intimated that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize to the hon. member for Benoni because I do not intend speaking about the topics discussed by him last night.

I am very sorry to see that the hon. member for Musgrave has just left the House, as I wish to deal with something he had to say. I refer now to an interjection made by an hon. Whip on the Government side who said (Hansard, 26 April 1978)—

To this the hon. member for Musgrave replied—

Exactly the same as we had from the Official Opposition when the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister was discussed. They then said “We are dealing with the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister” and now say “We are dealing with the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs”. This is the attitude they are taking up. No doubt we will hear the same thing next week when we deal with the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development. [Interjections.] They will give absolutely no policy or alternatives whatsoever!

In the limited time at my disposal I wish to deal with one aspect of our policy. I wish to set it out clearly so that people will understand that we in the NRP do have a policy, a policy of which we are not ashamed and which we are prepared to put before the people.

We are getting stronger by the day! [Interjections.]

Yes! I compliment the department. I compliment the hon. the Minister on a well-documented and comprehensive report. The first paragraph of that report is, I believe, the most important of the entire report. The first sentence reads—

Now, that sentence—that single sentence—in my opinion speaks volumes. To me it represents the acceptance, for once and for all, that our Indian population are what they are—viz. South Africans. Be it by birth, be it by naturalization, they are South Africans. I have said it before, and I say it again today, that the Indians are proud to be South Africans. I can refer to previous speeches of mine in which I have stated this fact. They are reported in Hansard. It is a source of great pleasure to me to see that we are now referring to them as Indian South Africans and not as South African Indians.

The hon. the Minister knows that that reference is made in the report. The hon. the Minister himself made reference to it yesterday evening. There is a difference. However subtle, it is a meaningful and a real difference. They are now Indian South Africans, not South African Indians.

I believe that we in the NRP have already expressed our opinion of the original and rather vague constitutional proposals put forward by the Government. Obviously, the Government itself is also recognizing the shortcomings of these proposals. They have elected to go back to the drawing board. The political future of our Indian South Africans is of deep concern to us and should be very carefully considered in the formulation of the legislation that, we all know, will ultimately come before us. We believe that these good people have a vital and an important role to play in the South Africa of tomorrow.

Now, I wish to deal in the main with the economic development of the Indian South Africans. The Indian South African is a man—those of us who live in Natal are more aware of this than possibly any other—who has taken his place in the commercial and industrial life of the country and is playing an ever-increasing role in that field. We in the NRP believe that more must be done to enable these people to improve their standing in the world of commerce and industry. To this end we have stated that part and parcel of our policy—I repeat; our policy—is that central business districts and all industrial areas should be opened to all race groups. I believe it is important that I clearly define what I mean when I talk about a “central business district”. It is a term that is commonly accepted as meaning the hub of business activity in the centre of a city. In respect of our cities I mean exactly that: the hub, the nerve centre, the physical, the geographical centre of a city. In respect of our major towns—or even our smaller towns—this central business district should be designated by the local authority concerned. The local authority will designate what specific area its central business district shall encompass.

Let us examine the situation in our city centres. Who shops in Eloff, West, Adderley, Main or Oxford Streets?—All colours and all creeds of our multiracial society. If this is so, why then should all colours and all creeds not be permitted to trade in those central areas, as long as they comply in respect of premises, licences and trading hours? Let me be clear on this issue. I say that any person should be allowed to trade in the central business district, the CBD, which I have defined. In other words, I am calling on the hon. the Minister now, wearing his hat as Minister of Community Development, to deproclaim, in terms of the Group Areas Act, these CBDs. This, Sir, should be done in conjunction with and on the recommendation of the local authorities concerned, thus permitting the establishment of businesses by all race groups on these areas. We must bear in mind that these businesses will have to meet the existing competition in order to remain viable. They will have to maintain the standards of Eloff, Adderley and West Streets. Similarly, the White man who wishes to trade in the Grey Street area, which is part of the CBD of Durban, will have to be able to offer the bargains that one finds in that shopping area in order to compete. This is known as free enterprise, and I think it is something we all basically believe in. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that it is the very cornerstone of our society.

We must remember, Mr. Chairman, that each shopkeeper or businessman must have the right to admit whomsoever he wishes to his premises. This is his choice and his choice alone. If the White businessman wishes to open a business in Grey Street and only admit Whites, he will cut his own throat, but that is his business. Equally, the Indian who is granted a licence to trade in West Street and only admits Indians, will likewise cut his throat, but he will do so by virtue of his own decision.

It goes without saying, Sir, that my remarks apply equally to industrial areas. I should like to say that we in this party look forward to the day, particularly in Natal, when Indian South African entrepreneurs are given an equal opportunity to develop in the light and the heavy industrial areas specifically set aside for industry.

Reverting to the report for a moment, I wish to touch on a point which is of particular concern to me, and that is the plight of the Indian market gardeners on the Springfield flats. Many of these small farmers have become and more will become displaced as a result of road and rail development in the area. I note that the authorities are created a committee of the S.A. Indian Council, that council which the hon. member for Musgrave last night referred to as “pathetic”, to deal with this matter. I would ask the hon. the Minister to furnish this Committee today with a progress report in respect of the arrangements envisaged for suitable alternatives on the North and South Coasts.

While speaking of agriculture, I think it would be remiss of me if I were not to congratulate those concerned with the initiative shown with the proposed establishment of a fund, similar in many respects to the Stabilization Fund in the sugar industry. A contribution of 50c per ton of sugar cane milled by each Indian farmer is to be paid into an as yet unnamed account, which will result in a holding of some R400 000 in that account in one year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga tried to indicate what the so-called policy of his party in respect of the Indian population in South Africa is, but all he actually said was, that the Indians are also South Africans. We have never denied this. On the contrary; it was this Government that gave them full recognition and permanence in this country. [Interjections.] Then the hon. member tried in a pathetic way to give us an idea of a party’s policy which does not really exist. What does that hon. member and his party stand for? They stand for a federal concept which has not yet worked anywhere.

Oh yes?

A geographic federal concept might still work, but most of them have also failed. A race federation is the last thing which can work anywhere in the political sphere.

The hon. member went on to say that Indians should be allowed to trade within urban commercial areas. Surely this is the case already. Opportunities of this kind have been kept open by this Government for the Indian population. Hon. members on the other side of the House cannot deny that the Oriental Plaza complex and the Grey Street area in Durban are very successful enterprises which the Indians welcomed.

I should like to extend my hearty congratulations to the Secretary for Indian Affairs and his staff on their annual report which was available in time and also contained very enlightening particulars. The report consists of 11 chapters, each of which deals with an exceptionally important aspect of Indian Affairs, especially the chapter on the Indian Council. It indicates a very lively interest on the part of the Indian Council in the welfare of its community.

The Indian Council’s decision on the constitutional proposals, however, was a great disappointment to me. The Indian Council’s decision does not take into account the basic facts and the reality which they have to face up to, because the constitutional proposals, which form part of the constitutional plan of this Government, cannot be undone. The hon. member for Orange Grove knows very well what I mean when I say this because he made a big issue of it during the recent election. After all, it was reported: “Indians rejection of plan no deterrent, says Lorimer”. I just wonder whether the hon. member possibly doubted at a certain stage whether the Government would definitely continue with the constitutional proposals after further discussions with the Indian community. This Government has always done what it said it would do, and the hon. members must therefore not have any doubt about that aspect. It is here that I feel the Indian Council has made such a big mistake by rejecting the plan before they had cleared up any problems which they might have had with the Cabinet, through the Cabinet Council or with the Minister of Indian Affairs, who is very sympathetic. Responsible representative leaders of an ethnic group do not act like that. The preamble to their decision already condemns them. For instance, I refer to the words—

That is, the constitutional proposals—

In other words, there is a great lack of clarity among this community as to exactly what they have rejected, and this is what they are doing about one of the most positive steps which has ever been taken by this Government in the course of the constitutional development of the Indians in South Africa.

There is something else which is a very great disappointment to me. It emanates from the decision of the Indian Council, viz. that in terms of the decision they have to a large extent negated their own ethnic identity, of which they have been very proud over a period of more than 100 years in South Africa. One would rather have expected this denial of identity from the Indian Congress, which wants to ally itself to the so-called Black Power which has one goal only and that is to create a Pan African State here in South Africa and to establish Black majority rule here. If they are concerned about the “application and future implications” of the NP’s constitutional proposals, I think it is time for them to think seriously about the implications for the Indian population of Black majority rule because there are some of them who advocate this.

In the debate on Indian Affairs last year I pointed out that South Africa is the only country in Africa where the Indians can still feel safe. One just has to ask oneself why 20 000 Indians from nearby Maputo are asking to immigrate here. One must also take into consideration the fact that the Indian Government has already indicated on two occasions that the South African Indians are not welcome to resettle in India. Have the Indians already forgotten the race riots of 1949 in Cato Manor and elsewhere?

The moment of truth has arrived for the Indian population in South Africa too because we also want to know where they stand in the collective struggle we are waging against Russian imperialism. It is not good enough for them to collaborate with the so-called freedom movements and Black Power on the one hand and on the other hand to create mistrust of the White Government which has ensured permanence, recognition, the constitutional machinery and socio-economic upliftment for them in this country. I am quite prepared to say that the Indian population in South Africa has contributed towards their own upliftment to a large extent, but they cannot overlook what the Government has done for them. The Indian population in South Africa has become prosperous under this Government. Their education and university training has progressed phenomenally, as is clear from the annual report of the Secretary for Indian Affairs. If they do not want to walk the road of South Africa together with the White nation of South Africa, they must spell it out clearly now so that we shall know where we stand. We shall not allow ourselves to be forced off our course by threats or be influenced by hindrances. We know where we want to go to, viz. a free and a better South Africa. They, too, will be able to share in this if they cooperate.

