix alone. There is a programme of R64 million in housing for the Indians within the next few years. 2 000 houses are to be built in Lotus Park near Isipingo. I want to ask the hon. member where the UP has placed one brick on top of another for an Indian family in Durban. In less than three weeks the funeral of the UP is to be held. At that mourning service there will probably be someone who will stand up and talk about the achievements of the UP and the monuments the UP has erected.

The Rev. McIntosh will deliver the funeral address.

Can they tell us where in this country they have built a single house for an Indian?

†Mr. Chairman, may I say what the legacy of the UP was as regards Indian housing? The hon. member for Berea challenged me to refer to the removal of Indians. Yes, I will refer to that. The legacy of the UP as regards housing in Durban is Cato Manor in the constituency of the hon. member for Berea. If my memory serves me right, that slum condition existed during the time when that member was first elected MP for Berea. The UP never built a single house in Durban. However, they did allow squatters to settle in the marshy areas of Springfield and Clairwood and elsewhere in Durban.

But you do not allow squatters to settle on the Cape Flats.

Mr. Chairman, under UP rule people were allowed to stay there …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member who built the houses in Sydenham?

I finished dealing with the housing issue long ago. I am dealing with a different subject. Now it has occurred to the hon. member that there are a few little houses in Sydenham that are dilapidated. Would hon. members say that Sydenham is a neighbourhood which the hon. member can be terribly proud of?

† Where did they allow these slum conditions to exist?—In the slush, the mud, and in squalor. The UP allowed human beings to live in hovels where one would not allow a dog to walk. Then the hon. member for Berea comes here in a spirit of self-righteousness and sees the mote in the eye of the NP but disregards the beam in his own eye.

The hon. member for Benoni spoke of the Indians hopefully looking for a better world. With the conditions created by the NP Government, the Indian is on the threshold of that better world and he is inexorably marching towards a greater destination. But I shall return to that. I next want to refer to the fourth point made by the hon. member for Umhlanga. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before reacting to what has been said by certain other hon. members, I want to ask the hon. the Minister please to repeat in his reply to this debate his recent statement in regard to members of the South African Indian community who are married to Indians of an alien community. I speak of the revised attitude towards this situation. I believe there is still some misunderstanding as to how applications should be made and what in fact is involved. I would appreciate it very much if the hon. the Minister would deal with that in detail in his reply so that we have it on record in Hansard. I believe it would be of great assistance not only to members of the House in helping individuals, but also to members of the S.A. Indian Council if we have that on record. In addition, when the hon. the Minister is dealing with his other Vote, I should also like to hear that there is to be some relaxation in regard to the treatment given to Indian businessmen.

Sir, I want to deal with what has been alleged by some of the other hon. members in the House. I want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Port Natal in regard to his reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Umhlanga. I believe the hon. member for Umhlanga made a positive contribution to the debate on Indian Affairs. As a matter of fact, he built up Verulam and the Indian community to such an extent that I became more convinced than ever that the hon. member for Benoni and the hon. member for Orange Grove were totally wrong in their approach. The hon. member for Orange Grove began his speech last night by saying that there was no possibility for members of the Indian community to travel in Northern Natal. I have it here in Hansard. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to read the report of the department—he could also have found it in certain other reports—he would have found that as regards movement of Indians between provinces, the position in Natal, the Transvaal and the Cape Province is dealt with on page 33 of that report.

I mentioned the Orange Free State and Northern Natal.

The whole of Natal allows free travel. If the hon. member had read the report, he would have known that.

Are you defending the Government?

Mr. Chairman, I am defending the facts. People should read what is in the report, because then they will find out what the position is. Let me say that my experience of the Indian community is that they do not like White Opposition politicians meddling in their private affairs. And I will prove it. I in my innocence have had dealings with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and of Community Development in regard to Indian traders in the city of Grahamstown. I thought I was doing the right thing until I saw certain statements in the Press telling me to keep my nose out of it. These people are proud. So I wrote to the Grahamstown Indian Association and I wish to read a portion of the letter which I received in reply. It reads—

The letter is signed by the secretary and the chairman. This is the attitude of these people, but the hon. member for Orange Grove says that they are not interested. I believe that they are exceptionally proud of the S.A. Indian Council and its executive. I believe, too, that the Indian community are a very proud people. They do not want us spreading all the dirt we can about them. Obviously there are shortcomings, but this applies to every group that lives in South Africa. I want to see an Opposition speaker in this House stand up one day and say something about the White stepchildren of this country. Why must we always make it appear that the only people who are suffering are the non-Whites? Why must we at a time like this when we all—White, Brown and Black in South Africa—are under pressure from overseas to succumb to the cry of “one man, one vote” majority rule, rub in this business of a housing shortage and this sort of thing? I believe the S.A. Indian Council will do everything in their power in co-operation with the hon. the Minister to overcome this.

Let us talk about the shortage of education about which the hon. member for Benoni spoke. If he had looked at the report of the Department of Public Works he would have found that last year major works completed during 1975-’76 amounted to R4 607 654 and that the major works commenced in the same period amounted to R5 475 913, almost an extra R1 million. The hon. member then spoke about the shortage of Indian training colleges. The Springfield Training College has just been completed at a cost of R1 729 000. Even the Government, although I am opposed to some of its policies, cannot build Rome in a day. I think we must be realistic in our approach to these things. We must endeavour to bring a positive picture of South Africa, to present the positive picture of South Africa and to project that picture to the outside world. We do not want to destroy and undermine our own people. We do not want to destroy and undermine the Indian community. We want to build them up. We want to see them get everything that we have.

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

No, the hon. member may not ask me a question. Why must we have this washing of dirty linen in public? I do not believe that it is necessary. I do not believe that we are thanked by a single member of the Indian community when we do that sort of thing.

Why are you not in the Nat caucus?

If the hon. member had listened to the letter I read out—I can show him press cuttings as well and I have further correspondence as well—he would understand what I am talking about. Then he would stop scratching around in the mud of South Africa to destroy or undermine his own country. The hon. member should realize these people are a proud people, and a religious people.

There is also the question of Indian housing. Hon. members have looked at the document which was supplied to us by the Department of Community Development the other day. In that document it will be found that over R61 million has been spent on Indian housing over the last six years. This is a considerable sum. When one considers that the Indian community as a whole are a reasonably affluent community and that many of them build their own houses, I believe that a considerable amount has been done and that a good deal more will be done in the future to the advantage of the Indian people.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before the House adjourned for lunch, I heard some squeaking noises from the official Opposition every now and again. I just want to warn those hon. members, however, that as a result of their recent unrestrained behaviour, they have now reached the situation—and this is what I hear from reliable sources—where they are 14 down and 26 to go. One simply does not know to whom one is to listen in that bewildered party. And then they are the people who are alleging that the new SAP is copying the NP. Surely that is not true. We love our fatherland and we honour the principle of a possible federal solution. All we ask of the official Opposition is that they be consistent.

They must be consistent because according to their federal policy, they have adopted a standpoint in favour of the full development of every population group in South Africa. [Interjections.] However, what happened when legislation was introduced in this House for the establishment of an industrial development corporation for the Indians? The hon. members of the UP opposed it.

They said: “This is just another apartheid measure.” As I understand it, however—and as I understood it when I was still a member of that party—it is a permanent part of UP policy that every population group in South Africa should be developed to the full and brought to self-realization in the political, economic, cultural and every other field. However, when that specific legislation was introduced here, their comment was: “This is not good enough. It is just another apartheid measure.” That is the dirty linen to which I referred before we adjourned for dinner. I do not like the way they are washing their dirty linen in this House. After all, this is the most public place in South Africa. There are some members in the UP who are perfectly aware of the entire political situation in South Africa and elsewhere. After all, there is no NP or UP in Rhodesia. There is the Rhodesian Front in Rhodesia.

†Mr. Chairman, I believe that we have reached the situation now in which the Indians, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Blacks have to stand together in a mutual assistance of each other in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to be able to speak after the hon. member for Albany. I want to thank him for the refreshing note he sounded from the ranks of the Opposition during the debate. I want to associate myself with the statement made by the hon. member that the Indians are a proud population group. In that respect, the hon. member is right on target. The Indians are a population group with a centuries old tradition and civilization. It is indeed a nation which is proud of its past, and proud of the tasks it has undertaken. It is also a nation which is proud of the future it is working towards.

The hon. member for Benoni stated—and other hon. members have also referred to it once again—that the Indian population was a group of “stepchildren”. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to them as “God’s stepchildren”.

It is a fact of history that Gen. Smuts represented the constituency of Standerton from 1924 to 1948. That was a period of 24 years. During those 24 years Standerton experienced flooding 12 times. Standerton was ravaged by flood waters from the Vaal River a dozen times. During this period the business and residential areas of the Indian community were flooded 12 times. As the representative for Standerton in the United Party Government, Gen. Smuts did nothing about it. During its rule, this Government has transferred that community to a new residential and business area. What is important—and I am grateful that I have the opportunity to mention it—is that after the last great flood, which caused a great deal of damage to our entire town, affecting the White and Indian businessmen as well as the farmers, this Government generously made ex gratia awards for the damage caused by the flood. The hon. member for Benoni must listen to this and judge whether Indians are the stepchildren of this country. The farmers who had suffered damage to the tune of thousands of rands, were offered an amount of R12 900 as compensation. An amount of R78 900 was paid to the White businessmen and White home-owners. An amount of R169 626 was paid in compensation to the Indian businessmen—the community there comprises a total of 650 people. An amount of R98 000 was awarded ex gratia to a single Indian businessman. The fund which the town had collected amounted to approximately R12 000 and the Indian community had contributed a very small amount to this. Naturally they could not make a large contribution because they had suffered a great deal of damage. If these amounts, this gesture on the part of the Government, are borne in mind, how can the hon. member allege that the Indians are the stepchildren of the country?

We must congratulate and thank the hon. the Minister and his department for looking after the Indian community in Standerton. The Indians who, historically, have had to contend with the problem of flood damage, have been placed in an area where they are safe and where a wonderful, proud residential area with all the necessary facilities can develop. They have a business centre which is going from strength to strength and expanding daily. The patrons come from far afield to support those people’s businesses.

The hon. members spoke about school activities and the shortcomings in the field of education. A school is now being built at a cost of R765 000 for the entire community of 650 at Standerton. The school has almost been completed. More than R0,75 million is being spent on 650 adults and their children. The level of instruction given to the Indians in Standerton is exceptionally high. I can attest to that because I myself conducted the oral examinations of the scholars when I was still an inspector of education. Some of the best students of the Durban-Westville University come from Standerton.

I want to tell the Opposition that in Bethal there is a certain Dr. Karim, an Indian physician, who gained a masters degree in philosophy at the University of Baghdad. He once addressed the senior students of Stanwest High School and impressed upon them that as Indian students, they should never associate themselves with or seek their salvation in Saso. He told them that they were not part of the Black population of South Africa and that they were committed to their own culture. On that occasion he also used an image of the NP Government. He said that once a student at Baghdad had asked a certain professor whether he could attend his classes. The professor replied that he was sorry but that his time had already been apportioned. There was a glass full of water in front of the professor. The professor then said that as full as the glass was of water, so fully had his time been allocated to students and that he had no more time to spend on that student. The student then plucked a rose leaf from a flower which was standing on the desk and placed it on the water in the glass. He then said to the professor: “Do you see, there is still place on the water for a rose leaf. I am the rose leaf.” Dr. Karim proffered this image as an example and told the students that in the same way, the Government of South Africa always had time for the Indian students and Indian children in the country. We shall give them a place. The Indians’ educational facilities are splendid. It is true that there are some faults and shortcomings, but the quality is of an exceptionally high standard. We want to express our very sincere thanks to those people involved in its administration.

The evacuated area, where these people lived and ran their businesses, is being transformed into scenic gardens. New roads are to be built in another part of the area. It was thought that it would become a ghost town. That is not true. There are still a few buildings the expropriation of which has not yet been finalized. This Indian community has already completed plans for the building of a madrassah and a mosque at a cost of R1 million. On this occasion I want to ask the hon. the Minister to use any influence he might have with the Minister of Community Development to plead that the zoning and the proclamation of this area be expedited so that these people may begin with that project of theirs. It is a splendid and praiseworthy project, and one these people are proud of. Provision has also been made for hostel facilities so as to make still further provision for their educational needs.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is desirable that I should begin to reply at this stage to some of the matters raised by hon. members and in particular to make a few general remarks on the nature of the debate up to now. I shall perhaps, on a second occasion, deal with more detailed requests and criticism.

†In the previous two years I have always looked forward to the debate on Indian Affairs. I enjoyed those debates. On the two previous occasions when I acted as Minister, we had a constructive debate, a debate which really assisted one in seeking to achieve the best for the people for whose happiness one was responsible.

I regret to say that something has gone wrong in this debate. With notable exceptions I have not had the same experience today. Today I have experienced gross irresponsibility, recklessness and a complete disregard for the truth, to such an extent that I am struggling to find an explanation for it. It particularly came from the UP, from whom one expects more. I can only think that they are about to face their own demise. Before the end of this month the UP will be dead. There are members in their caucus who feel that, like Samson of old, they must die with a tremendous gesture, and the gesture which they are now attempting to make is the destruction of good race relations in South Africa. They are trying to pull the pillars of the temple upon South Africa, but they will not succeed. The only difference between them and Samson of old is that Samson at least pulled down the temple of his enemies. However, they are trying to pull their own country and the contentment of their own people down. I cannot understand it. Having said that, I want to look at the speeches of the two principal speakers of the UP.