The policy of the Government cannot be changed. We do in fact stand for change, because we do not believe in discrimination either. It is in fact by means of our policy that we can remove discrimination in South Africa. When nations develop within their own ethnic context, there is the least possibility of discrimination because in an integrated community—this has been proved in America and elsewhere—there is in fact more discrimination.

The alternatives are clear. Firstly, there is constitutional stagnation and an inability on their part to protect their own interests, especially because of the lack of efficient channels. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Newcastle on the very good speech which he made this afternoon. It is characteristic of the hon. member for Newcastle that, no matter whether he is talking about economic affairs or Indian affairs, he makes a very good speech.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member said and perhaps give the House a little more information about what the Government has done and will yet do for the Indians of South Africa. At the same time perhaps one should also ask the Government to vote more money to keep people better informed. I feel that domestic peace basically depends on order, harmony and peaceful coexistence. One can only achieve this if one’s people are thoroughly informed of what is happening in South Africa and in the world.

Allow me, Sir, to give a few examples in the next few minutes of what the Government has done for the Indian population. A year after the Department of Indian Affairs was established, in the 1961-’62 financial year, its total budget amounted to R300 000, of which only approximately R5 000 was spent on general welfare. Financial aid to Government subsidized vocational and special schools amounted to R16 800. A few years after that, we see in the 1968 budget that an amount of R2,276 million was made available for primary, high schools and nursery schools and for adult education, while R8,159 million is being made available for these purposes in the present budget. I could also refer to the appropriation for the training of teachers: R160 000 in 1968 as against R930 000 this year. When we come to financial aid to technical colleges, we find that R298 000 was voted in 1968 as against R2,041 million this year. In 1968, R224 000 was made available in financial aid to State-aided vocational and special schools, as against R787 000 this year. In 1968, R970 000 was made available for the Indians’ own independent university, as against R8,65 million this year. In 1968 the amount of R2,335 million was budgeted for social pensions, as against R15,065 million this year. Child care received R1,352 in 1968, but this year R10,987 million is being set aside for that purpose. When the department was established in 1962, R300 000 was budgeted for that purpose. However, in 1968 it was found necessary to budget R15 million for the department. In the present budget the record amount of R96,735 million is being provided for this department. This vast amount is intended solely for the Indians of South Africa.

It should be mentioned that the amounts spent on housing for the Indians are not included in the amounts which I have just mentioned. I shall be allowed to say that the astronomical amount of R126,2 million is going to be spent on far more than 17 000 economic and sub-economic housing units during the course of the next three years. Since the ’sixties 33 750 Indians from the most terrible of slum conditions have been resettled in orderly communities.

Surely there are unlimited opportunities for the Indians in South Africa. I want to say that nowhere in the world, except in India itself, have the Indians been given the encouragement which they have been given by this Government. Nowhere except here with us are they encouraged to have their children educated in their mother tongue in their own schools by their own teachers. Furthermore, they have their own college and their own university at which they are taught by their own lecturers and professors. The Indians in South Africa are an absolutely free nation and a nation which is obtaining even greater independence. Nowhere but in South Africa is the Indian nation being protected and assisted to such an extent to continue to exist as a distinctive nation with its own identity, language and culture.

The Indians have unlimited opportunities in South Africa. Recently the Government established the Indian Industrial Corporation with the exclusive purpose of enabling the Indians to make a greater contribution to the development of South Africa in the industrial sphere. This will automatically result in greater Indian investment in our industries and in turn it will give rise to greater employment opportunities for Indians. In Natal alone, Indian industrialists already own or control more than 800 factories. New opportunities have been created for the Indians in our Defence Force in the form of the Naval unit at Salisbury Island near Durban. The officiating staff there can even become officers. Nothing is put in their way. There are four autonomous Indian local authorities in Natal of which two, Isipingo and Verulam, already have municipal status. I can quote from this fine report to which that—I almost said wretched—hon. member referred as a pathetic report. On page 14 of the report, R.P. 19—’78, we read the following in chapter 3—

This is what happened, in addition to the literally thousands of other Indians who have been employed by the Public Service. As a result of the Government’s policy of parallel development, it has also been possible for the Indians to establish their own bank, The New Republic Bank, with branches, inter alia, in Durban and Johannesburg. The Indian directors decided to expand the bank even further and a branch was then opened at Chatsworth as well. There are also more than 2 000 Indian sugar cane farmers, in addition to all the Indian vegetable farmers in South Africa, who are served by their own agricultural advisers. I want to repeat and emphasize that nowhere in the world are the Indians as well off and as well treated as here in South Africa. At the moment we are on the threshold of tremendous political developments and changes in terms of which the Indians will even be able to elect their own Prime Minister and draw up their own Cabinet which may consist of Indian Ministers. Their Prime Minister and Ministers will be absolutely equal to the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Whites. After all this, the hon. member for Musgrave still had the temerity to allege that the contents of the report were pathetic. On the contrary, it is not a pathetic report; it is a brilliant report and this man who is criticizing it, is pathetic. It is because he is pathetic that he is criticizing the report.

I want to conclude by telling the Indian leaders that they must walk the road with us, because we are dependent on one another. Without one another we cannot walk the road which will lead to the well-being of every nation in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave asked certain questions about the Indian Industrial Development Corporation, inter alia, and I assure that he now knows that this industrial development corporation was established by means of legislation by Parliament last year and that it was put into operation by proclamation 189 of 26 August 1977. The corporation has six directors, three of which are Indians. The other three are Whites. I trust that the hon. member has further information in this regard. However, other information has been given to me by the Minister of Economic Affairs, which I want to mention here in the House. It was decided that the State would initially take up the A and B shares at a rate of 1 million per year as from the 1977-’78 financial year. All the A shares were taken up in this financial year up to and including the 1979-’80 financial year. In addition, approval was obtained for taking up a further R750 000 worth of shares. The capital was used to take over some Indian assets from the IIDC. Provided that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs agrees to it, the IIDC can only raise loans up to an amount equal to not more than half the total of its fully paid-up share capital and its reserve fund. To summarize, the following progress can be reported as regards the IIDC’s activities: Approximately 90 inquiries have been received so far concerning the establishment and expansion of manufacturing industries; of these, 60% came from Durban and Pietermaritzburg. 43 inquiries were received from enterprises which do not qualify for aid from the IIDC. 59 of these inquiries were accompanied by actual requests for financial aid, amounting to a total of R6 477 000. After the original analysis and scaling down of unrealistic figures, the number of applications which can ultimately qualify for financial aid, has been set at 25. Of these 25 applications, nine have been submitted to the board of directors of the IIDC, and the financial aid involved here may amount to R1 187 000. Another major proposition, which must still comply with certain requirements, is pending. The remaining 16 applications, which look very promising according to provisional investigations, will involve aid amounting to R1 263 000.

I should like to express a few ideas in connection with the Indian’s role in the present economic set-up. It may unjustly have been said on many occasions in the past that the Indian has chiefly concerned himself with retail and wholesale trade and that he has rather over-occupied that sphere. However, one must ask oneself what the reason for this is. The reason may largely be found in the fact that there were very few other types of work available to the Indian community.

From the moment the Indian community was accepted as a permanent part of the South African population, however, this situation changed rapidly and young Indians rushed to the cities from the rural areas where they were immediately absorbed into big White and Indian businesses. I shall indicate later how the economically active Indian is distributed in the commercial and industrial world. Young Indians have realized that there is no future for them in commerce and that due to the great manpower shortage, there is an excellent challenge for them in other directions of commerce.

As regards the diversification of business enterprise, the Indians have responded very well to an appeal made to them by the Government to enter the industrial sphere and create work for their own people. At the moment, more than R50 million has been invested by Indians in various branches of the manufacturing industry.

The hon. member for Port Natal mentioned in a speech in this House last year that there were already more than 800 of these industries in the possession of Indians in Natal. These industries provide work to more than 16 000 Indians. The quality of the products manufactured by these industries is very high and they can also be exported with pride.

As a result of all the challenges with which the South African community is progressively being faced, and the fact that within the next decade or two, according to calculations, Whites will be able to fill only 40% of the skilled jobs, the contribution of the Indians, the Bantu and the Coloured people in South Africa is essential. The Indians are fully aware of the fact that training and additional schooling are necessary in this regard and the Government has done a great deal to help them in providing training facilities in order to equip them for the challenge of the future.

I should like to point out a few interesting facts. In 1975, there were only 89 947 Indian children at school. In 1977, the figure had already risen to 195 267. In 1947, only 3% of the Indian children attended high school; today it is 26%. From 1966 up to and including June 1975, the Government made 83 new primary schools and 33 high schools available. This was accomplished at a cost of R50 million, which does not even include the cost of land, supplies and installations. Furthermore, there is also the tremendous expansion at the University of Durban-Westville, which has 4 030 students at the moment. According to calculations, at least 10 000 students will study at this university within the next decade. The university showed a growth of 19% in 1977; this year the growth is 14%. The tendency for the Indians to diversify and to become more career conscious and enter various professions can also be noticed in the Public Service. In the period 1969 to 1974, 44% more Indians joined the S.A. Railways. During the period 1970 to 1975, 88% more Indians joined the Post Office. This tendency can also be noticed amongst the Indian women. The Indian woman has systematically changed her role, as women in general have already done so drastically this century. In that respect the Indian woman has also done her share. The Indian woman occupied 0,573% of the labour market in 1951, 0,87% in 1960 and 1,28%, in 1970. At the moment, 44% of the Indians studying at teachers training colleges are ladies. 31% of the students at the Indian universities are ladies. All these aspects are important. As soon as the mother must leave her home, the question of creches and child care becomes extremely important. The Government has also given attention to this aspect. This information was announced to the Indian community by the chairman of the Indian Council. In February 1978 he made an excellent announcement in this regard in Fiat Lux. In a summary of the results of manpower survey No. 12 by the Department of Labour, an exposition was given of the total manpower of the RSA and South West Africa on 29 April 1977. The role of the economically active Indian in this regard has changed considerably since a similar survey which was made in 1973. I should just like to give a few facts. In 1973, 9 568 Indians were employed in professional, semi-professional and technical positions, and according to the latest report, 15 728 of them are so employed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, my use last night of the word “pathetic” in relation to aspects of the report by the department, appears to have been misconstrued by more than one hon. speaker today. The hon. member for Umhlanga suggested that I had said that the Indian Council was pathetic. My Hansard shows that I dealt with aspects of the report. It states that the comments about what the Indian Council is or has been doing, are almost pathetic when one views it as a body which is supposed to be representative. I was referring for instance to the frequency of its meetings, to the fact that it met only three times in one year for a maximum period of four days each time. Certainly I was not imputing that the council, or members of the council, are pathetic. I regard these people as people who are serving their community to the best of their ability. I criticized the system and certainly not the individuals who are doing their duty in this regard.

I want to deal with certain aspects relating to Indian education. Perhaps I should commence by saying to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House obviously welcome very much indeed the announcement he made last night that the department is now moving very close towards providing free compulsory education for members of the Indian community. We welcome that statement as it is very much in line with our own thinking.

It is the Indian Council executive and not the department which is moving towards it.

Anyway, we welcome it. We believe it obviously also brings Indian education in line with White education, a privilege White people have enjoyed for a number of years. This is generally our attitude in regard to education. When I dealt last night with the example cited in the report as to what the powers of the proposed elected Indian Council might be in dealing with matters affecting the Indian community only, such as education, I was not criticizing the ability of the proposed Indian Council in dealing with education, but was saying that as far as we were concerned, we did not regard the subject of education as being peculiar to one particular racial group. We believe we should move towards a situation in which we have one State department controlling education in South Africa and that there should not be division in educational matters on racial lines. One therefore views with approval the announcement that there will be compulsory education for all members of the Indian community.

I also want to say that one also views with approval the steps which have been taken to improve the salary scales of Indian teachers, these people who play a very vital role in the life of the Indian community. However, there do appear to be certain aspects of the new salary scales on which I should like some explanation from the hon. the Minister. It appears that these scales are not satisfactory. Indian teachers have complained that there is a three-notch gap between the scales for Whites and the scales for Indians holding promotion posts. It has been suggested that this can be a disparity of as much as R150 per month between principals of the two racial groups. While there is to be a common key scale relating to salaries, the disparity apparently results from Blacks and Indians being notched at a lower scale on the same key scale. I should like the hon. the Minister to elucidate on this, because quite clearly the department, if it is going to be dealing with a professional class of people doing a particular job, should be moving rapidly away from any sort of disparity between people doing the same job, but who happen to be of different racial groups. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to the extra edition of the Natal Mercury of 29 March, which was designed specifically for the Indian community, where the Indian Teachers’ Organization first of all complained that they were not consulted in any way about the proposed salary scales, and where they say that they have still not achieved parity and express discontent and disappointment at this sort of situation. As an example it is quoted that an Indian deputy director, if one were to be appointed now, would receive something like 89% of his White counterpart’s salary.

They also go on to say that an Indian chief inspector would, according to the salary scales, be receiving something like 89% of the salary of his White counterpart. These may be discrepancies; there may be a reason for it, but, quite clearly, this sort of disparity is something which one wants to avoid when dealing with the teaching profession.

I now wish to move to another matter, namely the policy of the hon. the Minister with regard to the provision of certain books to Indian school libraries, the type of books which are supplied to the library and the cost of these books. I want to refer specifically to a book which is becoming well known in this House: Stepping into the Future, a book which Dr. Rhoodie’s Department of Information commissioned for free distribution overseas and which deals with Black education in South Africa. Apparently a copy of this book has been sent to almost every single Indian school library in South Africa, without the principals of the schools asking for it to be supplied. Furthermore, the books have been supplied to the schools at a cost, not of R3 or R4—or whatever the dispute was last week—but at a cost of no less than R7. I wonder if the hon. the Minister is aware of this. Stepping into the Future is the book which is distributed overseas for nothing. But Indian primary and high schools in South Africa are asked to pay R7 for it. In the first place I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I think it is very questionable whether this book is suitable in any case for primary and high school libraries. It is a technical work designed, apparently, by the Department of Information for overseas consumption, and one wonders what on earth this book has of interest to pupils at primary and high schools amongst our Indian community. It is also questionable whether the department has been involved in what might be termed good business when it buys a book for R7, a book which is given away free overseas and which costs the Department of Information R4. One wonders what sort of business this is. One wonders, too, who received the profit. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us. From whom was the book bought? Was it bought from the publishers or was it taken over from the Department of Information? When a book costs the Department of Information, according to some of the evidence, R4, why should the Indian schools be told that they have to pay R7 for it?

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

No, Sir, my time is very limited. I received a telex which purports to be a copy of a circular sent out by the division of education of the Department of Indian Affairs on 10 May last year. It was addressed to the principal, State-aided Indian High and Primary Schools, and it says—

1. (1) The aforementioned book ordered on order No. M599201 from Messrs. Erudita Publications at R7 each is enclosed.
2. (2) The amount of R7 has been debited against your 1977-’78 library allocation.
3. (3) Please complete the certificate and return to this office immediately.

Apparently it was signed by the Director of Indian Education. In other words, the principals of the schools did not even have the option of saying whether they wanted books in their libraries or not. Somebody had wished it upon them. Suddenly, in the post, the book is received by Indian school libraries and they are told that they are debited with the amount of R7 for the book. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he considers this as good business. Who takes the decisions about what goes into these school libraries? Why should Indian school principals be denied the opportunity of deciding what they want in their libraries or not? I gather the normal procedure is that they are in fact sent lists of books and that they indicate what books they want in their libraries. However, in this particular case, a book, which has become a very controversial book in current South Africa, is simply sent to them and they are told that their school library allowance is being debited with the amount of R7.

Someone is getting rid of it somehow.

Yes, one just wonders whether this is just an attempt to get rid of the book somehow. Perhaps overseas sources cannot take up the book. So some Government department in South Africa decides that the book should go to Indian primary and high schools. It is a situation which, I think, requires an answer from the hon. the Minister. I think we should know. Apparently, the book was bought directly from the publishers, not from the Department of Information. We would like to know what was paid to the publishers. Is this another attempt to help Mr. Van Rensburg’s private organization? What was the price the Department of Indian Education paid the publishers for the book? Was it R4 or R7? Who is making the profit in this case? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, after last night, we have again had occasion today to listen to the PFP’s chief spokesman on Indian Affairs. In connection with what the hon. member for Musgrave said last night, I want to make just one remark. He said that he regarded it as his task to criticize the Government’s policy with regard to and its handling of this Vote as he saw fit. On that, I am 100% in agreement with the hon. member. That is, after all, the purpose of this debate. I believe it is one of the basic, underlying principles in democracy that people who differ with one another are given the opportunity of dissecting and criticizing one another’s policy to the best of their ability. But I do want to point out to the hon. member that in politics and in the aspiration to rule a particular country, the converse is also true in political debate and in political dialogue. This is that while one has the right and the privilege to criticize the Government of the day, it is also absolutely essential that the party that regards itself as the alternative Government should in turn come forward and say how it would tackle things. In the political debates in South Africa, this is absolutely essential. If the hon. member and his party are not prepared to state an alternative, therefore, they may be sure that they will always remain but a small percentage within the White community.

The other population groups ought to take note of the fact that the PFP is the mouthpiece of a very small group of people within the White population group. I want to point out to the hon. member for Musgrave—to him and to those who are listening to me, and who will later read these debates—that earlier this year, we had a debate on the education policies of both the NP and the PFP. On that occasion, the hon. member for Musgrave also referred to his party’s education policy.

In the light of what the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Pinelands have said, I now want to ask that hon. member a question. He must explain to us how he is going to implement those two hon. members’ viewpoints in practice in a school where there are, for example, 200 Zulus, 200 Indians and 200 Whites. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has said that, according to their policy, the barriers which exist between nations must be broken down. The hon. member for Pinelands has said the dividing lines must become less distinct—in other words, they must be broken down. That hon. member must now prove in practice how, in such a school, one is going to foster, in members of the Zulu nation, in the English of Natal and in the Indians, the type of attitude to which the hon. member for Pinelands referred when he said that we should create a restlessness in our educational policy. He also quoted a certain French educationalist in that connection. In other words, when the hon. member criticizes the hon. the Minister about the educational policy as it is implemented by the department in cooperation with the Indian Council, he must tell us how they are going to apply their policy. The hon. member, who is now very comfortably sitting with his back to me, merely criticizes the external facets of an educational policy. It is the external, minor things in the department’s handling of matters which he is criticizing—but how is he going to apply the basic principles of his educational policy in this multinational society in which we live?