First of all I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Berea. He is not here at the moment, but I take it he is on his way. He accused us of a pedestrian approach in determining the position of the Indian people in our South African society. However, the fact is that since the Department of Indian Affairs was established some 20 years ago, there has been greater progress, advancement and provision of the necessary amenities for a full life in the interests of our Indian community, than in any comparable period before. There has also been the development of an Indian Council and the creation of a Cabinet Council. An important committee is now considering adaptations to the Westminster system in order to make the Indians’ participation in our political life more meaningful and significant. Everywhere there is sign of progress, consideration and care for the future of these people.

All we get from the hon. member for Berea, however, is a bald statement that there is no progress and a mere suggestion of an alternative, i.e. the federal concept. I cannot answer the hon. member’s question about the federal concept, because I am not in a position to anticipate—even if I wanted to I could not—what the findings of the Cabinet Committee, sitting on the Westminster system, are going to be. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, it would be more meaningful and more fruitful if we could delay a discussion of that until the findings of this committee have become known. The hon. member then continued by making a number of charges against the Government. One was that we discriminated cruelly against the Indians and the main example he quoted was the housing position of our Indian South Africans …

I did not use the word “cruelly” and I did not use the word “discriminate”. [Interjections.]

I am surprised at the hon. member. Surely I am entitled to give my opinion of his speech and to describe it. [Interjections.] I am always fair. I was coming to the statement which the hon. member made and I called if an accusation of cruel discrimination. He made the statement that under the provisions of the Group Areas Act, half a million Indians had been moved.

No, I have my Hansard here.

How many Indians did you suggest were moved?

Approximately 7 000 homes, but I am going from memory; I cannot find it in my Hansard.

I am sorry; my impression was that he had said that half a million people had been moved, but I accept his word immediately. The hon. member made the point that thousands of Indian homes had been moved under the provisions of the Group Areas Act and that only a minimal number of Whites had been moved. Is that not a suggestion of discrimination?

5 146 Indian families were moved.

Against how many Whites?

Seven families.

There we are. If that is not a charge of discrimination, I would like to know what is.

It is a fact.

Yes, it is a fact, but I want to explain the fact now. In the meantime it stands that he made the charge of discrimination against the Government and he cannot deny it. What is the truth of the matter? Almost every one, probably 90% of the thousands of Indian families who have been moved under the provisions of the Group Areas Act, would have had to be rehoused in any case because they were living in unacceptable slum conditions. [Interjections.] That is a fact. It is only because our Indian community was so cruelly neglected under previous régimes, especially in Natal, that it was necessary to give greater attention to the Indian community over the past years than to the White people who were, on the whole, well housed. They did not have the same problem. That is one example of the hon. member’s facts.

He went on to charge us with neglecting the Indians who are in need of a rehabilitation centre. The facts are well known. I do not want to go into any detail. We tried to identify land for such a centre at Pietermaritzburg but we had problems with access roads which was not our fault. The mental hospital was then shifted from Pietermaritzburg and therefore it was, for many reasons, impracticable to have that centre in Pietermaritzburg. We had to go and look for land in Durban. We have now found it. The boundaries of the land are being determined by the Durban City Council. Once that has been done, we shall proceed with the construction of that building. In the meantime the idea and the suggestion is that Indian citizens in need of rehabilitation are not being looked after. That is not true. There are other ways of looking after people than in a rehabilitation centre. Urgent cases are taken up in our normal hospitals and our clinics, and we have a Department of Social Welfare and a social welfare subsection in the Department of Indian Affairs who will look after these people. They are being looked after and carefully tended, because we are concerned about them. Obviously the situation will improve when we have the rehabilitation centre and that is why we are giving priority to it.

Is the hon. the Minister aware of the deep concern which exists among the officials of the voluntary organizations in regard to the increasing incidence of social problems such as alcoholism amongst these people?

Of course we are aware of the situation. I have just said that we are concerned about the situation. In the meantime they are not being neglected. They are being cared for to the best of our ability. I have just added that the rehabilitation centre will improve the situation, and for that reason priority is being given to its establishment.

Yet it has taken six years to build.

It is not, as the hon. member has suggested, a case of the Government neglecting the interests of the Indian people. He made the point that the slow registration of voters shows the reluctance of our Indian people to accept our political dispensation. The same point was made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. We have registered 61 000 Indian voters up to now. However, people do not realize that this registration was done without an Electoral Act and was not done by the Department of the Interior, which has experience in these matters. The Department of the Interior indicated that they could not undertake the registration of Indian voters and that the Department of Indian Affairs will have to do it on its own accord. But this department has no machinery for it and no experience of it. So pending the Bill which will still be considered during this session to establish an electoral system for the Indian people, we decided we could start registration and give the department the opportunity of gaining experience and also to assist our Indians to establish political organizations, something which they have not had up to now. Such organizations can then participate in the registration of voters.

I would like to know from my experienced political friends opposite what would have become of the registration of White voters if there were no political parties who actively concerned themselves with the registration of voters? In the absence of an electoral Act, of an established machine and in the absence of political parties it is quite a remarkable achievement to register 61 000 voters.

Now I wish to come to the other Opposition speaker, the hon. member for Benoni.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether in view of his statement that at one stage so few people registered that no election would be meaningful, what percentage the hon. the Minister regards as adequate to hold a meaningful election?

I stated that no significant election would be possible unless a reasonable number of the potential electorate had been registered. However, that was a mere statement of fact, and I think we all agree. I cannot lay down an arbitrary figure. In the USA only about 60% of the electorate register, even for presidential elections. Of that percentage only another 60% vote, and perhaps that might be a fair criterion. In view of the fact that our Indian community has not had experience of elections, have not had political parties for any length of time and that new machinery must be established in the Department of Indian Affairs, I would suggest that we could perhaps accept a slightly lower figure than that of the USA.

I now come to the hon. member for Benoni. I want to express my deep sense of shock at his performance. I knew him to be different and responsible. I say to him with great respect that irresponsibility reached a new acme in his performance. For him to suggest that the Government and the Department of Indian Affairs are indifferent to Indian education—I am putting mildly, he used stronger terms than that—is to me one of the most shocking statements and one of the most shocking betrayals of truth that I have ever heard in this House. I would like to give a few facts and would then leave it to any hon. gentleman or lady in this House with any sense of impartiality to tell me whether that statement is justified. In the first instance, does the hon. member know that more Indian pupils are matriculating today than ever before in the history of South Africa and that in proportion to other communities they are putting up a very stout performance? Does he know that in 1975, 4 327 Indian pupils matriculated and in the year thereafter, 4 198? In the first case it is 85% of those who wrote the examination and in the latter instance, 86,5% of those who wrote the examination. Does that look like inferior education, neglect or the lack of interest in the education of Indian people? Does the hon. member know that in 1967, when the department took over Indian education, there were 160 000 Indian pupils at school of whom 28 590 were in platoon classes? Does he know that almost 18% of all the pupils at school were in platoon classes? Does he know that this year, with a total enrolment of 194 982 pupils only 11 000 are in platoon classes? It has dropped from 18% to 6%. We hope to overcome this problem quite soon. Does that look as if the Government is indifferent towards Indian education? Does he know that at the University of Durban Westville only there are 3 720 Indian university students at this moment? Does he know that at the other universities there are today many times more Indian students than there were when the extension of University Education Act was passed?

Why did you pass the Act in the first place?

To make education available to the largest number of Indian pupils in their own surroundings so that they could maintain their own identity and develop their own culture.

The hon. member for Benoni had much to say about the lack of tertiary technical education in the Transvaal. I may just say that we have hostels at the M.L. Sultan Institute where students can go. They do go there.

In Natal?

Yes, in Natal. However, it is very difficult to justify tertiary institutions for small populations. The demand is not always there. But we have the M. H. Joosab high school in Lenasia to provide for secondary technical education. The money is available, the classrooms are available, everything is available, but it is not open yet because there is no demand. Surely, until there is substantial demand for secondary technical education it would be stupid indeed to begin tertiary education; you must have the basis of secondary education.

I am well aware of all that.

That is the extent of the knowledge upon which the hon. member for Benoni based his stringent criticism of the Government in the speech that he made in this House. For that reason I regretfully have to accuse him of irresponsibility. He complained of inadequate sport facilities at our Indian schools, but he does not know that every school erected since April 1966, when this department took over, was given its basic sports facilities when it opened. The favourite sport amongst Indians is soccer. It has its association football field, which can also be used for athletics and cricket in summer. Tennis courts and swimming pools we do not provide, but we encourage them to provide them out of school funds. We have full provision for physical training—the basis of all sports—at every Indian school. So here too the hon. member was not correct. Then the hon. member suggested that there was something quite sinister in the fact that we are opening another teachers’ training college at Laudium. I think he objected because it was not in Johannesburg. But why? Why should the community in Johannesburg get everything? Lenasia will quite soon have a major hospital. Many other public facilities and many religious facilities are developing and will develop in Lenasia with the grants of cheap land from the Government. Why should not the Indian community of Pretoria, the northern Transvaal, the eastern Transvaal and the western Transvaal have some of the facilities too? Why should they not have that teachers’ training college, especially when we find that many of the people on the platteland prefer to send their children to Pretoria rather than to Johannesburg? I am sorry to take time, but I think it is necessary that the House should appreciate the type of criticism we have been having from the Opposition on this Vote.

The hon. member talked about neglect of Indian education. I want to tell him that we plan ahead for our schools. I just want to give him what we have submitted to the Treasury as our five-year plan for the building of Indian schools. For 1977-’78 we asked for R9 750 000 for Indian schools. Does that sound like neglect, considering that the Indian population numbers three quarters of a million with only about 16 000 children still in platoon classes? For next year we have asked for almost R14 million, and for 1979-’80 for R15,5 million. Then we shall be on top of the problem, because our experts have projected that for 1980-’81 we shall need only another R9 210 000. For 1981-’82 it will come down to R4 704 000, and after that it will be quite normal because in 1982-’83 we shall be able to satisfy our needs with a vote of only R490 000. Does that look as if the tirade, the diatribes, by the hon. member for Benoni can be justified in any way? It was nonsense he spoke. It was mischievous nonsense. It was unforgivable irresponsibility.

The hon. member also spoke about their housing and businesses being neglected. He said we were neglectful in this respect. He almost suggested that we begrudged our Indian people their homes even, as he said—I wonder why he used that phrase—if they were in areas that are subject to flooding by our rivers. Why did he use that phrase? On what possible fact could he have based that? What is the truth? We are all subject to floods sometimes. Floods are acts of God. I lived in Peacehaven in Vereeniging where we were flooded out. It happened twice in succession, almost in consecutive years. I did not say that that was because the Government hated the Afrikaners of Peacehaven in Vereeniging. However, the hon. member makes that suggestion in relation to the Indians. Look what happened. I know of certain areas where the Indian community have been subjected to floods. I know that last year, or the year before, they were flooded out in Tin Town, a squatters camp in Durban. Was the Government indifferent? In spite of the current financial stringency, the devoted officials of the Department of Indian Affairs got a special grant of R1,5 million from the Treasury and, as I speak here today, those people are no longer in the tents lent to them by the Army. Every one of them have been rehoused in Phoenix, Durban. Yet the hon. member makes the statement that we neglect them, even in flood-stricken areas. They were subjected to floods in Standerton, and they have all been rehoused in one of the finest residential areas for Indians we have in this country. Only last week an Indian from Standerton visited me in my office to thank me for what we have done for them in resettling them residentially and in business in Standerton after they had been flooded out. They were also subjected to floods in Newcastle in Natal. However, after we obtained expert advice, we decided to declare their present residential area there a green belt to be used for recreational purposes only. All the people there will be rehoused in a decent area. They were subjected once, by an act of God, to floods in Klerksdorp, but provision has been made to compensate every one of them for every cent of damage they suffered. It is most unlikely that they will ever be subjected to such floods again. The flooding was the result of a peculiar freak storm. In any event, every one of them has been compensated for every cent they lost. I have a list here which gives full details if the hon. member is interested. I want to ask him on what facts did he base that horrible suggestion of his?

You have just given examples yourself.

On what fact did he base the horrible suggestion that we neglect people even as far as their housing is concerned and that we begrudge them even the sites on which they live, even when those sites are situated in flood-stricken areas? As I have shown, we have taken active steps to improve the situation and to put it right.

The hon. member also spoke about the East Rand slums. Nobody is more distressed than I and my officials are about some of the slums on the East Rand. However, does the hon. member know that, thanks to the Department of Planning and the Environment, we have now finally proclaimed Bakerton an Indian area where they can have full ownership and which will give them a hinterland into which they can expand? He did not mention that. He did not mention that as far as probably the worst of them all, namely Germiston, was concerned, we have now bought adequate beautiful land roundabout Angus and Rietfontein for the Indian community there and that they are delighted with it. They are so delighted that this has happened that I want to tell hon. members a short story.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Allow me to finish. Since that was declared an Indian area, Indians are entitled to move in. There were some White farms, however, and some Indians from Benoni managed to get occupation of those White farms. The next day I received a deputation from the Germiston city council to tell me to please stop other Indians from moving into this area. “They held a protest meeting last night in Germiston, which was attended by 2 000 Indians, all saying: ‘That is our area; do not allow other people in,’” they reported. Does that sound like neglected or ungrateful people? The hon. member should be ashamed of himself for saying these things.