I made the statement last night that relations between the Indians and the Whites in South Africa were beginning to improve. I said the reason for that was that the attitude between these two population groups was improving. [Interjections.] I quoted from history to prove what the position was 20 years ago. I quoted what a man like Joshi, for example, wrote in 1951 when he said what a hard time the Indian population in South Africa was having. In contrast to that, I also quoted what had happened in the rest of Africa. There are still more quotations which I should like to make in this connection.

It is important that everyone of us who is a leader and who wants to serve the interests of South Africa should remember a few things. To begin with, I want to refer to a word which is very popular today. People in liberal circles often use this word in respect of the Afrikaner when they say that we should become “mature” and make certain adaptations in our society. I agree with that. The leaders of the different nations in South Africa, however one might wish to see South Africa, must be mature. Whether a leader be an Afrikaner, an English-speaking person, a White, an Indian, a Zulu or whatever, it is important that he should display the greatest measure of maturity. There are a few requirements which a person must meet to be a mature leader of his people and of a particular community in this country. One of those is that one must recognize the diversity of peoples in South Africa. That is something which must be repeated here, and in spite of what the hon. member for Pinelands has said, namely that we are living in a small world and belong to one great human community, one cannot do away with diversity. One has to accept that. The moment one accepts that, one has progressed one step towards becoming a mature leader. The second requirement —one which is related to that—is that when one recognizes that diversity, one should also promote respect and understanding for the other population group. I now want to make a categorical statement in this connection. I have now been a member of the NP caucus for 12 years, and I want to state today that the statements made by the NP leaders inside and outside the party ranks are exactly the same. If there is one person who has taught me during the past 12 years that I must have respect, appreciation and understanding for the other man and for the other nation, then it is Mr. Vorster. The Prime Minister of South Africa is pre-eminently a man who does not merely advocate in public this concept of respect towards other people, but also strongly impresses it upon his own people that they must have that understanding and appreciation. The second quality of mature leadership, therefore is that one should also respect the other man’s right to his own identity, and that one should have an understanding for that. In other words, if we in South Africa want peace in the sense in which a son of Mr. Gandhi referred to it in an article, we in South Africa will be an example to the rest of the world. One must also accept barriers. I must know that I have a barrier which can keep other people out, and that there are also barriers beyond which I cannot go.

There is still another quality which is required for mature leadership. A mature leader must be able to understand and absorb the lessons of history. But if one listens to the leaders of the PFP, one realizes that they merely quote history as it suits them and from sources which suit them. I quoted last night what Joshi had written in 1951, three years after the NP had come to power. He ascribed all the problems of the Indian population in South Africa to the NP, which had then only been in power for three years. But it is wrong to react in that way. It is a great mistake to make such statements. If I, as a leader of the Whites, want to show a sense of perspective in respect of the situation in South Africa, I must know history very thoroughly. But there is a great dearth of knowledge and historic depth in South Africa, and the PFP members are the people who particularly—I do not want to say “falsely”—interpret the history in South Africa as it suits them. Some time ago a book written by Mr. Bala Pillay appeared. The title of the book is British Indians in the Transvaal (1885-1906). It is surprising that the problems of the Indian population, which the hon. member for Musgrave today calmly ascribes to the NP, are problems which are as old as the coming of those people to this country. Now the NP must…

The NP has been in power for 30 years.

The hon. member says we have been ruling for 30 years. But I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout something. If I had been 50 years old and had been in Parliament for 21 years—how long has the hon. member been here?—I should have felt very badly about such a standpoint. We must not think in South Africa that one can display mature leadership by misrepresenting the facts of history. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, after what I have now heard, I am sorry that I was not in the House yesterday evening. Evidently the hon. member for Musgrave wants to arrogate to himself the right to criticize as, when and where he likes. Before I go further, I should first like to thank the hon. member for Rissik sincerely for the speech he has just made. He stated the matter in the correct perspective. He put the case to us very clearly and as it should be seen by all, including the Opposition. Last night the hon. member for Musgrave—I want to state this very clearly—said, according to the Natal Mercury (I was not in the House at the time) the following—

But this afternoon, the hon. member thanks the hon. the Minister for certain things which he has announced. How is one to understand those people? As I understand matters, when a member or an organization or a Government has been driven into a comer, it fights. But we are not going to fight. We want to give the world the facts about what this Government has done for the Indian community since 1948. That is what we seek to and wish to do. In consequence of what the hon. member for Musgrave has said, I do want to ask him whether he really knows what the facts are. Does he know that an Indian Council is in existence and that in 1974, this Indian Council was constituted with 15 elected and 15 appointed members? Before that, there were 25 appointed members.

I want to go further. The hon. the Prime Minister opened the third session of the Indian Council in November 1974, and I want to quote what he said on that occasion. I do so specifically because the Official Opposition and also the NRP are forever sending stories into the world to the effect that we do things without consulting the Indian community. The hon. the Prime Minister said—

Surely that is the truth. That has been the basis of action through the years. Our ultimate aim is that the Indians will manage their own affairs and, by way of the new dispensation and the proposed Cabinet Council, very rapid progress is now being made in that direction. The hon. the Prime Minister and also the hon. Leader of the House have spelt that out very clearly. The Government and the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs always negotiate with these people before they take any decisions.

It is ironical to me that the Official Opposition and the NRP are for ever pointing a finger at us.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must keep quiet, because he knows nothing about Indians. While they are pointing a finger at us, I want to ask them what they have done for the Indians in the past, or what their people have done for the Indians when they were still in power. They must not reply to that by saying that I am talking about things that happened 40 years ago. I want an answer to the question as to what they did at the time.

I have put this question to them before, in the Other Place. I have also asked it of them on a previous occasion in this House. But they have never answered the question. I want to put it plainly: Do you know, Sir, what they guarded against when they were in power? They said openly at the time that the Indian community was a burden to them—I am now speaking specifically of Natal. [Interjections.] They went further and said they could not provide housing for those people and that they were afraid that those people would oust them economically and socially. Did they, then, never consider the welfare of the Indian community as they are today asking us to do?

Are you people now the liberators of the Indians? [Interjections.]

We as the Government are not obsessed by the White man as they are obsessed by the non-White. They never look at the White man. We look at everybody, the White as well as the non-White, the Indian and the Coloured.

I want to point out what the Government has already done for the Indian community. The hon. members opposite must note what has already been done by the Government. I have already referred to the Indian Council, which the hon. member for Musgrave tried to belittle. The hon. the Prime Minister has held out the prospect that Indians may be appointed to statutory bodies. He referred, among other things, to the Group Areas Board and the Road Safety Council as examples in this respect. In 1974, a representative of the Indian community was included in the deputation to the UN. It is very clear to me that when one starts treading on the toes of the hon. members opposite, they turn their backs on one and sit and chat instead of listening. What is more, in 1976 the first two Indians began their training as information officers—through the agency of this Government.

I could continue in this vein. I just want to mention in passing, however, that Indians are being taken into the Defence Force and also into the Departments of Justice, of Police, of Prisons and of Posts and Telecommunications. That has been referred to earlier in the debate. Indian schools, colleges and an Indian university have been established by the Government because we want to give those people, too, the right to accomplish what we claim for ourselves.

I should like to quote a few figures as far as housing is concerned. I have already said that those people never did anything when they were in power. They did not move a finger to help the Indians. To prove my point, I want to quote figures in respect of three periods. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Central not to talk to his colleagues around him, but to keep quiet and to listen. The period from 1920 to 1948 extends over 28 years and in that time, only 1 190 houses were built at a cost of R1,565 million. The period from 1973 to 1977 stretches over five years and in that period, under the present Government, 13 325 homes were built at a cost of R65,145 million. The homes to which I have now referred, were all built for Indians. What is more, the private sector has also built 6 985 houses for Indians over the period of five years.

Before levelling criticism and trying to drag the Government through the mud, we should look at everything which has been established and remember that those people have been given the right to go ahead. Under this Government, the Indians began to show an interest—I have already said so this afternoon—in entering commerce and industry. In this connection, I want to quote a paragraph from Progress in Intergroup and Interrace Relations, 1970-’77, by our information service—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was very pleasant to listen to the hon. members for Rissik and Umhlatuzana. The fact that we have three NP members speaking in succession must make the strength of the NP clear to everyone. Three of us speak for every one of them. The NP has the strength, and for that reason it is a good thing for those who have the interests of their own identity or national group at heart, to become aware of this so that they may realize that they should co-operate with the governing party and not allow themselves to be misled by the newspapers that want to blow up that small political party into something big.

Before I go any further, I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. the Minister yesterday evening. I have told him personally that in my opinion it was an excellent speech. I am really sorry that the members of the Executive of the Indian Council who are here today, could not have heard the speech made by the hon. the Minister yesterday evening. It was a wonderful speech in which the policy and the attitude of our party were honestly and genuinely set out.

I also want to come back to the policy of the NRP as stated by the hon. member for Umhlanga. The hon. member said the central business area should be thrown open for all to have their shops there. At one stage there was a reference to pluralism, a policy those hon. members were allegedly going to start this year. I could not understand the policy at the time and now I understand it even less. But if, for example, one were to disallow large shopping complexes in the Indian community, the foundation assessment rate on which that local authority is to build its structure, would simply be lacking. One cannot build communities unless one gives them shops, so that one may have an assessment rate foundation. It is on this very point that the argument of the hon. member for Umhlanga goes wrong. The hon. member did not say whether he would allow Coloureds admission to the central business area, nor did he say anything about the Black people. The hon. member was discriminating against these population groups in that he did not want them to build a community as well.

Now I want to say something about a matter of more immediate concern to my own constituency of Pretoria West…

[Inaudible.]

I have become so accustomed to the barking of that hon. member that I no longer take any notice of him. If the hon. member were to try and address me in Afrikaans, I might perhaps listen, but I do not believe he is able to do so and consequently there is no danger of that. The fact of the matter is that in my constituency there is the fine Indian township of Laudium, and in the vicinity of Laudium there are certain White areas as well. Contact between those people is normally on a very friendly basis; there is no friction. In general they co-exist peaceably. I have had the privilege of being invited to one or two of the functions at Laudium, and I really enjoyed myself. I think it is fair that it should be said here in this House that at those functions, the people talk about the hon. the Minister only with praise, even in his absence and without his being aware of it.

It happened that a shortage of housing arose for the Indian community of Laudium. Across the street, not very far from there, there was the fine White residential area called Claudius. There had to be extensions for the Indian population somewhere, and it was then decided to have an investigation conducted into the question as to whether Claudius would not be suitable for Indian occupation. After a proper investigation had been conducted it was decided that Claudius would indeed be suitable for that purpose and that it would be preferable to have the Indian community living there—mainly with the agreement of the inhabitants of Claudius. With the agreement of the vast majority of the inhabitants of Claudius. With the agreement of the vast majority of the inhabitants of Claudius, a proclamation was published last year deproclaiming the area, and at the moment it is a proclaimed Indian area. I want to say at once that some of the White people were very sad to leave Claudius, but they felt, in the interest of good relations, that it was correct that people who are sharing this country with us, have a place in the sun as well. That is the position there at present.

Near Laudium and Claudius there are two other White areas, namely Erasmia and Christoburg. These two areas are extremely nice and I want to advise anyone who wants to buy a house in Pretoria, to go and buy there, as it is such a pleasant area. Unfortunately, however, there is a problem in the sense that there are certain newspapers in Pretoria which try to give out that the continued existence of Erasmia and Christoburg as White areas is in the balance. I believe these newspapers are doing the communities that have to co-exist in that area a disservice. The first reason for my putting it in this way is that in the light of information at my disposal, it is totally untrue to allege that the continued existence of Erasmia and Christoburg as White areas is in the balance. In the second place the papers are doing those communities a disservice, communities that have to get on with each other, in that the papers are arousing expectations that cannot be satisfied. In the third place, unnecessary areas of frictions are being created—not by the people themselves, but by the newspapers.

The object of my speech today is to tell those newspapers please to be more circumspect in connection with these delicate matters. If they want to obtain information, they should turn to responsible leaders of all the communities concerned, and they must be careful what they publish, because the communities are living together in goodwill and we should like it to continue that way.

I am pleased that the members of the Executive of the Indian Council are here today. I also want to say to them that there are channels through which one can do things. I want to request them to point out to people in their ranks who might possibly act irresponsibly in this regard, that one must proceed carefully if one wants to maintain good relations in one’s dealings. I believe one thing: The newspapers do obtain information from somewhere and there are people who may perhaps be giving wrong information deliberately for their own personal gain. Therefore, my request to the hon. the Minister is that when he discusses these matters with the members of the Executive, to tell them, as I should like to tell them today, that what we are concerned with here is human relations. We do have irresponsible elements in our midst—on both sides of the fence—and we must please use them to promote good human relationships and not to bedevil them. I want to address the same appeal to the newspapers.

Mr. Chairman, it will really be a pleasure for me to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria West, who has just resumed his seat. I should like to explain to him what the hon. member for Umhlanga told him with regard to the policy of this new, dynamic party, the NRP. [Interjections.] Unfortunately my time is very limited, but I shall definitely reply to a few matters raised by the hon. members for Pretoria West and Umhlatuzana.

I am very impressed with the hon. member for Pretoria West, who has just spoken of good human relations. I want to tell him that if he continues in that way, their policy, although they are somewhat bankrupt, will go far. Unfortunately it is a fact that the relations policy accepted and implemented by the Government amounts to people of colour in South Africa having to accept that what the Government says is right and in the best interest of the race group concerned. Recently we saw the outcome of this type of relations policy. We do not have to think far back to recall what happened in the Transkei. Nor do we have to go very far back to see what happened with regard to the new political dispensation proposed by the Government for the Indians. They rejected it. The Government, however, has the idea to continue doing up a new political dispensation in new wrapping-paper and tying it up with a pretty piece of string. If the string and the wrapping-paper are not the right colour, they simply put new wrapping-paper around it until the small thing in the package, the political policy, has been wrapped up and tied up with so many different pieces of wrapping-paper and string that one eventually no longer really knows what the political policy is.

I just want to make one thing clear to the hon. member for Pretoria West. Our policy does not state that the central business district is exclusively for the use of one of the race groups in South Africa. It is open to all. If a person has the money to buy a plot or to erect a building in such a district, he will naturally be a ratepayer. Such a person will, regardless of his race, pay the same rates and taxes as the man who owns the shop next to his. If he is able to maintain the standards of his neighbour, he will, of course, do good business. That is the whole story. Perhaps we shall invite the hon. member one day to spend an hour or two in our company and then we shall give him a careful explanation of what the right direction in South Africa is.

In words of one syllable.

Yes, in words of one syllable.

*Actually hon. members are making me waste my time in that I wanted to raise a few matters with the hon. the Minister but still want to come back to what was said by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. member actually said here today that this party was sending information abroad which was bad for South Africa.

Scandalous!

I want to challenge the hon. member to substantiate his statement and to tell us from where he obtained that information. What is more, the hon. member is a Natalian. We cannot credit that. [Interjections.]

†I want to address the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and should like to repeat what I have said earlier on—perhaps my Afrikaans is not always that good after 20 years in Natal—that the problem with the policy of the Government, as far as all race groups are concerned and as far as it is personified by the hon. the Minister and his department in their attitude to the Indians, is that they think that hand-outs will convince the Indian people of South Africa that the policies of the Government are for them. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that hand-outs will never gain the conviction and the loyalty of people. It is sincerity, integrity and insight into the problems of those people which will make them loyal to South Africa.

I want to refer only to one aspect of the report concerning the hon. the Minister’s department. The figures they give us are totally inconsistent with reality. They are well camouflaged and selective. I want to give an example. The hon. the Minister’s publication called Community Development—a lovely publication in terms of paper—tells us that subeconomic houses can be built at just over R4 000. However, if we look at the figures for Phoenix, we find that the 1 500 houses which have been built there cost the taxpayers of this country R20 million, taking into account the infrastructure. I do not say that we do not like to give the Indians these houses. I am only presenting figures. The average cost of these houses is R13 333. This proves again that the wrapping does not make the policy good. The 4 500 houses still to be built in Phoenix will cost the taxpayer R50 million, the average cost of a house being R11 111. The infrastructure is normally 50% of the cost, but even allowing for that, it means that the average cost of the houses built and to be built in Phoenix will be R6 111. If that is in fact the case, that is the kind of figure the hon. the Minister should put into his publication. He must not tell us that the cost of a house is approximately R4 400 and then forget to tell us that the infrastructure that goes with it has not been taken into account.

I should also like to point out the problem the Indian people of South Africa have in terms of the economic situation. It is known that 50,5% of the Indian male population is in the age group 0 to 19 years. The demand for houses is going to increase by the year and not decrease. The waiting list for houses in Durban alone is 24 340. We see that only 30% of the Indian population are economically active at an average wage, in 1976, of R197 per month. How are these people going to be able to afford those kind of houses? From 1964 to 1974 the Indian population increased at an average rate of 17 800 people per annum.

Allowing for the fact that when two people marry they can live in the same house, we are going to require 8 900 new houses per annum to keep abreast of the increase in the population, let alone the backlog of 24 000 houses in Durban. Based on the figures we have for Phoenix, it means that the hon. the Minister’s department will have to budget for R108 million per annum just to keep up with the increase in the population.

I have been negative so far because I am querying the presentation of the figures and the cost factor given to us by the hon. the Minister. I am not questioning the fact that we are giving houses to the Indian community. They desperately need them because of the social and economic problems they have.

I should now like to refer to one positive aspect. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is possible for him to consider explaining to us how the self-help system works in Lenasia. They used this self-help method to build over 1 300 houses in Lenasia, reported as being a city in the making. How did that system work and what were the comparative economic costs of building a house under that system? I should also like to know about the time factor and the acceptability factor.

You are asking the wrong department.

I would just like to know what system was used. How did it work, and is it possible to use the same kind of system in the areas in Natal if it has not already been used? I say this because when one gets people involved in a system, when they participate in the decision-making and in the construction of those houses, they have a sense of pride and a sense of involvement. That is the kind of attitude which we want, not an attitude that they are only to be given hand-outs. The question which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister is: How did the self-help system work in Lenasia? Did it in fact work? Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us how well it worked there and whether it is possible to get that kind of system going in Natal.