The hon. member also spoke about Actonville. I, too, am worried about Actonville. I have been there several times, the last only about one month ago. I had a most fruitful discussion with the new management committee of the Benoni town council. I am satisfied that something will happen to relieve the position there quite soon, but the trouble is that the former management committee of Benoni, very efficiently, did identify a section of land to enlarge Benoni. Then, however, the Railways needed that land for urgent railway purposes. We all know that the Railways have to take precedence on certain occasions and many of us have been affected in a similar way. So we have to start all over again. But Actonville’s position will be relieved. I give hon. members that assurance.

The hon. member also spoke about the removal of Indian traders from Pageview, from 14th Street—what we call the Fietas in Johannesburg—to the Oriental Plaza as if that was an act of oppression. Those traders have now been moved. They are now established in their R15 million Oriental Plaza in Fordsburg. I want to tell hon. members that their thinking has undergone a revolution in two to three months. The resentment is gone. Now there is only gratitude. I spoke to some of these traders the other day and they are resenting the fact that they were advised by certain lawyers and others to resist moving from Pageview to the Oriental Plaza. One of them said to me that there was a depression in Pageview and that they thought it was due to the condition of the country in general, but now that they experience a boom, they should never have had a depression. Allow me to add that there is always criticism because we do things under the Group Areas Act. This was not done under the Group Areas Act; this was done under the urban renewal legislation, the slum clearance legislation. The reason why we prefer the Group Areas Act in many instances is that then there is a compulsion on all concerned, including the local authorities, to give alternative housing. There is no such compulsion under the Slum Clearance Act. One pays compensation and one washes one’s hands of the thing. But although there was no compulsion, although if the urban renewal legislation was applied we still spent R15 million on an Oriental Plaza to provide these people with decent business opportunities and the right to live as prosperous citizens of South Africa. But what do I get from the hon. member for Benoni? A representation of the facts which I can only describe as shameful.

Another point raised by several hon. members was the question of the resettlement of Indian traders. I do not know of one instance where Indian traders have been resettled and where, after a while, they were not satisfied that we acted in their interests. I do not know of one area in the Transvaal where Indian traders who have been resettled want to go back to the situation in which they found themselves before they were resettled. Let us take, for example, the area of Bloemhof. Hon. members should go and see the conditions under which Indian traders have to trade there. Every day I receive petitions and requests from Bloemhof asking me to resettle them.

Why did the Indian Council ask you to stop moving them?

I am still coming to that. However, I want to repeat that until it can be proved that the Indian people have suffered an injustice through having them resettled from, in many cases, unfortunate circumstances, I cannot change my mind. Why did I not accede to the Indian Council? That is because I have a responsibility to the Government of South Africa to look after and to promote the interests of Indian South Africans. That is my injunction from the hon. the Prime Minister. However, in doing so, I have to look at the interests of other communities as well. I have a responsibility to maintain good race relations, and above all, I have to continue the work of my predecessor in getting the Indian community completely and finally accepted as South Africans. They were not accepted as such in 1948.

Neither in 1947!

Especially in 1948. That, then, is my responsibility. When representatives of the Indian community approach me with representations which, on due consideration, I believe may exacerbate racial feelings and will not be in the interests of the wider community, I have to refuse. I want to put this to the hon. member for Orange Grove, who made this point: Does the PRP get everything they ask for here in Parliament? [Interjections.] No, they do not! They do not, because they are a minority group. The interests of the greater community have to be borne in mind when considering the requests of the PRP. However, now the hon. member for Orange Grove alleges that because the Government does not grant every request by the Indian Council it proves the futility of the Indian Council. By the same token I can say that because the PRP do not get their way in everything they ask for, it proves the futility of the PRP! That is only logical. Let me put it in another way. I have a vivid imagination. [Interjections.] I read science fiction and I can imagine it possible. If the PRP were to come to power and had to apply their policy, and there were various minority groups in both Houses of Parliament, would they, as a matter of policy, grant every request made by a minority group? Of course they would not. Why then does the hon. member put forward such a stupid and ill-considered argument? Why does he reason that because I do not agree with the Indian Council in every respect—and I do not—they are a futile organization?

I can speak from more experience than the hon. member for Orange Grove, and therefore I can state that the Indian Council is an extraordinarily valuable organ for the Indian community, an extremely valuable organ for the whole South African community. For that we have to thank to a large extent the men—I want to pay tribute to them—who man the Indian Council, not only the men of the majority group, but also the men of the minority group. They are responsible and interested in the welfare of their own people, but they are also concerned about the welfare and the security of the whole of South Africa. I consider it pitiful that the hon. member for Orange Grove could put forward an argument like that in an attempt to discredit a fine institution manned by men whom I respect deeply indeed.

I think I have said enough to make it clear that I attach very little importance to the criticism that has come from hon. members opposite. There have been other requests from hon. members of the Opposition, requests which are not irresponsible at all. I want to deal with those now. The hon. member for Umhlanga, in a speech which—and he would forgive me for saying so—I found surprisingly refreshing, spoke about the history of the Indians. Of course I can fill in that history.

I doubt it!

However, I do not want to do so now. The hon. member made a plea for an elected Indian Council. It is the policy of the Government that it should be a fully elected Indian Council.

When?

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me those hon. members did not listen. I was going to—during this session—introduce a Bill for a new Indian Council. However, that Bill has been postponed because of the Cabinet sub-committee investigating the Westminster system, the whole function of the minority group in the government system of South Africa. Until we get that report I cannot answer the questions of those hon. members. We are waiting for that report.

The hon. member also spoke about the ability of our South African Indian community to do all types of work. He spoke about their skills and their adaptability. I want to agree with him there. I would suggest—time does not permit me to do so for him—that he should have a look at the annual report of the Secretary for Indian Affairs. I refer him particularly to page 17, where he will see how the economic participation of our Indian community in the larger economy of South Africa is becoming diversified. When I was young, the Indian people were labourers on the sugar farms, waiters in the hotels and shop-keepers. They were hardly anything else. Only a few were landowners. Today the Indians are playing their full part in almost every aspect of the South African life. They are becoming artisans. They are acquiring skills in the motor industry. Thanks to the policy of the Government there are over 1 000 skilled artisans in the motor trade and many more in other trades. [Interjections.] They do active service in the police and they are doing distinguished service in the S.A. Navy. There are many other things and I can go on for a long time in this trend. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Albany put a very interesting question in regard to Indian citizens of South Africa who get married to foreigners outside South Africa. Here is one of the successes achieved by the Indian Council which made representations to the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior on certain deserving cases. Although it is not the policy to encourage further Indian immigration, the Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that the Executive of the Indian Council should itself sift through all the cases which had not yet been thrashed out, to determine priorities and make suggestions to him so that we could appraise the extent of the problem and also the urgency of particular cases. I want the Indian citizens in question to take cognizance of this arrangement and send applications either directly to the Indian Council or to any office of the Department of Indian Affairs. The offices of the department will forward the applications to the Indian Council for consideration.

In conclusion I want to express my thanks to those hon. members on the Government side who have participated in the debate so far. The hon. members for Rissik, Port Natal, Standerton and all the other hon. members had a very easy task, because, with a few exceptions, the Opposition preferred, instead of conducting a constructive debate on the interests of the Indians, with the necessary emphasis on political differences, to play destructive political games. It was an easy task for us to expose them and to indicate to the country that this is the party which deserves to be disbanded. On the other hand the Government, particularly the department, has proved that it is sincere in its endeavour to ensure that justice is done to the good citizens of Indian origin in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the officials of the department on the very thorough report they have once again tabled this year. For many years now we have been given a well-considered report annually. I want to thank them for that. Then again, it could not be otherwise, particularly not when one listens to the hon. the Minister who has just resumed his seat. He is a Minister who not only speaks beautifully but who also knows the department inside out. The hon. the Minister has shown up the hon. members opposite. He simply took the hon. member for Benoni, slaughtered him, disembowelled him, and threw him away. The hon. member’s arguments have now been shown up before the House for what they are; they are no longer worth anything. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and tell him that we are very appreciative of what he is doing not only for us, but for the Indians in South Africa as well. In the past year South Africa has been very hard hit by unrest and riots. Many innocent people have died, millions of rands worth of damage has been caused, buildings have been senselessly razed and private property has been damaged. South Africa has been done irreparable harm. The South Africa’s image has reached rock bottom. The economy has been seriously harmed; our balance of trade is in dire straits. Now once again, something is brewing under the surface which could lead to a repetition of the riots.

Whilst we are all aware of the brooding threat of riots, the hon. member for Orange Grove says in the House : “There is no doubt at all that Indians are still restricted and discriminated against.” He also says: “They are God’s stepchildren.” Never in my life have I heard a more contemptible statement. In my opinion it is nothing less than blasphemy. It shocked me. I am not a theologian …

Order! I think the hon. member must withdraw the word “blasphemy”.

Mr. Chairman, I shall withdraw it, but only because you say so.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir. I want to tell the hon. member, however, that God does not have stepchildren. He does not have Indian, Brown or Black stepchildren. There are many other people, White, Brown and Black in the world for whom things are going badly and who are suffering under Governments other than this one. All the Indians who leave our country to establish themselves elsewhere in Africa, return to South Africa in large numbers.

The church of the hon. member for Pinelands, “Mother Superior”, is giving money to terrorists to murder innocent people indiscriminately.

That is a lie.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order : May the hon. member say: “That is a lie?”

Order! Did the hon. member say: “It is a lie?”

I did say that.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. That is an untruth and he should know it.

Order! Did the hon. member say: “and he should know it?”

Yes.

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member say “he should know it?”

Order! The hon. member may say that he should know it. However, he may not say that he knows it. The hon. member for Kimberley South may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order : Is it parliamentary for the hon. member to say “That is an untruth and he should know it?”

That does not mean that he does know it, but that he should know it. That is permissible.

I just want to tell that hon. member …

That “pink” priest.

You can call him what you like, “Mother Superior”, “pink”, or “blue priest”; it makes no difference, because I have no respect for him. The people of the church to which that hon. member belongs are giving money to the terrorists.

That is not true.

What is the difference between the hon. member’s policy and that of Rhodesia?

That has nothing to do with this.

It is the identical policy. However, the hon. member would never stand up and talk about those stepchildren. They are not the stepchildren of the Almighty, but of the West, just as the Whites in South Africa are the stepchildren of the West. He keeps dead quiet about that.

I want to avail myself of the opportunity today to thank the Indian population of South Africa in all gratitude and sincerity—and I do so on behalf of the NP, on behalf of South Africa and on behalf of that party as well—for the extremely responsible way in which they acted during the recent riots as well as for the way they are acting at present. The statement the hon. member made yesterday about God’s stepchildren is nothing less than a veiled whipping up of emotions and incitement to further unrest in the country.

The Indians of South Africa do not support the NP unconditionally in all respects. There is no such thing, but the Indian Council does support certain aspects of NP policy entirely. They have learnt the lesson that if one wants to progress for the sake of one’s own people, one has to co-operate with the parties involved to get the best for one’s people in a peaceful manner. That, too, is why we have the co-operation of the responsible Indian people of South Africa and I believe we shall retain that co-operation. I cannot say the same thing about the so-called political leaders sitting on that side of the House, however, because one has never heard any one of them standing up in this House and making a plea for their people. They are always making a plea for the circumstances of the other nations and of the other peoples.

You take enough care of the Whites.

Yes, thank goodness that there is an NP which does take an interest in the Whites of South Africa, because that hon. member would never do it. [Interjections.] Despite the fact that the Indian population does not support NP policy fully, the Indian population is entirely in favour of the separation of residential areas, because just like the Afrikaner, he also wants to protect his faith, his culture and his language. That is why he wants to live in his own area.

The discussions held by the UP and the PRP have, after all, broken down and come to nothing now. Why is this so? It is because the Natalians refuse to allow the Indians to live with them because they want separation of residential areas. That is the reason and that hon. member knows it just as well as I do. That is why the discussions between those two parties failed. [Interjections.]

I want to express my sympathy towards those Indian dealers who are to be resettled. Some of them do in fact have reason to feel unhappy about it and problems are being experienced in that regard, but they know just as well as I do that the hon. the Minister is working on it. In the following three years 500 Indian dealers will be resettled at a cost of R23 million. During the same period, schools for Indians to the value of R47 million are being built. The hon. member for Pinelands would never stand up in this House and mention that, however. I wonder whether he is aware of the facts. When it comes to undermining and negative matters, however, the hon. member is first in line because that is all he can do. I want to ask the hon. the Minister that whenever Indian dealers are resettled in future, this should be done with the greatest amount of sympathy, as was the case in the past. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the resettlement could not take place over a longer period than by the end of 1980.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to reply to the hon. member for Kimberley South.

You cannot!

The simple reason is that the hon. member for Kimberley South is a very emotional gentleman. He argues from a very emotional point of view. His facts are all faulty. If he cannot argue on correct facts, there is no point in carrying on an argument.