I should now like to return briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Roodepoort to illustrate once again how the selective editing of figures can mislead one in terms of the intentions of the Government. The hon. member quoted figures in respect of children at school. I think it was 89 000 to 159 000 in the second period. But he does not tell us what percentage of the population it was. He does not tell us about the people who did not go to school. It was exactly the same when he told us about the economic involvement of the Indian community and what percentage of that community is affected. He did not give us the comparative statistics. Why does he not tell us how that figure fits in with the rest of the South African population? It is this gimmickery with figures which the Government is trying to use to show that they are doing wonderful things for the other population groups, when the truth of the matter is that only 30% of the Indian population are economically active. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think now is an appropriate time for me to reply to contributions made by hon. members. It might give hon. members opposite the opportunity, if they wish, of reacting to my replies. I want to start off by thanking hon. members on the Government side for their contributions. I listened with great interest to each speech. Each was a really constructive and worthwhile contribution. The hon. member for Newcastle pertinently asked our Indian community where they stood in South Africa now, since the time when they were first recognized as a permanent South Africans several years ago when we became a Republic, when their status changed from South African Indians to Indian South Africans. I have a great deal of faith in our Indian community and I am confident that with the advent of the new constitutional dispensation, this important population group in South Africa will also receive the opportunity to show us and the world where they stand with their newly-won precious status as South Africans. I am looking forward to that with interest, and I am grateful that the hon. member for Newcastle mentioned it.

The hon. member for Kimberley South and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana spoke mostly about the progress made by the Indian nation, especially since 1961, when the Department of Indian Affairs was established. I am very grateful to them for giving such a clear exposition of this and for emphasizing the right aspects, because I think that we Whites, who are primarily responsible for those nations that have not hitherto enjoyed full political rights, should pause from time to time and take stock of what we are doing and how we are progressing. Therefore, it is gratifying to know that, with regard to the Indian community, we can view our achievements with a clear conscience, and we can be inspired by that to greater aspirations for the future.

The hon. member for Roodepoort—I am especially grateful to him for that—took the trouble of doing something which I could not easily do. He went to the Department of Industries and got a progress report of the Indian Industrial Development Corporation for us. The story of this corporation—I am glad to be able to say this—is also an inspiring one of constructive building and of good relations in South Africa. The hon. member raised a matter which is very dear to me. That is the role our Indians play in the economy of South Africa, with special reference to the remarkable diversification of their economic activities during the past 17 years. There was a time—and I experienced it myself—when nearly all our Indians worked in hotels, were retailers or worked in the sugar plantations. Today they are beginning to pull their weight to an increasing extent in every sector of the economic life in South Africa. After my department began to encourage them to enter the industrial field, they invested R30 million in the secondary industries of South Africa within 15 years. In fact, it seems as if we shall be able to report one of these days that they have invested their second R30 million in that field in an even shorter period. They are industrious people, who make use of their opportunities and who do so to their own benefit and to the advantage of the whole of South Africa.

In an exceptional contribution the hon. member for Rissik discussed the policies of the governing party in South Africa. He quite rightly emphasized the responsibilities resting on people who have to take the lead and who have to show the qualities of leadership. The hon. member also asked us to take note of the lessons of history. Sometimes I really wish that the Official Opposition would just take note of the lessons of history, not only the history of the 19th century, but especially the history of Africa since the Second World War. I want to encourage the hon. member for Rissik to continue with these important history lessons he is giving the Official Opposition.

He should just read the right books!

The hon. member for Pretoria West spoke about the conditions at Laudium and about the expansions taking place there. The hon. member expressed his concern about reports in the newspapers which alleged that the townships of Erasmia and Christoburg might also be declared Indian areas. With the announcement that Claudius is to be an Indian area, and when we have succeeded, as we shall, in solving certain problems with regard to the occurrence of dolomite in that area, there will be a hinterland for the Indians of Pretoria and its environs. This is an area which will be able to meet their needs for many years. I am sure that the question of Erasmia or Christoburg is not in issue at all, and will certainly not be in issue during the lifetime of any of us. I cannot say what will happen afterwards, but I trust that once our Whites have settled there, they will not easily be removed.

It is true that a considerable number of Whites are being removed from Claudius. However, we cannot expect that only non-Whites should be removed in order to get orderly housing in South Africa. I want to express my appreciation towards the Whites of Claudius for the fine way in which they have accepted that they may have to move.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga made an interesting contribution, which I appreciated. I listened with great care and interest to what he had to say. He made the point that we should open up industrial areas for Indian occupation. The hon. member knows of course that industrial areas no longer have a group character. Anybody can enter such areas, acquire property and conduct business there.

The hon. member was also particularly concerned about the central business districts of our great cities. The hon. member expressed the opinion that, like the industrial areas, those areas too should be opened up for occupation by everybody. It is an interesting suggestion, not without merit, but unfortunately involving a great problem. I believe that one of the things we have achieved in South Africa is the granting to Indians of residential rights in their areas, rights of which they are availing themselves with imagination and in a manner which is to the great credit of their community. At the same time we are also escaping from developing problems in areas of mixed occupation— many of them slums—where there is always the worry about friction, such as exists in areas occupied by new immigrants in certain European countries. The central business districts do not consist only of commercial buildings. Every one of them has large numbers of dwellings as well as commercial businesses. The ground floors are usually commercial premises while the upper floors and offices or flats. I know Johannesburg, Pretoria and Cape Town well, and it is true of all of them. As far as I know, it is also true of Durban and other similar cities. Therefore, if we want to open the central business districts to the many races in South Africa, we must consider whether we are not going to cause once again the sort of problems we have had in the past, arising from mixed residential areas.

I was only talking about trading sites.

The hon. member must please give me a chance. If he thinks that can be overcome, I shall be interested to hear his suggestions. I may say, for the benefit of the hon. member, that a member of the S.A. Indian Council has come to us with an interesting suggestion in this connection. I cannot anticipate that matter now, but I can say that we are at the moment discussing it with the Departments of Planning and Community Development to see whether something can eventuate. I do, however, want to utter a warning in this regard. I think that, as a result of certain things which have been said by the Minister of Plural Relations, which are interesting and to which I subscribe wholeheartedly, we must be careful that we do not think that the Whites—and perhaps the Indians, as the hon. member has suggested— can selfishly develop almost exclusive major business areas in the central business districts of our White cities, and then expect all people from everywhere in that urban environment to conduct most of their business in the centre of the White cities. We now realize, in the case of Soweto, for instance, that what that area lacks chiefly is a central business district and important commercial centres. I am sure that would also apply to other urban Black areas. Our thinking for the future must be to give these people facilities in their own cities, if I may call them that, as well as opportunities to become entrepreneurs in the central business districts of their own cities. We must therefore cure ourselves slowly of the idea that we can, in the CBDs of the White cities, have a monopoly of trade amongst all the people of South Africa. That is something which happened accidentally in the past, but it cannot continue indefinitely in that way. Many of the problems raised by the hon. member have now been dealt with, but if he wants more details in this connection, I would suggest that we return to these matters on the next Vote, where they properly belong.

I now turn once more to the hon. member for Musgrave. I should like to be particularly punctilious today and reply to every point raised by the Official Opposition. That is why last night, before I sat down, I asked the hon. member whether he was satisfied that I had dealt with every point raised.

There is still the question of farmers.

Yes, I am glad the hon. member has mentioned that. As I have said, I want to deal with every point raised. I refer now to the question of agricultural land for the Indians. As a result of representations made by the Indian Council’s executive, I discussed this matter with the Minister of Planning.

He has now appointed a special committee to investigate ways in which we can make available to our Indian people adequate farming land according to their needs. I think we shall have a progress report from that committee very soon.

The hon. member also raised the question of unemployment among Indians last night, and expressed concern about the matter. I could not deal with the matter immediately because I lacked certain figures which I have since obtained from the Department of Labour. I want to say at once that if one single Indian or, for that matter, one single South African who wants to work is without a job, it is a matter of concern to all of us. We have, however, to accept that in every community throughout the world there is always a percentage of people who are unemployed. There are among them people who are unlucky because of economic circumstances. There are also “won’t works”, as well as people who move from one job to another and people coming anew on to the labour market. There are always a number of unemployed people, and when one looks at these figures with that in mind, the situation is not bad at all. We have in South Africa, according to calculations, about 241 000 economically active Indians. According to the most recent figures, for February 1978, there were 5 259 unemployed Indian people in South Africa. This is 2,2% of the total economically active population. It is not serious though it does demand attention. My department, the Department of Labour and the Indian Council are all actively engaged in finding further avenues of employment for the Indian and in creating more opportunity for them. My hon. friend will have seen in the Press that Sasol is interested in employing Indians in important jobs. Other institutions similar to Sasol are also being approached to see whether new avenues can possibly be opened to them. I want the hon. member to feel assured that we are aware of this problem. We do not want it to develop and therefore we are doing what we can to counteract it.

My hon. friend also raised certain matters involving education. He welcomed what he called the introduction of free and compulsory education. We have, however, only taken a further step forward—a very important step at that—based on achievements, of the past. For years now we have had compulsory education for all Indian children who go to school. If an Indian child went to school, he had to continue with that schooling compulsorily until he was 15 years of age. Only those who did not go to school—and they were a very small percentage because our Indian population is education conscious and keen to have its children educated—will, from January 1979, be compelled to go to school and stay at school until they are 15 years of age. Free education we have had since 1960 for those who go to school. From next year, however, on the same basis as for White children, all Indian children will have to go to school and if they are educable they will have to stay at school until they are 15 years of age.

My hon. friend then came up with a great climax to his speech. He sniffed a scandal and blossomed forth in great eloquence about the book Stepping into the Future published by the Department of Information. He was absolutely horrified at the fact that this book could be sent to libraries and that these libraries could be debited to the tune of R7. Let me put his mind at rest immediately. I cannot imagine that his could be a true copy of the relevant circular, but if it is, some mistake must have been made by an official in the department, because no school is being debited for any copy of this book they may have received. My department acquired these books, at the expense of the department, from the Department of Information.