I would like to react to the speech of the hon. the Minister. He never ceases to amaze me. He is the only hon. gentleman I know of who can make an absolute virtue of forced resettlements, the Group Areas Act and that sort of thing. These are all things which we know from experience cause great hardship to the Indian community, but when one hears the hon. the Minister speak, one would think that he is doing the greatest favours in the world for these people. What I did find interesting was that whenever constitutional matters were brought up today, they have been avoided. The hon. member for Rissik said we cannot do everything in one generation and that one must leave it for one, two or three generations. I cannot remember exactly what he said, but he said that time was of the essence. Other members side-stepped the issue. The hon. the Minister himself actually side-stepped the issue. He said that a Cabinet Committee had been formed and that he did not want to pre-judge what the committee was doing. He said that if the Cabinet Committee had not been sitting he would have brought a new Bill to the House. However, he said he had decided not to, because he did not want to pre-judge that committee. In the meantime, however, other constitutional Bills are going to be brought to the House. Therefore, I do not know what his argument amounts to. We are not asking him to pre-judge that Cabinet Committee. We are not asking him to tell us exactly what the machinery is going to be. We want to know what the vision of the NP is for the future of the Indian people. Do they have a vision and do they know what they want? If they have a vision and they have the objective then surely all the Cabinet Committee is doing is seeing how the objective is going to be achieved? If they have no objective and if they have absolutely no idea what the future of the Indian community is, he should tell us and the Indian community so that everybody knows exactly where they stand. If one takes the authoritative statements made in this regard, what does one find? We have had an authoritative statement from the hon. the Prime Minister to the effect that he thinks that as far as the Indian community is concerned, they cannot be denied any right which the White man claims for himself. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether that still remains valid, namely that the Indian community cannot be denied any right which the White man claims for himself.

We in these benches would go along with that viewpoint as we believe it is correct. However, where we have problems with the Government is that they have another concept, a concept which applies to the White population. That is that as far as the Government is concerned the White man will never share sovereignty over his own people with any other community. We find that these two concepts are actually irreconcilable. The one concept says that we will not deny the Indian community what we demand for ourselves, and this we find irreconcilable with the other concept, namely that the White man will never share sovereignty over his own people. That we find absolutely irreconcilable.

I want to give the reasons why we find these two concepts to be irreconcilable and then I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reply to questions which I want to put to him in this respect. Surely he will agree, as we have heard in the past many times, that as far as the White man is concerned, he will maintain to himself the right to call those in authority over him who make the decisions which prescribe his life-style, to account for the manner in which they exercise that power. One can take this Parliament as an example. The White electorate have no legal obligation whatsoever to subject themselves to any laws of another body except this Parliament. They have the right to vote people into this Parliament and they have the right to vote people out of this Parliament. Therefore the Whites can call every single person who exercises authority over them, to account for the way in which they exercise that authority. What we, and I am sure the Indian community, want to know from the hon. the Minister is whether the NP sees that same right being given to the Indian community. Does the NP see that the Indian community, who are at present denied that right because all the laws which prescribe their rights are being made here, will at some stage in the future be subject only to laws which come out of their own Parliament or out of a Parliament in which they have the franchise in the same way as anybody else, or does this Government still see that this Parliament will exercise some form of “baasskap” over the Indian community? That is the first test of a free and sovereign people.

The second test is whether they have the right to tax, to borrow money and to decide for themselves what the priorities are on which that money can be spent. In this House, for instance, we could decide to spend a billion rand on developing a nuclear weapon, if we wanted to. I mention this extreme case just to make the point. That is our right as a sovereign, free people. If we want to do it, we can. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, as far as the Indian community is concerned, the NP envisages that the Indian community, through their own parliament, will one day be able to take exactly the same decisions that we are taking here in this Parliament? Will they ever have that right?

In the third place, another prerequisite of a free and sovereign people is to decide their own political destiny. We can decide to be democrats, Fascists, communists or anything. This Parliament has the power to decide. Let me ask the hon. the Minister whether the Indian community will ever have that same right which we hold to ourselves? Will they be able, through their own Parliament, to decide, if they wish to become Fascists, to become Fascists and then to have a Fascist doctrine for the Indian community, or a communist doctrine, or any doctrine that they wish? That is a prerequisite of a sovereign, free people. If we cannot see the Indian people having the right to call to account the people placed in authority over them or the right to tax, borrow money and spend that money on the priorities that they alone decide, and if we cannot see them deciding their own political doctrine, then let us forget this hypocrisy of saying that we will have two separate, sovereign peoples within one common homeland, because we know that it is just not possible.

We must look at the other two alternatives, one of which is to share power. We in these benches believe that that is the only thing. We believe that we must share power on an equal basis and within one sovereign Parliament. We cannot see any alternative.

“One man, one vote!”

The other alternative is “baasskap” where one says that one must have a very benevolent White “baasskap” over the Indian people. One must then say to the Indian people that they will never be free, because to make them free will impinge on what we want for ourselves. Let us then have the honesty and guts to tell the Indian community exactly where they stand. I want to ask the hon. the Minister about the committee that is sitting and trying to reconcile how one can cater for two or three sovereign peoples within one homeland. If they cannot reconcile this issue, even though they have all the experts within and without South Africa at their disposal, the options are either to share power, or to have White “baasskap” for ever. No matter how benevolent, it will be White “baasskap”. I wish to know from the hon. the Minister what is negotiable as far as the NP is concerned. Will they say to the people that they accept in principle that a sharing of power is necessary to solve the co-existence problem in South Africa and that they will devise a policy which incorporates that, or will they say that because we Whites are not prepared to share power, and because we can see no way of giving the Coloured and Indian communities that which we want, we must impose upon them a form of White “baasskap” for ever? It will be a benevolent White “baasskap”, and we shall do whatever we like. Whenever they want anything, they will have to come to this seat of White power and we shall then decide in our discretion whether to grant their request or not. Naturally we shall consult them. As the hon. the Minister said, when the Indian community asked him for something, he thought about it and, having a responsibility towards them and also towards other groups, he decided on balance that the request of the Indian community could not be granted. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply indebted to the temporary hon. member for Randburg for the speech he has made. I am indebted to him because he has again spelt out the policy of the PRP which basically, in terms of what he has said, means “one man, one vote”. In spelling out their policy, he has also provided the reason why the marriage proposal between the official Opposition and the PRP did not work out. The reason is that this policy of theirs will never be sold in Natal. In Durban where the Indian community is larger than the White community and, indeed, in the whole of Natal this policy will just not go down. The important thing is that, whatever political system we adopt for the future of South Africa, we must try to avoid unnecessary confrontation. That is the most important factor. When it comes down to the possibility of a power struggle between communities, it bedevils the co-operation that is possible between people.

Sir, I want to refer to some articles that have appeared in the Ladysmith Gazette, the local newspaper in Ladysmith which is where I come from, concerning the civic elections for the local affairs authority of the Indian community. The papers have been flooded with letters from the Moslem community on the one hand and from the Hindu community on the other hand. Indeed, there have been so many letters that the editor of the paper had to issue the following appeal—

Mr. Chairman, this is the point at issue. Where one has to deal with minorities and majorities, one must try to avoid confrontation. In a situation so potentially explosive as in South Africa where there are so many different communities, many of which form minorities but also majorities in other contexts, confirm* tation can only make the whole question of political co-operation distasteful. It is already difficult enough if in a country like the USA a minority of the population, viz. the Negro vote which makes up 10% to 15% of the population, can, by holding the balance of power, achieve the result of having a group elected to power while that group does not necessarily have the interests of the balance of the whole community at heart. That is why the important thing is to try to avoid confrontation.

The NP policy seeks to bring about the maximum amount of say for each group in matters affecting them directly and at the same time to bring about the maximum amount of consultation and co-operation between the various groups in all matters that affect them jointly or that affect the community as a whole. On that basis there can be co-operation. That is why we have already achieved a tremendous amount of success in bringing about better relations between the various race groups in South Africa. Only on this basis, where there can be consultation between the groups but where at the same time each group can have the maximum amount of say over its own affairs, can these better relations be brought about effectively.

In dealing with this issue of the maximum amount of say over their own affairs I would like to deal with the aspect of local authorities amongst the Indian communities. There are Indian local authorities in Natal at Verulam and Isipingo where local authority status has already been granted. At the moment there is a move afoot to try and decide the future of various Indian communities in other local authorities. Where these authorities have already been formed—I refer to the local affairs committees in places such as Estcourt, Glencoe, southern Durban, northern Durban, Ladysmith, Greytown, Dundee, Richmond, Newcastle, Pietermaritzburg, Westville, Stanger, Port Shepstone, Margate, Daunhauser, Mooi River, and Howick—it has to be decided to what extent it is possible and practical to bring about a virtually autonomous local authority status. I personally feel that there are great difficulties in this respect, but one must try to resolve those difficulties. One of the greatest difficulties is that these areas would be regarded as not economically viable in the sense of being dependent on the financial resources of the people living in those areas. I feel that this is a matter which requires urgent attention because as long as the issue of a possible power struggle between people voting and gaining control of various positions is at stake, it is obvious that the problem will not be resolved. We have already seen that even in the election of the local affairs committees there are power struggles in certain areas. Consequently, I believe that it might be advisable to bring about a situation where, through the subsidization of the funds of those areas, it will be possible to enable them to run their own affairs effectively, and at the same time to train staff to run their own affairs. I personally do not believe in the principle of a subsidy per se, because what is basically necessary is that where sub-economic houses have been provided by the State, the time has arrived where, through better education facilities that are available and the better productivity that can be brought about, the wages and salaries should be generally increased to such an extent that the people can be in a position to finance their affairs generally. In some areas that are basically residential dormitory areas, it becomes virtually impossible for the community to finance its own affairs. It might be necessary therefore to consider including in that local authority areas which should be set aside for virtual local autonomy for the Indian people, industrial sites, factories, etc., so that, irrespective of whom those factories belong to, the rates emanating therefrom can be diverted to assist in meeting the local authority requirements of those areas. I believe that if you give people a say and a voice on an official body, without giving them the necessary responsibility that goes with a voice in public affairs, it will always lead to a clamour for more and more demands, because there is not the balancing responsibility that goes with it. I believe that it is futile in the long run to have local affairs committees if they are not connected with the real power to carry out responsibility. Therefore I believe we must move in a direction whereby we can give real balancing responsibility to bring about a better control of affairs on a local authority basis. I think it is necessary that there should be a speedy but thorough investigation into what can be done with regard to this matter. I believe that something positive can be done.

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure for me to listen to the hon. member for Klip River. He is a person who regularly makes a very intelligent contribution; one which attests to his wide reading and his profound political insight. The hon. member has once again emphasized the plurality of the communities which we have in this country. He also emphasized that ethnicity dare not be ignored in any policy. That, too, was his reply to the hon. member for Randburg, viz. that any policy which did not take account of this factor would eventually lead to the destruction of everything that has been built up in this country over generations, including all the population groups here.

In the first contribution I made, I was just saying that I should like to speak about the diversification of employment of the economically active Indians in our country. For as long as I can remember, the theme of our debates has been the fact that the Indian has applied himself chiefly, almost exclusively, to commerce. I think that was unfair criticism on our part at that time. I think it was unfair of us to resent the Indian at that time for not entering other fields of employment as well. We found very few Indians in occupations other than commerce. Even in education there were not enough Indians. In teachers’ corps consisting of more than 7 000 Indians, there are only 11 Whites today. There were practically no Indians in the public sector. We did not find any of them in the Public Service, the Police, the Railways or the Post Office. I am now talking about 30 years ago. If we add to those a handful of waiters and a few vegetable and fruit farmers in Natal, this represents the working life of the Indians 30 years ago in its entirety so to speak. We cannot blame the Indian for not having diversified earlier. In the first place, years ago the Indian had to struggle against a wall of prejudice. I think it is only since 1961 that the Indian has really begun to come into his own in this country.

A reason which is more important than the prejudice, however, is the fact that the educational infrastructure of the Indian was so totally inadequate that he was simply unable to diversify. In Natal, where the majority of Indians live, only a few of them reached the level of secondary educational a few years ago. Up to 1965 and 1966—some 10 to 11 years ago—the UP controlled education in Natal. Do hon. members know what their contribution to Indian education was in the last year in which they still controlled Indian education? It was only R7 million. Today seven times that amount is spent. At that time few Indians reached matric. Those who did pass matric all took the same six courses for their final matric examination—the “straight six”. It was a rigid uniformity which one found there, from Newcastle to Durban, and from Port Shepstone to other places, wherever there were Indian schools. Afrikaans was not one of those six subjects that were offered. In 1965, under the Natal Provincial Administration, only 7% of the 1 300 Indians who were in matric that year—that is to say fewer than 100 pupils—took Afrikaans as a second language.

The Indians did not have their own university either. Nor was there any technical education for Indians. The Indian child simply had to go and work in his grandfather’s shop, as his father had done before him. Then, however, the Government, in an imaginative way, promoted education and made an enormous contribution to the diversification and socio-economic upliftment of the Indian population. A large number of new schools was built for Indians in the years after 1966. The hon. the Minister gave us those figures earlier. In those first years after 1966, R27 million was appropriated in order to eliminate the tremendous backlog which existed. At that time 18% of the pupils were in shift classes. Today that figure is only 6%. With differentiation and the wider choice of subjects that has been introduced, with better trained teachers, with the M. L. Sultan College where more than 8 000 part-time and full-time students have been enrolled, with a university of their own at which 3 720 students have been enrolled, and with still more students at Unisa and elsewhere, it is only now for the first time that we can really talk about proper diversification. In fact we are already seeing the fruits—after only a few years—of the improved training which is being offered to the Indians.