For how much?

At R7 per copy, I think. We then distributed them to the schools.

That was bad business.

That was the price we were charged by the Department of Information, and we gladly paid it.

Who made the profit?

I shall tell hon. members why. We gladly paid the price because that is a book about the education of Indian, Coloured and Black children in South Africa, a very controversial subject and a very important subject to the people concerned. It was not compiled in the abstract by someone sitting in Pretoria. Each of the communities made an important contribution to the content of the book. My hon. friend has a copy there, but I do not think he has looked at it properly, because if he had, he would have seen from the title page that three inspectors of Indian education, men highly respected in their community and by the department, were members of the editorial board which compiled the book.

The names are there. I do not need to give them across the floor of the House. It is also a record of the achievements of the policies by the people directly concerned with the education of Indian children, and for that reason we felt it was right—and I support this wholeheartedly; I would do the same tomorrow—that since the Indian community had contributed to such an important book about the education of their children, the book ought to be in every library. The Department of Indian Affairs was therefore glad to make a contribution of this book to every library without debiting them with a single cent. This is part and parcel of the endeavour to bring information about the facts of life in South Africa to the people affected by Government policy.

You paid R7 for a book that cost the Department of Information R4.

The book cost R7 net. It was printed overseas. That was only the cost of printing. I do speak under correction, because I am not the Minister of Information. It seems to me, from what I can gather, that that was the cost of printing the book in England.

In Spain!

There are always additional expenses attached to the writing and distribution of a book. Let me now go on to something else.

*I want to talk very seriously to the hon. member for Musgrave and the members of the Opposition. I have done what every Minister does in the House when his Vote is discussed, i.e. to reply to every question of the Opposition as faithfully as possible, even if there are many shortcomings in his remarks, I have not concealed anything. Where they inquired after our policy, I have stated our policy. Now I want to ask them in all friendliness when they are going to do their duty towards the people of South Africa, and when they are going to reply to the pertinent questions on their policy which the hon. the Prime Minister asked them in the discussion of his Vote. When are they going to take the people into their confidence in this regard? They have had another opportunity to do it here. We are dealing with the Indian Affairs Vote. We are once again dealing with our relations politics, and therefore they had an opportunity to state their views, even if it was only with regard to the Indian population.

We do not see Indians; we only see South Africans.

However, they are keeping quiet. I have a lot of sympathy with them, because they have no policy. They are a party that has admitted before the people that one day when they are elected as the new Government—God forbid that that should ever happen—the first thing their leader will do will be to phone Chief Gatsha Buthelezi and all the others, not to be congratulated on his victory—one does not do such things— but to arrange a convention at which they will be able to work out their policy for the first time. They have admitted that this is their plan. Sir, have you ever in your life heard anything so ridiculous? I see Japie is shaking his head. He cannot believe it himself.

You are joking!

I just want to remind the hon. members opposite of one or two questions the hon. the Prime Minister asked them. The people have the right to learn the answers. The hon. members opposite criticize us Minister by Minister because they think that they have a better policy for South Africa, but they do not tell South Africa what their policy is. Under the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote we got a promise from the hon. Chief Whip opposite—he created that impression anyway—that they would do so at the first opportunity. Here they have an opportunity now. They should not let it pass them by. I hope the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is going to take part in this debate.

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

No, he may not, because my time has nearly expired. I am asking the questions now. The hon. member is a political philosopher and therefore he can give us some information about the philosophy and the policy of the PFP. He should answer the questions of the hon. the Prime Minister in particular.

What do you want to know now?

The one question is: Who will be represented at that national convention? Will the self-appointed leaders be there who are recognized as the only leaders of the Blacks by some world organizations? The Official Opposition believes in ultimate majority rule. If they want to work out this policy and the speed at which they want to attain it, I should like to know whether the principle of a majority vote will be applied in that convention itself. If not, on what basis will they limit the non-Whites, as they will be the majority at that convention? I am just asking. I do not want to make things difficult for them. My time is also limited. They should just reply to those few questions, please.

Have you never heard of the Turnhalle?

For the past hour and a half I have been replying dutifully to every little question put to me.

It is your duty because it is the Indian Affairs Vote which is under discussion.

I am just asking that they should have the courtesy to do the same to me and just reply to those three little questions I have put to them.

Mr. Chairman the hon. Minister said that it was only after South Africa had become a Republic that the Indians were recognized as South Africans for the first time. I am amazed that an old politician like him should come up with anything of the kind, and I can only describe it as foolishness. He ought to know that his former leader, Gen. Smuts, gave the Indians three representatives in this Parliament in 1946, and that by doing so he recognized the Indians as South Africans the highest sense. [Interjections.] The simple question about the national convention I can simply throw back at him by asking: “How, then, did the NP organize a convention in South West? It was done in a very simple way …”

Answer the question first.

But when I want to answer, you do not remain silent. I have ten minutes at my disposal, not a hundred like the hon. the Minister.

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

No. It is out of the question, Mr. Chairman. In the same way that the National Party held a national conference, a national convention, in South West by asking the various population groups to designate their respective leaders, in the same way we shall ask the various population groups: Designate your leaders and come and sit with us in a national convention. [Interjections.] Anyone who is unable to understand that ought not to take part in politics at all. As far as policy is concerned, our point of departure in politics—this is something which none of us should have any difficulty understanding—is that we believe that all citizens of the country are entitled to the same treatment by the State—without discrimination in favour of anyone. Is that clear to everyone now? [Interjections.] That is why we reject the kind of argument …

In other words, it is “one man, one vote”?

… that was once again advanced yesterday to the effect that the Indian in South Africa is better off than the Indian in India. I could just as well argue that the Scotsman from South Africa is better off than his counterpart in Scotland. Such an argument is totally irrelevant.

In other words, it is “one man, one vote”?

We are dealing with South Africans, and the only norm we can apply in politics, the only norm by which we can evaluate the position of the various people in our country, is whether one citizen—to whatever population group he may belong—has the same privileges as the next citizen. That is our basic policy, and it is on that that our criticism of the Government is based. I agree wholeheartedly that the Indians have leeway to make up, and not just one Minister, one Government or one generation is responsible for that. I also agree with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs that in certain fields his department has made tremendous progress. No one denies that brilliant progress has been made in the field of education, for example. I say to anyone concerned—the hon. the Minister says that it is the work of the Indian Council—that we give them the fullest credit for that. One of the most important requirements for the future of the people is that it should have free and compulsory education for all its children. I have before me the report of the hon. the Minister’s department. The report defines the task of the department as follows—

The hon. the Minister will concede that this department is now 17 years old, quite apart from the time that this party has been in power. The progress made in the political sphere, in spite of that, has been wretched, to say the least. We have heard that there is to be a new dispensation for the Indian population. The one thing I cannot understand is that the hon. the Minister, who served on the Cabinet constitutional committee, let slip this golden opportunity to explain to us what the details of that new dispensation was going to be. It affects us, too. Last night the hon. the Minister used a very engaging expression: “A home-owning democracy”. What interests me is what exactly the democracy which he wants to create for the Indian population is going to look like. [Interjections.] I want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister in this regard. What we know is that the Indians are going to get a Parliament which will have the same status as the White Parliament. We know that the Indians are going to have a Prime Minister and that his status will be equal to that of the Prime Minister of the Whites. This is a unique situation, and all of us who take an interest in constitutional matters are deeply interested in it. The principle on which the new dispensation is to be based, is that each population group— Indians, Coloureds and Whites—will be the master of the fate of their own people. Is that correct? In other words, the Indian Government will have the same powers in regard to matters affecting the Indians as the powers the White Government will have concerning matters affecting the Whites. A few months ago the hon. the Minister of Justice held a meeting in his constituency, and according to Beeld of 8 November 1977, he said the following—

He held out the prospect “dat die Kleurlinge en die Indiërs elk hul eie Minister van Polisie kan he”, and said—

This is intensely interesting. We now know that each group will have its own Prime Minister and Minister of Police, who will have to catch and look after their own people. I wonder, of course, what will happen if an Indian, a Coloured and a White get involved in a fight, and whether each side will have to call his own policeman, and who would settle the dispute. [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon. the Minister could clear up that situation a little. As I understand the proposals, it follows logically that the White Parliament and the Indian Parliament will each have its own Minister of the Interior and Immigration.

This means that in future an Indian Minister will decide which Indians can have a passport and which of his people can leave the country. Furthermore, each group will be able to decide which of their own people can enter the country as immigrants. I take it that the Indian Minister of the Interior and Immigration will also have his own publications board which will decide what these people may read and what books may be sold by the Indian bookshops. If that is not so, the hon. the Minister must say so. Since each population group will at least have control of its own cultural affairs, I must take it that the Indian Minister of Education will exercise control over his own radio and television stations and that in the future we shall then have White, Indian and Coloured controlled television and radio stations more or less on the basis of the religious groupings in Holland. I must frankly say that in general, I cannot see how such a system could work. However, if the hon. the Minister believes that it can work—he maintains that the groups will have equal status and the hon. the Minister of Police said that each would have its own Minister—then I see no reason why the hon. the Minister is unable to sell such a plan to the Indian community. The hon. the Minister ought not to have any problems in selling such a plan to the Coloureds and the Indians.

You cannot even sell yourself to your own constituency.