I have some interesting figures. Between 1973 and 1975—a period of only two years— there was an increase of more than 2 000 Indians in professional and semi-professional occupations. Their numbers have increased from 9 500 to 11 500. I am not comparing the situation with that of 1948, because one does not compare the fine achievements of today with the round zero of that time. There was an increase of 2 200 in transportation within a period of two years. The number of clerical workers has increased by almost 10 000, from fewer than 31 000 to more than 40 000. The number of supervisors and people in other skilled occupations has increased by 4 000. Here is a very interesting figure. Between 1973 and 1975 the number of unskilled Indian labourers dropped by 1 000. It dropped from 12 000 to 11 000. I could mention other figures to substantiate the fact that during this short period there has been a shift amongst the Indian population from the less skilled to the more skilled occupations. One sees this in the trades—the motor trade, for example, to which the hon. member for Umhlanga referred. Within two years the number of trained artisans has increased from 750 to 1 000. The hon. member will confirm that. In the building trade the number of trained artisans has increased from 2 600 to 3 200. Here is another impressive figure relating to the printing trades. In 1973 there were only 200 artisans in the printing industry. Two years later there were 513; two and a half times as many. At present there are no fewer than 1 100 apprentices in the school of apprenticeship being trained in a variety of 48 trades. I was unaware that there were so many trades. A new world has opened for the Indian youth. New horizons and new opportunities have been created for them and the Indian youth has seized those opportunities with both hands.

If education has equipped the Indian youth for this diversification and this new task, then the policy of separate development has opened these new doors to him. As a result of separate development the Indians have not only diversified horizontally, they have also been upgraded vertically. Separate development has removed the ceiling above the Indians’ head. Separate development has given the Indian his own institutions; the Indian Council, for example, through which the Indian can have a say in the decision-making process for the first time and have his own executive and officials to implement those decisions. Separate development has given the Indian three local authorities—which the hon. member has just spoken about—where he can exercise full control and himself appoint people ranging from his own town clerk, city engineer and health inspector to the most humble labourer. Separate development has given the Indian access to the Public Service. Today 83% of the officials in the Department of Indian Affairs are Indians. Separate development has given the Indian his own department of education, one in which two of the chief inspectors are already Indians. Separate development has given the Indian his own university at which no fewer than 69 of the lecturers and one of the vice-principals are Indians. I do not know of a nation in the world which has made so much progress and undergone such diversification during five years as these “stepchildren” of whom the hon. member for Benoni spoke. A generation of Indian youths has come to the fore during the past year and they are occupying professions their fathers never even dreamt about. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was rather refreshing listening to the hon. member for Port Natal. He got very ecstatic about things and I started wondering, if everything is so good about the Indians; why is it so very bad? Natal has been under a UP provincial government since 1910, but when the hon. member for Port Natal and the hon. member for Klip River were sitting in the NP benches as the opposition in the Provincial Council in Natal, what did they do? They fought every motion that the Provincial Council of Natal put to further the interests of the Indians.

Just mention one. [Interjections.]

I must say this; the hon. member’s speech was very refreshing.

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

I do not have time. The hon. member for Newcastle was also there in those days. They fought with us over this. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Port Natal at least realizes what is going on. He has now said a decent word for that community. His speech was in direct contrast to the vitriolic speech of the hon. member for Kimberley South. He vented his spleen on hon. members on this side of the House. I was also sorry to hear that the hon. the Minister got rather hot under the collar. I would not have doubted the hon. the Minister’s sincerity when he spoke had he seen to it that the officials’ bays were filled with his officials when this debate started yesterday afternoon at about 4.45 p.m. He was either so cock-sure about his Vote, or else he did not care a damn about the Indian community. I take a poor view of the fact that those bays were empty when this Vote started yesterday afternoon.

You are playing to the gallery.

I am not playing to the gallery.

I want to pay tribute to the Indian community for their calm and law-abiding demeanour during the past year when Soweto, Langa and other places were experiencing the agony and heartbreak of the riots, which received much publicity and debate during the past year. Like other non-White inhabitants of South Africa they were also subject to much pressure and propaganda. They are to be warmly commended for their resolute wisdom and forebearance. We as Whites indeed owe them a sincere vote of thanks for having stuck to the side of law and order and so proved their loyalty to the Republic of South Africa. This they have done despite the frustrations, the petty hurts and the obstacles to which the Indians have been and are being subjected.

The Indians of South Africa have a long tradition of culture. It is not only an age-old culture, but one which is thousands of years old. I want the hon. member for Standerton to know that. It is a lot older than our culture. They are justly proud of it as indeed we, who come in contact with them, are proud to be associated with them. It is an ancient culture. Our Indian citizens have demonstrated their aptitude and ability in all walks of life by their drive, tenacity, initiative and, of course, business acumen. They are, as I have always said, destined to play a prominent role in the economy of the Republic if they are allowed to do so. Yet, with all this drive they are very community conscious. They believe in a family life. The extent and the diversity of their community projects in social welfare, education and charity are a model to us Whites. The hon. the Minister is no doubt aware of that.

A close study of the annual report—this is a very good report and I commend the Secretary for Indian Affairs for it—shows in no uncertain manner that we can indeed be proud of our Indian compatriots. I find it remarkable, however, that no mention whatsoever has been made about law and order and police protection in these Indian communities. I say this because the Indians themselves are deeply conscious of these dangers that face them. I want to quote a writer from the official magazine Fiat Lux. He says—

I now wish to take the hon. the Minister to task for not pressing his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Police, for more police protection in the Indian areas. Is the hon. the Minister aware that the estimated population of the Chatsworth and immediate southern Durban area is somewhat over 350 000 Indians, that there is only one police station to serve this huge scheme? Incidentally, I was the Divisional Commissioner who opened that police station 12 or 13 years ago. It is still in the same building and it is still the same small, undersized police station. The police station of Chatsworth is completely manned by Indians with a captain as station commander. The second in command is a lieutenant of the Uniform Branch and there is another lieutenant in charge of the Criminal Investigation Department.

On 1 April of this year I asked the hon. the Minister of Police how many members of the Force had semi-official telephones as at 28 February of this year and how many of these telephones were installed in the homes of Indians, Coloureds and Bantu. The hon. the Minister replied to me that there were 1 621 telephones of which two were in the homes of Indians, eight in the homes of Coloureds and five in the homes of Bantu. This reveals a shocking disparity. In the Police Force semi-official telephones are installed in the residences of all officers, warrant officers, sergeants and even constables who are in positions of command and responsibility and who are liable to be called out at all hours of the day and night, weekends, holidays, in season, out of season, whenever their services are required and in any time of emergency. According to the current annual report of the Commissioner of Police, there are 219 Indian officers, warrant officers and sergeants in the Force, and yet, of these, only two have semi-official telephones installed in their homes. I know from my own experience that there are dozens of Indian men who are in positions of responsibility and who have no phones. I want to call upon the hon. the Minister to do something about these phones being installed.

Indians are generally a law-abiding community and experience has shown that Indian crime is predominantly an urban phenomenon. The phenomenal growth of the Durban-Pinetown complex—as the hon. the Minister knows, is a huge complex—is placing great demands on the spiritual and cultural life of the people. The hon. the Minister must surely be aware of the lack of housing and of the overcrowding of homes that is experienced by these unfortunate people. It is essential for the peace and the wellbeing of these people, whose parlous condition is aggravated by increasing unemployment in these times, that the forces of law and order be reinforced without delay. I am aware of the fact that the Indian community is trying to combat crime—by its own efforts—-by educating the people and by giving them hints on crime prevention, etc. They are doing this on their own. To think that one small police station is sufficient for the needs of Chatsworth is ridiculous. I have quoted this as an example and I hope the hon. the Minister will now get the hon. the Minister of Police to do something about these areas.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umlazi has just objected to the fact that the hon. the Minister and other hon. members took exception to what the hon. member for Benoni said yesterday in this House. Over the past few years in the House I have learnt to know the hon. member for Benoni as a good, balanced, hardworking member. Nor do I intend to call him anything but this today, because I still think this of him. I want to assure the hon. member, however, that there is nothing and no one that can ruin a person politically, a person with a fine and honest disposition, so quickly and destructively as that person himself. That is why I want to tell the hon. member for Benoni and the hon. members on that side of the House who associate themselves with what he said, that I describe his reprehensible statements at the beginning of the speech which he made yesterday, as very unfortunate and very irresponsible.

†What are the facts of the situation? As far as Indian legislation is concerned, this Government has a good record. I should like to quote to hon. members from this document which I have in my hand. The introductory sentence reads as follows—

It reads as follows further on—

It goes on, mentions the question of penetration, and states—

Further on it states—

It goes on further and the following is said—

I am reading from a pamphlet issued on behalf of the UP by the General Secretary, etc.

On what date?

That was when the UP was still in power and was still passing laws. That was in 1946.

*That is what we inherited from those hon. members. [Interjections.] Let me just conclude my argument and then the hon. member can put his question. The hon. member must not force me to go into history. That hon. member must study the history of his party and their hangers-on like the Dominion Party as far as the Indians in Natal are concerned. The NP has made mistakes and I shall admit this. I can put it to the hon. member like this: If there is a nail or two among the 20 nails of the hands and feet of the NP’s past which is not all that clean, we can openly admit it. However, if the hon. member researches the history of that time, especially as far as the Indians of Natal are concerned, he will come to the conclusion that the hands of that dying party are so soiled that hon. members in those benches, even in the last death pangs of their party, should rather hang their heads in silence and shame than use such unbridled language which was so damaging to relations as the hon. member used yesterday.

I want to tell that hon. member, who is a good friend of mine, that they should not violate their own flesh and blood for petty political gain or to try and score political points off that sickly, liberalist, humanist, leftist-liberal party on its left. Langenhoven said that one who apes is not even a proper ape. Later on in the hon. member’s speech he pleaded some very deserving causes and I agree with him in that regard. One cannot, however, promote the health of a fine, clean bride by dragging her round in the slime and mud.

I should like to continue in a more positive tone than did that hon. member. The hon. the Minister of Defence made a very important speech on 25 June last year as acting Prime Minister, a speech of considerable importance in that we are today engaged in the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, because Government policy in respect of the various population groups of South Africa, the Indians in particular, is now at issue. I want to point out to the hon. member for Orange Grove that as an introduction and as a reaction to a speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. the acting Prime Minister proved that that policy of the PRP does not involve any right to self-determination for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians of this country, but only the right to self-determination for a Black majority government. I quote what the hon. the acting Prime Minister went on to say, from col. 10631 of Hansard, 1976-

I can tell you that the South African Indian really felt some of those measures—including the UP measures.

I also want to point out that after the hon. the Minister dealt with the constitutional development that day and rejected “one man, one vote” in a unitary state, he went on to say that there were three prerequisites for the stability and progress of the Republic. Time does not allow me to quote them. Furthermore he mentioned four guidelines which the Government laid down for itself and which the Cabinet, too, is bound to. To summarize, since I do not have the time to quote, I can say that everything which the hon. the Minister said on that day and which I have said so far, means the following : In the first place that the Government rejects the policy of the PRP as it stands.

† I ask the hon. member for Orange Grove, who is not listening at the moment, and the two other members with whom he is conversing, following the intimation of the hon. members for Orange Grove and Randburg today, whether their policy makes provision for full citizenship for Indians. I challenge the PRP to state in this House once and for all how this fraudulent policy of franchise qualifications could meet this claim of full citizenship.

*I say that we reject that policy and all the other parties, too, reject the policy of “one man, one vote”. To summarize, it also means that the Government is continually reappraising its policy in order to provide for new circumstances in these modern times, without giving up basic principles, like the right to self-determination.

The new approach as regards Coloured and Indian industries and business enterprises, as well as removing limitations on the interprovincial movement of Indians, is also at issue in this re-evaluation and adaptation. It is interesting to note that this UP pamphlet which I have just quoted from, excludes the Free State. Finally, what the hon. the Minister said on that day, means amongst other things that doing away with unnecessary discrimination is an important means towards achieving this purpose. The hon. the Minister concluded his speech by telling the Opposition, and I quote from column 10651—

As a White South African I want to tell the South Africans of Indian origin today: South Africa is a beautiful country and it is a great country. We both love it. We also have many other things in common. Let us make of this country what our love is capable of making of it. What is more, we can do so in accordance with the guidelines and policy of the Government of the day as I have just set it out for you. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am just rising to give the hon. member the opportunity of completing his speech.

I thank the hon. member. I, appreciate it very much. As I said, we can do this in accordance with the guidelines which this Government created and which I have spelled out there.

I said that the Indians have a great deal in common with the Whites and specifically with the Afrikaners. We have a common love of our fatherland because we live in the same country at the moment, because we have lived in the same country in the past and because we will live in one and the same country in the future. I want to say that a separate homeland for the Indians is a pipe dream. It is a chimera which is not part of this party’s policy. It is an impracticable idea. It is not part of the policy of any White party nor is it part of the policy of any Indian party or group. This basic fait accompli of permanently being together and if necessary fighting together in one and the same country, must necessarily have an important, determining influence upon the policy of the Government. It must necessarily also have an important, determining influence on the development of the Government’s policy. This is in fact the case, as I have already indicated.

Sir, I said that there were other similarities of which we and the Indians are aware. I should like to quote a particular example of this. In a newspaper interview with Charl Thom of Die Vaderland, dated 14 April 1977, Mr. J. A. Carrim, who is a member of the Executive of the S.A. Indian Council and also of the Cabinet Council made some very interesting, important and also encouraging statements. I quote him as reported by that newspaper—

I think that the hon. member for Moorreesburg will probably not agree with this, but I shall leave it at that. Mr. Carrim went on to say—

The hon. gentleman went on to refer to another population group in South Africa, a White population group, of which about 10% are apparently only now citizens of the country.

In this regard let me say that our people are inclined to see other nations or other population groups as types. In this way we typify the French as being amorous, the Jews as being crafty, and the Americans as swaggering and arrogant. I realize that there are sometimes elements of truth in such ideas about types but they are negative types which are often untrue. If we want to see one another as types, let us then see the South African Indians who are being discussed today, as the types they really are. Mr. Carrim says that he believes that the Indian community has proved thus far that it has acted in a very responsible manner and will continue to do so. This is true, after all. We know how the Indian population acted during the riots. Let us then see those people for the type of responsible people which they are and take into account the major contribution they make to the country as far as labour and many other aspects of the economy are concerned.

In this article Mr. Carrim went on to talk about a threat from outside. I quote what he said in this regard—

Once again I want to say as a White South African that I agree fully and wholeheartedly with Mr. Carrim. I say “fully and wholeheartedly” because it is often the case that people agree wholeheartedly with one another, but that they neglect to or are afraid to do so fully as well. That is why I am doing it as clearly as I am today.

It is true that we have a common fatherland and we also have many other things in common. It is true that we have common enemies. Of the common enemies, Marxist neo-Colonialism and Marxist imperialism are undoubtedly the most important. Together with Mr. Carrim I want to say: “Let our enemies abroad and in this country know that any attack on a South African is an attack on all South Africans, whether Indian, a Coloured, or White.” Let us quarrel amongst ourselves if necessary. We can even fight a little, too, but we are not going to allow others to attack us. We of South Africa will stand together, be we Indian, White or Coloured. That is why I say: “Let us work together for our country; let us fight together for our country.”

I believe in separate schools and I believe in separate residential areas, and as far as separate residential areas are concerned, I may just mention that a very highly respected Indian told me that since there have been separate residential areas where they could move into their own decent homes, and away from behind the little shops, “today we know a rose from a daisy”. This is since there have been separate residential areas. I believe that there are other things, too, which we should rather do separately at certain places and times. But there are things, times and places where separation is unnecessary, indeed, where it may be undesirable. That is why I say to the South African Indians: “South Africa is a beautiful country, South Africa is a great country. We both love it. We have many other things in common. Let us make of it what our love is able to make of it, for the sake of our country, our civilization, ourselves, our children and our future.”

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Krugersdorp ended his second ten-minute speech on a better note than when he started. When he started his speech he again referred to the UP days—as all hon. members one other side have cone—as the dark days of the UP and the UP Government. Of course it suits them to go back 31 years to try to illustrate and to give substance to that argument. But they completely disregard, as did the hon. member for Krugersdorp, the history of the Indian people. If the hon. member looks at the history of his own party’s policy, he will realize that it is certainly not one to be proud of. In terms of that policy they advocated the repatriation of the Indian people. At one time they considered the Indian people as foreigners in this land. It was only in more recent times that they were prepared to accept the Indian people as part of the South African community. It is not so long ago that the NP believed that they were not part of the South African community. We welcomed the day when the NP Government for the first time used the term “Indian South African”. Up to that stage it had never been used. If one goes back not so far, only to 1971, one sees what the hon. the Minister said when he was a member of this side of the House. In an article in The Argus, he said the following—

That was in The Argus of 2 July 1971. It was written by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs when he was a member of this side of the House. Obviously therefore, if one is considering the history of the NP’s record with regard to Indian policy, the pen of the hon. the Minister himself, in 1971, showed that they did not have a policy of which they could be proud at that stage.

We on this side of the House welcome any constructive moves that are made by the Government to improve the lot of the Indian community. And that is why we welcome at least one speech, from the hon. member for Klip River, which was a positive speech to try to assist the Indian community. But I was rather disappointed to hear the hon. member for Standerton and the hon. member for Port Natal, who dealt with Indian education. Neither of these hon. gentlemen were prepared to urge the hon. the Minister to see that the next principal of the University of Durban-Westville should be an Indian. They do not seem to make any constructive suggestions of that nature. Only some months ago when I discussed the position of the Indians with an overseas visitor, that overseas visitor told me that he had been extremely impressed by the University of Durban-Westville, by the facilities that were available there. One thing he could not understand, however, was why the Indians were not considered competent enough to run the university in its entirety, from the principal downwards. This takes some defending because, obviously, if we are admitting the fact that the Indians are able to reach the highest echelons of government and of administration, surely it must ultimately be the Government’s policy to see to it that the principal of the University of Durban-Westville, for instance, should be an Indian, as is the case for Coloureds at the University of the Western Cape.

The hon. member for Port Natal also dealt with the question of housing. He again made an attack on the UP and its record, and so forth. However, I would like to ask the hon. member why he did not reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Durban Central in connection with the Sydenham area. From personal experience I can say that that was an area—at one time a huge part of that land belonged to members of my own family— which was appropriated by the UP Government for the benefit of Indian housing. That is one positive step in which land was made available for Indian occupation.

Whilst dealing with the question of land, the hon. member for Port Natal mentioned Cato Manor. However, here is another positive suggestion that that hon. member could have put to the hon. the Minister. Surely if land is going to become available to the Indian community it is time that the hon. the Minister and the Government made up their minds as far as the future of Cato Manor is concerned. We know that the question of Cato Manor has been discussed with the Government ever since the days when it was proclaimed a White area. Attempts have been made by the Indian community to ensure that the Cato Manor area, or parts thereof, should be returned to the Indian community. This necessitated protracted negotiations between the Indian Council and the hon. the Minister. However, to date we have heard of no definite decision as far as the future of Cato Manor is concerned.

Then, there are other aspects of the Government’s policy which, if they were to be fulfilled in terms of their policy of separate development—and if it was to be considered to be a genuine policy—make it necessary for steps to be taken in order to ensure that the Indian community is represented on the various statutory bodies. We know that the hon. the Prime Minister, following a meeting with the executive of the S.A. Indian Council in January 1975, made a statement in connection with the appointment of Indians to statutory bodies, boards and commissions. There are one or two boards where such appointments have been made. I think, for instance, of the Unemployment Insurance Board and one or two others. However, if we look at the Estimates which are before the House today, we are struck by the fact that there is a large sum of money to be devoted to welfare and to pensions. Indeed, the sum for social pensions alone totals nearly R13,5 million. We also note that the amount to be spent on child welfare and maintenanee grants totals R9 million. That means that a sum of nearly R23 million is going to be spent on welfare services alone.

However, what do we find? Where a welfare board is appointed, such as a regional board in Natal, that board has no representative of the Indian community. Again, the National Welfare Board, which is responsible for the registration of all welfare organizations, has no representative of the Indian community. Surely we have reached the stage where the Indians should be represented, particularly on a board which so vitally affects the every-day lives of a vast number of the Indian community. This, I think, is a natural consequence of the promise that was given by the hon. the Prime Minister more than two years ago.

Now I want to raise with the hon. the Minister a matter in connection with the welfare services. We have seen in recent times a change in pattern among the Indian community. In the past it has always been the norm of the Indian way of life to have a three-generation family unit, where the aged were looked after within that family unit and where every effort was always made to ensure that children were adequately cared for without having them removed to children’s homes. However in recent times, as a result of building costs, which have caused changes in the method of housing and smaller housing units, it has become difficult for Indians to maintain that three-generation family unit. They are also subject to the stresses of everyday life which other sections of the community have to suffer and, therefore, there is an increasing demand for their welfare services and, particularly, for the payment of social pensions and such-like. In looking at that part of the Indian community which requires assistance, we must look to this Vote that is now before us to make provision for their social pensions, maintenance grants or children’s grants. It is, therefore, important to ascertain the attitude of the Government towards narrowing the gap between these benefits and services that are provided for the Indian community. We know that the Government has declared it as part of their policy to narrow the wage gap and therefore it is only consequential that they should also narrow the pension gap. However, we find that there is still a considerable gap between the amount of pension which is paid to Indians as compared with the Whites. If one looks at the figures one will see that at the present time the Whites are receiving R72, whereas the Indians only receive R38,50, which is the maximum social pension. This is a difference of R33,50. As from 1 October, the pension payable to Whites will increase by R7, making it R79, whereas in the case of the Indians it will be increased by R4, making it R42,50. The difference between the pensions of Whites and Indians will then be R36,50. This means that although an improvement has come about, in terms of which the Indians receive now a little more than 50% of what White pensioners receive, the actual amounts of money received show that the gap is growing.

The other aspect that I would like to mention is in regard to the means test that is applicable to these people. They have slightly narrowed the gap as far as the pensions are concerned, but there seems to be no effort whatsoever to narrow the gap as far as the means test is concerned. If one looks at the amount of free assets that are permitted for an Indian, this amounts to R4 900, whereas the amount permitted for Whites is R9 800.

Similarly, as far as the income ceilings are concerned whereby a person can qualify for a full pension, amongst the Indians it is R21 per month whilst for the Whites it is R42 per month. As far as the assets in the case of Indians are concerned, I have mentioned that it is 50% of the figure for Whites. In addition to that, the whole question of the valuation of properties affects the Indian community considerably, particularly because of their custom that most of their assets are held by the head of the family. Obviously, the head of the family is a man who has reached an advanced age in many cases, with the result that he is disqualified from receiving any sort of pension because the assets are placed in his name. Often the assets are in the form of property, and although property valuations have increased in the various municipal areas, this is evidently not taken into account because they only have a free asset amount of R4 900.

Other aspects regarding the payment of the pension also show that the 50% ratio has been maintained. In the case of supplementary allowances that are paid to Whites and Indians, the ratio is again 50%. A White war veteran receives an extra R10 per month whereas an Indian war veteran receives only an extra R5. The attendant’s allowances, similarly, are received on a basis of R10 for Whites and R5 for Indians. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must say that the hon. member for Umbilo has probably given us the most constructive speech today from that side of the House. However, I must tell him that it is no use running away from the mistakes of his party in the past. They have a tendency to catch up with one.

Do not run away from yours!

No, on the contrary, we are not running away from our mistakes. We are quite prepared to admit that it was the official policy of this party that we had in mind the repatriation of Indians on a voluntary basis.

The remarkable feature of this debate is that hon. members on that side of the House tried to outdo each other in dishing up horror stories about the Indians in this country. When we challenged the generalizations which we heard in the arguments from that side the hon. members could not actually bring forward any evidence to support them. If this is going to be the pattern of the debate on Indian Affairs in the future, I think we might as well leave the whole matter to the Indian Council, because I think they are quite capable of sorting out their own affairs. When my time expired yesterday, I was making an appeal to the Indian community to place the emphasis on matters of mutual interest with the White people. We are in the same boat. I also indicated that I considered it highly dangerous for certain political groups in the Indian political arena to identify themselves with the Black Power movement. I am of the opinion that it is not in their interest, as history has shown elsewhere. The matters of mutual interest which I have mentioned, are firstly, the economic stability, which is considered as being of vital importance, and secondly, the threat of Russian imperialism. I also wanted to say—I did not have the time then—that the Indian community has proved over and over again that they treasure the maintenance of their own identity very highly. On this matter of their own identity, they will find a substantial common ground with the Government and its basic political philosophy.

*Mr. Chairman, on various occasions in the past I discussed the question of Indian land tenure in South Africa in these debates. Land tenure in the urban areas naturally falls under the provisions of the Group Areas Act. As far as Indian land tenure in the rural areas is concerned, however, problems are still being experienced because the rural areas have not yet been planned in this regard. This creates uncertainty, not only amongst the Indians, but amongst many Whites as well. Mr. J. N. Reddy, the chairman of the Executive of the S.A. Indian Council, once again made an urgent plea during February this year for the expansion of Indian land tenure for industrial and farming purposes. He pointed out that with the establishment of the Indian Industrial Development Corporation—this is accepted by the Indian community, but is opposed in this House by that hon. Opposition, which is fighting for the rights of the Indians to such an extent today—additional land is required in respect of the expected industrial expansion.

The Indians have already made a great contribution to industrial development in South Africa. In the Durban-Pinetown complex, approximately R45 million has been invested in factories and in industrial development. Already there are approximately 800 industries registered in the names of Indians in Natal. This is a total investment of nearly R60 million. This does not include the considerable amount which is invested in commercial and farming activities.

It is also alleged that, at this stage, the Indians actually possess less land in South Africa than about 15 years ago owing to certain measures which were made in terms of the Group Areas Act and to the expansion of residential areas. Additional land for industries is probably required within a reasonable distance from the residential areas with a view to transport problems. It must, however, be pointed out that the Government granted permission to Indian industrialists to obtain land within the existing proclaimed industrial areas.

The answer seems to be that the Department of Indian Affairs should investigate this matter of Indian land tenure, so that representations may be made addressed by this department to the Department of Planning so that we can in future have a proper comprehensive plan as far as this whole set-up is concerned in order to eliminate the problems in this regard.

The question of land for agricultural purposes, however, creates a much greater problem. The time has come for us to lay down very clear guidelines as far as Indian land tenure in the rural areas is concerned. I cannot see any problem why land, especially land adjacent to declared Indian group areas, cannot be set aside for this purpose. We must accept that we have a changing pattern as far as the activities of the Indian in South Africa is concerned, as the hon. member for Port Natal also pointed out. The production of fresh vegetables and fruit in the Natal area, for example, has dropped considerably, on a percentage basis, and at the moment Natal is only meeting about 10% of its own needs, but in spite of this, Natal is still known as the garden province. In the past, this figure was more than 80% and this drop in production is primarily due to the production of the Indian smallholders having dwindled almost completely. The reason for this change must be ascribed to better employment opportunities, the urbanization of the Indian and of course, to the utilization of land for other purposes.

Making smallholdings available without proper capital provision for the purchase of implements, etc., is not a practical solution to the problem, unless there is a need for a State settlement. I do not believe, however, that this is practical politics at this stage. The question also arises whether additional land can be properly used by the smallholders, especially with a view to high prices of land which the smallholder will not readily be able to afford. If such additional land is made available, we will find that it will be the affluent Indians who will purchase that land. Unfortunately, it often happens that land which is in the possession of affluent Indians, is land which is not properly utilized. Squatting is often allowed to take place on this land.

I think that we must make an appeal to the Indian land-owner in South Africa in this regard and ask them not to allow these malpractices any longer, because it simply prejudices their own cause. Once again, I make a request to the Indian landowners to try and solve these problems themselves, because they cannot ask for more land in the rural areas, unless it can be proved convincingly that the existing area—especially that in Natal—which is at present occupied by Indians, is being properly utilized.

Once again I want to emphasize the fact that the existence of isolated Indian farms in the rural areas of Natal creates problems. This state of affairs creates unnecessary friction, especially in the areas which cater chiefly for White communities and agricultural undertakings. The solution seems to be to set aside certain exempted areas so that everyone can know precisely where they stand as regards Indian land tenure. Then, the continual need to deal with representations in this regard, will also be a thing of the past. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have been able to observe the nature of the debate undergoing a remarkable change since my previous turn to speak. During the second half of the discussion we have really had contributions of quality, from Opposition side as well. The quality was as one would wish to have it when discussing a delicate, important and urgent matter such as the fortunes of a respected and important group of our population. We should very much like to maintain the best relations possible with them and we also want to share the responsibility for their happiness and their welfare with them. Consequently, I want to express my gratitude towards hon. members on both sides of this House for the sudden and dramatic improvement in conditions during the second part of the debate.

Now I shall try to react to all the aspects raised by hon. members in the course of the debate. The hon. member for Kimberley South referred in general to, inter alia, our relations with the Indians and he proved, as did other hon. members, in a very remarkable way that the members of the NP were truly interested in the particular problems of the Indian community. The NP is interested in the problems of other communities as well, but I do not think it is sufficiently known that the Indian study group of the NP has very close ties indeed with the Indian community and with the Indian leaders. The door is always open to these people and meaningful and fruitful discussions do indeed take place, also on the level of our Parliamentarians consulting with members of the Indian Council. The hon. member for Kimberley South spoke in particular about the resettlement of the Indian traders in Kimberley. He asked, inter alia, whether we would not consider slowing down this process in the interests of what he believed to be good reasons. I want to assure the hon. member that our door is open, and if there are matters in this regard which he would like to bring to our attention, I shall be very pleased to discuss them with him. I shall, of course, also be willing to see the Indians concerned, if necessary.

†Then we had an interesting contribution from the hon. member for Randburg. He spoke more on a philosophical level. He wanted to know certain things about the general approach of the Government to the future of the Indian community as part of the larger body politic of South Africa. I listened to him with interest. His speech was more in the nature of a series of questions than a contribution of his own. I would have been happier if it had been balanced and if he had put his own ideas so that I could measure the one against the other. However, seeing that he has asked those questions, I shall try to answer them. He asked me firstly and generally whether the Government had a vision for the future of the South African Indians. Of course we have one, and it is a proven vision. I can say that the Indian community—and I will say more about this when I reply to the speech of the hon. member for Umbilo—have in the history of our country been a neglected community; nobody can deny that. They were for many years regarded, in a way, as intervening strangers in the larger South African society. The vision that we have developed for these people is that they are as much a permanent part of the population of South Africa as any other group of the population. They have the same claim to South Africa, and South Africa has the same claim to them and their loyalty, as any other community. We have set ourselves the task of breaking down whatever prejudice existed towards them and whatever prejudice existed on their part towards us and of trying to establish and to develop a relationship of trust and confidence amongst the various peoples of South Africa of whom we consider them to be an important part. Our vision for their future is that they should become a prosperous, happy, contented and an accepted integral part of South Africa. That is our vision. How we are to do that is still a matter for discussion and debate between them and us and between my hon. friends opposite and us. Final answers in regard to questions of human relationships are never reached. Human relations are dynamic; they are ever-changing and ever-adjusting. We in South Africa will have to be willing to change and to adjust in our search for satisfactory solutions, and we should be willing to make adjustments from time to time. As we see things today, we accept our Indian people as a valued and appreciated permanent part of our South African population. I think we sometimes apologize for the fact that they were brought to this country by our ancestors as indentured labour with the promise that they could become free after a certain number of years, during which, apparently, they were not free. We must accept, perhaps, that we have in our own conscience things for which we have to ask forgiveness.

What about the Whites in Australia?

I am Minister of Indian Affairs, not Australian Affairs. I think the hon. member is taking it too far now. In view of what I have said, what is the philosophy of the Government towards these people? The philosophy of the Government towards all the people of South Africa is that we are a multi-national State. Some of the other nations in this country have, for historical reasons, their own land and their own geographic bases. For them we see a separate sovereign independence. Other groups, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, do not have completely separate or separable geographic bases. Therefore, by the sheer weight and compulsion of facts, we have to find a modus vivendi in South Africa together.

Develop your thoughts a little further; it is becoming interesting.

I want to develop my thoughts.

Give the Minister an opportunity!

That is the task that we set ourselves. We have to work out a modus vivendi in order to achieve that. In order to achieve that there are certain prerequisites which are fundamental and in which I have always believed. That is that each of the population groups in South Africa who have a different culture and who have a different nature, a different history, a different character, should as a sacred right enjoy the privilege of maintaining its own identity and that we do not have the right to impose upon others our identity, our values and our demands. They have their own dignity, their own culture, their own traditions, their own aspirations. Whatever we do should be an organization of that right in the human institutions that determine our happiness. That is Number One. [Interjections.] There are times when we fight hard in this House. Nobody enjoys it more than we do, but there are times when a member puts serious questions to another member who then tries to deal with them in a serious manner. My experience of the House is that it usually rises to such occasions. I trust that we will rise to such an occasion today.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I am deeply interested in this matter. I realize that he is following a certain course in the way he is debating, but could he just extend it a bit further? He has now dealt with one aspect, i.e. the management of their own affairs, but could he deal with the further aspect of how they fit into the common fatherland?

Yes, of course. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point is interested in what I am saying. I appreciate that very much. However, I would appreciate it if he would allow me to develop my arguments without a running commentary. I can assure him that I enjoy Charles Fortune in that role, but perhaps he was cast in a different mould. I was saying that the first thing is that each of these groups should have the right to its own identity.

The second thing is that in affording our various groups the right to their own identity it should always be the concern, in the first instance, of the State, of the Government, and in the second instance and equally importantly, of every organization and every person in our society, to avoid indignities, hurt and friction among the peoples of South Africa. That is the second cardinal philosophy of this Government. The third point I want to mention is perhaps the one in which my hon. friend is the most interested because there is no clarity in his party on this issue. That is how we on the political level get the modus vivendi to which I have referred. In the matter of education we give them the opportunity to educate their children in their own traditions. In matters of residence we give them the opportunity of living in their own areas with their own institutions, their own communal facilities. That is simple, but it is the political aspect that is the most difficult.

In the first instance it is the philosophy of this party that the permanent groups of the South African population, i.e. the Whites, the Indians and the Coloureds, are each entitled to their own parliamentary institution. That is basic. Each one is entitled to its own parliamentary institution and should be allowed to develop to the maximum of which it is capable.

Cantons?

No, I am not talking about little geographical areas. I am talking about people. They should be allowed to develop to the maximum authority over their own affairs of which they are capable without conflict with the general interests of the larger community. For that reason the Government has established the Indian Council, the Coloured Council and we have our White Parliament. There is still scope for tremendous development. I do not want to talk about the Coloured Council except to regret that they are not making a success of this experiment possible because of their refusal to participate fully in it. However, that is a regret that we all share. As far as the Indians are concerned, their development, I am sorry to say, is behind the others because they started late, but the discussions are in process. It will come and, I hope, it will come both boldly and imaginatively. We want to develop institutions which will be Parliaments in the true sense of the word, Parliaments which will give these people a sense of belonging in South Africa and also a sense of functioning in South Africa as communities with their own interests in their own charge.

Then we come to the rub, viz. how to deal with that important part of our political life, the affairs of common interest to all the people concerned. In that regard we believe machinery must be created through which the groups will seek to achieve consensus. The first step in that direction has been taken by the hon. the Prime Minister with the appointment of his Cabinet Council, a body which, I believe, is much more important in its potential than hon. members on the other side possibly realize. There, in the atmosphere of a Cabinet meeting, representatives of the three communities come together to share their experience and aspirations in seeking consensus in the spirit in which one gets consensus in any Cabinet. That is the position at the executive level.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Let me just finish what I am saying. That, at the executive level, is part of the experiment being carried out by the NP. It is part of the striving and idealism of the NP. As far as liaison on a parliamentary legislative level is concerned, that is what the Cabinet Committee that is investigating the Westminster system is busy with at the moment. As I have explained, I do not want to anticipate that.

Are you a member of it?

That is not your business!

I just wondered. It is an innocent question.

I sometimes wonder myself. The point is that that is the way in which we are seeking for an answer. I am not going to pretend that it is easy. Let me say, Sir, that it is fundamental to the thinking of the NP that this Parliament and particularly this House is the parliamentary institution of the White community. Therefore we have to find something whereby this body can liaise with the other bodies I have mentioned in order to make a modus vivendi, a common understanding, possible and also to establish consensus amongst the groups as far as possible at the legislative level. Now the hon. member can ask his question.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can foresee that the Prime Minister’s Cabinet Council is going to be an embryonic confederal assembly or federal assembly?

Sir, I am not interested in descriptions: I am interested in the facts. When I say that, I am not running away from the question. Ever since 1910 we have had a unitary constitution in South Africa with federal elements. The provincial councils are a federal element. So, too, is a certain entrenched clause. The way the Senate is elected is also federal. Therefore, I can foresee that there will be federal, confederal, or whatever the hon. member wants to call it, elements in it. Sir, I do not pretend to be an expert, but in a small way I have been a student of constitutional history and particularly of the British Constitution and what I find most interesting about that constitution is that it developed and was not created deliberately at some national convention. In practice and through experience it developed into a very fine constitution. Speaking personally—I hope I am not speaking out of court—I think that we in South Africa must accept that we will be wise if in this connection we take a leaf out of the book of the British constitutional history, because I think that we, too, in practice, by convention, by experiment and also perhaps through failures, though followed by successes, are working out a modus vivendi which may prove as remarkable in the course of history as the British experiment.

The hon. member asked me one or two specific questions. The one was whether the Indian Council would be permitted to establish, if they so wished, a Fascist regime and whether they could determine their own ideology. That is a very interesting question. First of all, I think it is an insult to my Indian friends to suggest that they will ever do that, but I do not think he intended it as such. He was being purely hypothetical—that is precisely my trouble with the question. It is purely hypothetical, but to give the hon. member an answer, I would say that the ideology of a community, the form of government, whether it should be a democracy or not, or fascism or communism, is not a matter which is the peculiar interest of one community. It is part of the problem of the general interest. You cannot have a society which is half communist, half fascist and half democratic. That is not possible. That would fall within the sphere of consensus where there would have to be common action and it would not be possible for either this Parliament or the Indian Parliament to become fascist without the consensus of the larger population of South Africa.

The hon. member then spoke about “baasskap”. I think that if there is one term which is foreign to the thinking of every hon. member in this House, it is this term “baasskap”. It is a term which has unfortunate connotations and a term which is foreign to the thinking of everyone of us. We do not want to be “baas” over anybody else. The mere fact that there is an independent sovereign State called Transkei and the mere fact that there will be another sovereign State quite soon, to be called Bophuthatswana, is proof that the Government and this party cannot be blamed for a “baasskap” philosophy. Our philosophy is one of emancipation and of removing, because of our history, the stigma and the evil of colonialism in our larger society. I therefore say to the hon. member: Forget about “Baasskap”. We seek understanding, friendship, consensus and a common modus vivendi which will recognize the dignity of all people in this country.

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Minister agree that if it was necessary for the Government to agree to some aspects of sharing of power as an answer to the co-existence problem in order to do away with “baasskap”, that is what they would have to sacrifice in order to do that?

I do not agree that it is necessary, but I cannot go into that in detail because I think it is quite wrong. I look upon this committee on the adaptation of the Westminster system as being so important that the whole sphere of discussion which the hon. member now touches upon is to me sub judice. I respect the situation as such. However, I do not think that is absolutely necessary at all. There are examples in history of very loose associations of peoples which have been successful. I cannot go into that now.

*I come now to the hon. member for Klip River who made an excellent contribution and put a very interesting question to me, i.e. what we are planning to do with regard to more independent, autonomous local authorities for the Indian community. It is the policy of the Government to grant self-government on municipal level to the Coloureds and the Indians as quickly as possible, where it is practicable and where viable local communities exist, on the same basis as that of the Whites. The hon. member for Klip River, in a very well-considered speech, laid his finger on one of the great problems, viz. that it is no use giving people a local authority of their own if it is not an economically viable unit. The problem with many of the existing communities—I am talking about the Indians and the Coloureds—is that they consist in the first place of residential areas and residential areas with a large number of sub-economic houses which cannot pay taxes as in a normal city. Therefore we have to make plans to give the local Indian communities sources of taxation which will enable them to undertake the management thoroughly and to look after the interests of the people concerned. To my mind that means that we shall have to give them more industrial areas. We shall have to give them better commercial areas and in general we shall have to concern ourselves very seriously with uplifting them so that they can develop out of the sub-economic population group and can become economically viable, so that they can make a full contribution to the needs of the local government as well.

My hon. colleague, the Minister of Coloured Relations, intended appointing a commission to investigate this matter. I then told him that instead of appointing two commissions, we should make it an overall joint commission so that we could consider the case of all the population groups at the same time. He was kind enough to agree—and I am grateful to him—that a new commission can now be appointed in which Indians, as well as experts on Indian affairs, will be represented. We hope, as a result of this, to facilitate the implementing of the Government’s policy of separate development and to make it more thorough. After all, the policy of the NP is self-government for all the non-Whites in South Africa.

The hon. member for Port Natal made a speech which I found particularly interesting. He discussed the question of diversification in the Indian’s economic life. I cannot improve on that. The hon. member mentioned the facts; he illustrated them with examples of what is happening. Especially remarkable is the way in which Indians are playing a very important role in the production capacity of the South African community as artisans. We are grateful for that. There are so many things one could tell. I could for instance say that since the establishment of the Department of Indian Affairs, we have encouraged the Indians to enter the industrial field. Within a short time the Indians invested the amount of R30 million in secondary industries in South Africa. We are fully confident, unless some unforeseen catastrophe strikes us, that that amount will increase to R60 million by 1980. It is a wonderful achievement for which the Government claims credit, but at the same time accords greater credit to the Indian community.

†The hon. member for Umlazi, as usual, made a very calm and balanced contribution to the debate. He very wisely spoke about something at which he is an expert. All I can say is that I agree with him. The Indian people deserve proper police protection. The trouble is, however, that they are not making a proportionate contribution, in relation to their numbers, to the S.A. Police force. The matter is being discussed between the Executive of the Indian Council and the hon. the Minister of Police. The matter is also being discussed by representatives of the Indian community in Durban with the local Deputy Commissioner of Police, and I hope that answers to the problem will be found. The Executive of the Indian Council took the initiative in this matter and I am sure that a solution will be found in terms of which more Indians will be attracted to the Police Force so that there will be a better balance in responsibility regarding this matter.

*The hon. member for Krugersdorp really made one of the most striking speeches in this debate. It so often happens that someone with a medical background—I do not know why— also develops a fine philosophical outlook on life. We had another example of that today. I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution. I want to congratulate him. That is the kind of attitude which helps us to ensure better race relations in South Africa.

†My time is running out. I wish I had more time to spend on the hon. member for Umbilo. The greater part of his speech was a most practical contribution to the debate, especially with his historical political approach at the outset. I am trying to avoid recriminations when it comes to our Indian population. Honestly, if we were to indulge in recriminations, if we were to look at why these people came to South Africa, if we were to look at the neglect of their education, if I were to tell hon. members that Indians in Natal told me that when the Natal Provincial Administration was responsible for Indian education they subsidized Indian education to the extent of £5 per year per child and showed a profit on the venture, if I were to go in for that sort of thing, I could tell a great story. However, I do not want to do that. I want to suggest seriously that we should take the approach that the South African society can be reproached for the treatment of our Indian population over many years, but by putting our heads together, by standing together, by agreeing to differ, whilst seeking answers, we should try to redress the wrongs that the South Africa society has done to the Indian people. I think that is the spirit in which we should approach it.

The hon. member for Umbilo, after having spoilt his speech a little bit, restored himself by referring to the gap in the social payment made to the various communities in this country. All I can say is that it is the policy of the Government that that gap, like the salary gap, should be closed. I wish we could do it overnight, but it is just a physical impossibility. I want to tell the hon. member—-and I am not derogating from his speech at all—that this matter has been put to us more eloquently and more effectively by the Indian Council itself and by the Executive of the Indian Council. I am sure that I shall be discussing this matter with them again tomorrow morning. While the hon. member will be having a lovely weekend, the Indian Council, I and my department will be working. We will be discussing these very matters and seeking answers for them. All I can say is that we will strive to close these gaps as fast and as well as we can, but we cannot perform miracles. Especially in these days we just cannot perform financial miracles.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Newcastle sincerely for his contribution. He raised a matter which is of great concern to me, that is the question of land-ownership by the Indian population. He spoke especially about land-ownership for industrial and agricultural purposes. I think that with the declaration of the Minister of Planning that general industrial areas will in future be open to anyone in South Africa, the industrial question will resolve itself. As regards the agricultural question, the Natal Regional and Urban Planning Council is engaged in an investigation to see if we can do what the council suggested, viz. to set aside areas for Indian farmers. On national level the Department of Planning is also conducting an investigation as to how we can make more land available to the Indian community.

With that I think I have replied to the best of my ability to the matters raised. After the criticism which I was justified in expressing in my previous speech, I now want to express my appreciation once again to everyone who took part in the debate. I think it was an interesting and constructive debate. I am especially grateful for the expressions of appreciation I received, for the increasing realization of the valuable asset that South Africa has in the form of these interesting, industrious, diligent people, the Indian South Africans.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Chairman, in the Second Reading debate I made a strong objection to the fact that the State would not be bound by these building regulations. I motivated this by saying that I saw no reason why the State should not be bound. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that we were here dealing with minimum building standards and that clause 17(1)(d), which deals with minimum standards, was the key clause. We do not believe that the State should be exempted from these minimum standards, except in a very exceptional case. We did agree that, for example, in the case of emergency defence work there might be good reason why minimum standards should not be adhered to. However, the point should be made that when one is spending public money it is important that the money be spent well. These minimum standards, in fact, should apply to the State possibly more than even to private enterprise or anybody else, because it is a mechanism for protecting the spending of public money. We do not see why the State should not be bound by it, for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons given in clause 2 why the State should be exempted is “by virtue of economic considerations, necessity or expediency …” On that basis I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 6, in lines 21 and 22, to omit subsection (3);
2. (2) on page 6, in lines 36 to 38, to omit paragraph (b).

Mr. Chairman, of course the amendment of the hon. member is not acceptable. If the hon. member looks up the existing Act in connection with the State’s obligation or otherwise to comply with the building ordinances of the local authorities and provinces, he will find in the first place that the State is not bound in this way; and secondly, that in terms of the existing provisions the State is not even obliged to submit building plans to the local authorities.

Give us some reasons for that.

Give me a chance. The hon. member either wants a reply or he does not.

Do not get so neurotic about it.

As far as my knowledge goes, this legislation is now for the first time including a provision that the plans and specification for Government buildings must be submitted to local authorities for inspection and comment. Basically, this is because we want to give the local authorities the opportunity to express an opinion in regard to these buildings and to make recommendations concerning amongst, other things, town planning schemes, parking facilities and those services for which the local authority is responsible.

Secondly, the hon. member argued that I had said during the Second Reading debate that clause 17 of the Bill actually contained the essence of the Bill because it determined the minimum standards. The hon. member says that there are reasons why the State should be bound, because the State is spending public money. He did not quarrel with me about minimum standards yesterday. He quarrelled with me because too high a standard was being maintained in respect of a building in the public sector. The hon. member and his group amaze me more and more from day to day. At the moment, I believe, this legislation is an improvement on the existing situation if we compare it to existing legal provisions. I am not prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment and to force the State to subject itself in the legislation to a lesser body. Therefore the amendment is not acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can present a further argument to the hon. the Minister. I accept that the position at the moment is that the State is not bound by local authority regulations. These are not standardized regulations and they vary over the country. This is probably a good argument in itself why the existing situation is as it is. This, however, is not a good reason, when the State itself is laying down minimum standards, for not applying those standards which are consistent standards throughout South Africa. One is not making the State obey local authorities. In the one respect the hon. the Minister is quite right. He does say that local authorities will have some say. They will at least have a look at it. I do not believe that once the State lays down standards, it should depart from those standards except for the one exception of military necessity. The situation has changed because no longer has this to do with individual local authorities. This is a State standard.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister were to accept this amendment, it would mean that in future the local authorities and the State would all be subject to the same law. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that in my Second Reading speech I actually produced concrete evidence pointing to the position where the town-planning section of the Port Elizabeth municipality had no say over a Post Office building which was built in a certain section of Port Elizabeth. The result was that no provision was made for onsite parking and they also did not comply with other regulations. This happened because of the situation that the plans of the State are not subject to the approval of the local authority concerned. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister: We are going into a new era and we have come to a new chapter in the building industry. I think it is only fair that the hon. the Minister should accept this sort of amendment because I think it is an improvement. I think one would be working far closer with all the local authorities in South Africa if the hon. the Minister were to accept this amendment. I gave the case of Port Elizabeth and those facts can be checked. We will support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to repeat that the reason why provision is being made for the first time in clause 2 for submitting the plans and specifications of a Government department is precisely to give the local authority an opportunity to comment and make recommendations to the Government department concerned with regard to the aspects to which the hon. member for Walmer referred. The only case where the State does not have to do so is when it is dealing with security buildings or when it has an exemption granted in terms of the same clause. That is why I believe that we are now creating the mechanism to ensure that what the hon. member for Walmer is requesting will in fact be done. I am not, however, going to make regulations applicable to the State in the same way as they are made applicable to private individuals because the State is, after all, the highest authority in the country.

No, Parliament is.

I am not talking about legislative authority.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 10, in line 15, after “objectionable” to insert:
   in terms of any other applicable law
2. (2) on page 10, in line 23, after “thereof” to insert:

I should like to motivate my first amendment. This particular clause concerns the power of a local authority either to accept or refuse the application of an individual to erect a building. Clause 7(1) reads as follows—

That refers to a recommendation made by a building control officer.

the local authority can grant its approval. Paragraph (b) provides that, if a local authority is not so satisfied, it can refuse to grant its approval, and paragraph (b)(ii) provides that if a local authority—

and then there follows three subparagraphs, the first of which reads as follows—

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the local authority can make an objective assessment of the building plans as far as the disfigurement of the area in which it is to be erected is concerned. Subparagraph (ccc) is very similar in that respect in that the local authority can take an objective approach or make an objective assessment of whether the building will probably or in fact derogate from the value of adjoining or neighbouring properties. It is to subparagraph (bbb) that I am moving an amendment. This subparagraph reads as follows—

I believe that this means that the local authority will take a subjective look at the proposed building and will put forward a subjective assessment of whether the building will be unsightly or objectionable. It is for this reason that I moved my first amendment, which is to insert on page 10, in line 15, after “objectionable”, the words: “in terms of any other applicable law”. I believe that a local authority should, in its by-laws, state what it regards as objectionable or unsightly as far as building is concerned. They say that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. In this case the local authority or a member of the local authority, who could be the local building control officer, could say that they do not like the look of a building and that it will be unsightly or objectionable, but that would simply be their opinion. This is why I have moved this amendment. On my second amendment I have no further comment.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief. I have already indicated that I can accept the hon. member’s second amendment, but not the first. The hon. member is quite right when he says that it is a subjective test. The decision of the local authority is, however, not a final one because there is a right of appeal to the review body which is being instituted by the Bill. It is no use referring to another legal provision. The hon. member argued that the local authority ought to make such a legal provision. The point is that no such legal provision exists at present, if the hon. member follows my argument. If circumstances were to crop up, however, in terms of which local authorities wanted to introduce legislation in that connection and I were to have to help them, I would consider it.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept what the hon. the Minister has just said. However, if one looks at subsection (5), one sees that it refers to the fact that the local authority may refuse an application in accordance with subsection (1)(b). It then goes on to say that any such application shall not again be considered by the local authority unless the plans, specifications and documents in question substantially differ from the plans, etc., which were originally submitted. I therefore move as an amendment—

That means that if a local authority refuses an application it should at least inform the applicant why the application has been refused, in which case he will be able to alter his plans accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that if anyone, who has submitted a building plan for approval, does not appeal against the decision of the local authority when a plan is rejected, he must, of course, alter the plan. I am, however, quite prepared to accommodate the hon. member by accepting his third amendment.

Amendment (1) negatived.

Amendments (2) and (3) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.