If the plan is that the Coloureds and the Indians will acquire equal status with the Whites then in my opinion it is every man’s duty to give this very serious consideration and not to reject it out of hand. We are waiting for the hon. the Minister to expound his plan clearly here and to explain to us to what extent there will be equal status for Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

One of the matters which most troubles the Indian community is the provisions of the Group Areas Act and the shifting around of tradespeople in particular. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would have thought that if there was one man who would have reacted to the very friendly request by the hon. the Minister and to the promise of his own hon. Chief Whip that someone would at some time or another have the courage in this House to elucidate the policy of the PFP, it would have been the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He is a senior member and a frontbencher of his party. He is a very experienced person and the hon. the Minister even praised him and called him a political philosopher. [Interjections.] The hon. member then rose to speak, and we listened with very great expectation. I want to say now that the hon. the Minister might just as well have addressed that request to the Sphinx; the Sphinx would have been more candid about the policy. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout told us in one short sentence what the policy of the PFP was. He said with great gesticulation that there should be no misunderstanding about what their policy was, and announced dramatically: “Our policy is that we stand for the same treatment for all citizens without discrimination.” That is a terribly noble-sounding phrase, but it is neither here nor there. It is a policy which I can claim for myself, a policy for which I stand, and I am prepared to tell the hon. member what that same phrase means to me. However, I am quite entitled to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what the words, “… the same treatment for all people without discrimination”, means to him. Does it mean in the same structure? Does it mean one man, one vote to that hon. member? [Interjections.] Am I correct if I infer that to that member it means one man, one vote in the same political institution?

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon. member should speak much louder; I am a little hard of hearing.

Every individual must have a vote. [Interjections.]

I see the hon. member for Musgrave is sitting in the House, and I would appreciate it if I could have his attention for a moment. I want to express my most serious misgivings to the hon. member for Musgrave at the suspicion which he cast on the book Stepping into the Future. Literally thousands of books are sent annually to Indian school libraries, but the hon. member had to single out this one book, this book which puts South Africa in a favourable light and tells the truth about the education of the various population groups, in order to cast suspicion on it. I want to ask the hon. member for Musgrave: What resentment does he bear against South Africa that he objects so vehemently if the truth is told about South Africa at home and abroad? Why did the hon. member state so scornfully that there had been no demand for the book: “The people outside do not want this book?” [Interjections.]

I want to talk about Indian education. If there has ever been a population group that has a proud record in respect of its education, then it is the Indian population group. They have seized upon and utilized to the full the opportunities to develop themselves to the maximum of their potential by means of the education offered to them. The story of Indian education, particularly during the past decade or two, is one of the true success stories of our country. The hon. member should read Stepping into the Future. Has he ever read it? I want to ask him whether there is a single fact or a single statement in that book which he questions. If that is not the case, why then cast suspicion on the book?

In Africa there is simply no parallel to what has been achieved in such a short period in the field of Indian education in this country. Today there are almost 200 000 Indian pupils in primary and secondary schools. This year there were more than 5 000 entries for the matriculation examination. The year before last the pass rate was 86,47%. Surely this is of world standard. In addition I want to mention that there are more than 7 300 teachers employed in Indian schools, of whom only 43 are Whites. Of these teachers there are only 445 who do not have educational qualifications, and half of those who are not qualified, at least have their matriculation certificate. There are 1 624 students at the teachers’ training colleges. This is the idealism which these people have displayed for the education of their children. A total of 8 000 students have enrolled at the M. L. Sultan College to receive a technical education.

This year there were more than 4 300 enrolments at the University of Westville. In the years when I was attending the oldest and best Afrikaans university in the country, we were 3 000 students. After 15 or 16 years, the Indians already have almost 50% more students at their university. This is a remarkable achievement in the face of the suspicion which prevailed and despite the bad names that were given to the university. The university began with just over 100 students and grew until it is able to boast of a large student body today. In 1961 there were only 11 women students attending the university. During the intervening period they have increased hundredfold. This is a miraculous story of the emancipation of the Indian woman and indicates how she is taking her rightful place in professional life. The Government has made a major contribution in this regard.

Today, 26,19% of the Indian population is sitting on the school benches. This figure is as high as that for White education. I want to ask the hon. member where in the world more than a quarter of the population is attending school. Apart from the desire to learn on the part of the pupils and students, the finest aspect of Indian education is to my mind the interest, the involvement, the dedication and willingness to make sacrifices on the part of the Indian parents, a willingness which is quite simply unprecedented and which sets an example to all other population groups, the Whites included, in this country. Here are people for whom no sacrifice is too great for the sake of the education of their children.

I have a very good Indian friend in Durban. He has three children attending the University of Durban-Westville. It is always an inspiration for me to speak to him. Every time he visits me, he tells me what progress his three children are making. He literally has to work day and night as an upholsterer to keep those children at university.

The miraculous tale of the State-aided schools in Natal still has to be placed on record. When the Indians were poor and were prepared to go without and to stint themselves, the education of their children was high on their list of priorities.

When the Natal Provincial Administration was unable to provide those schools, the parents got together, established committees, collected materials among themselves and in the afternoons and evenings after work, built their own schools for their children. This is a miraculous tale which still has to be placed on record. Today there are still 140 of those State-aided schools in Natal.

The socio-economic rise of the Indians during the past decade or two was primarily due to the sacrifices which those people were prepared to make for the education of their children.

What I am concerned about now is the fact that since the Indians can be so satisfied today with the high level of education which the Government is providing, their own contribution is going to diminish and that a very fine tradition of the Indian community is going to die out. In the days when they were poor—I think the same applies to the Afrikaner—they were prepared to make sacrifices, but now that they have become affluent, their contribution to education has diminished. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister, particularly in respect of the university. We have a wonderful campus at Durban-Westville. It was built solely with public funds. Apart from the class fees, virtually 100% of the money comes from the State. Recently we passed a Bill in terms of which greater autonomy in other spheres will be given to the Indian university. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Natal must excuse me if I do not react to what he said. I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. the Minister in connection with the Indian leaders’ corps.

Over the past few years the Indian leaders’ corps has displayed very positive, responsible leadership. Over the years, a special relationship has been built up between the Government and the leaders of the Indian community. Opportunities and chances which have been created, have always been utilized in mature and able fashion by the Indian leaders and used to the benefit of their own people. There has always been appreciation in Government circles for the far-sightedness of Indian leaders in this regard.

Against this background, the decision of the S.A. Indian Council not to accept the Government’s constitutional plan for the present, came as something of a surprise. Although finality has not been reached on some aspects of the constitutional proposals, and there are still several negotiations which to be conducted on this matter, I feel that the proposals testify to a gesture of significant interest. I think the extent and significance of the constitutional proposals hold far-reaching benefits for the Indian population. The fact of the matter is, after all, that by means of these constitutional proposals, the Government wants to afford the Indian community a fair, just path to consultation and co-responsibility in matters of common interest, while retaining self-determination.

I am not aware of any place in Africa, or even in the world, where this opportunity is offered to an Indian community outside India.

Mr. J. A. Carrim, member of the Executive of the S.A. Indian Council, said recently that the Indian is very strongly aware of his identity, his culture and his religion. He said that the Indian fears any change which may threaten these things. If this standpoint reflects the general feeling amongst the Indian community—and I believe it does—then the question arises: Why, then, is the Indian Council reacting to the constitutional proposals of the Government with such a lack of enthusiasm?

A very good question.

If that hon. member will just give me a chance, I shall develop my argument. Surely, the proposed constitutional plan seeks to afford the Indian the opportunity to secure those values which are sacred to him. On one occasion the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs said the following about the Indians: Our vision for their future is that they will be a prosperous, happy, content, accepted part of South Africa. Surely such a disposition is evidence of the sincerity of the Government’s intentions in regard to the Indian community.

To judge the true value of the constitutional proposals, one must not overlook the realities of the ethnic composition of South Africa. One of the realities is the inequality of the numbers of the various groups. The HSRC calculates that the composition of the South African peoples will be as follows by the year 2000: The Whites, 6,8 million; the Coloureds, 4,2 million; the Asians, 1,1 million; and the Blacks, 33,7 million.

However, there is another reality which must be taken into account, viz. that South Africa consists of a multiplicity of ethnicities. Ten of these ethnic groups are Black and three are not Black.

Another reality which must be taken into account, is the racial element which has always made the possibility of conflict in South Africa so much greater. How many times has the Indian community not been the first to be subjected to race riots?

Surely, in a deeply divided, heterogeneous community like this, there cannot be any question of democracy within the ordinary Westminster framework. If the traditional democratic model is applied to South Africa, it will mean that 4 million Zulus would dominate 21 million people. And although this may be considered democratic, it is actually a minority Government. In a heterogeneous community like that in South Africa, democracy and majority rule are therefore opposites. Therefore, if the cry of “one man, one vote” is given effect to with in a unitary State in South Africa, it would mean that the minority interests of groups like the Indians will have to yield to those of the Zulus in a minority Government.

Another reality which must be taken into account in searching for solutions to the problems of South Africa, is the dynamics of international politics. Revolutionary Black elements in South Africa are being aroused by slogans, inter alia, Black majority rule, which we are always hearing about, elements which are not prepared to negotiate for solutions. Unfortunately, these elements also operate in the Indian community, and one can only hope that they will be rejected by the Indians, because all that awaits the peoples of South Africa on the road of revolution, is chaos and suffering.

The Government, however, knows and understands the heterogeneous composition of South Africa’s population. It recognizes the aspirations and ideals of every population group. That is why the constitutional proposals are an attempt to adapt the Westminster system to the realities of South Africa. This is the foundation upon which full-fledged political rights are built for all on an ethnic basis. This is why students in political philosophy are beginning to reject the hackneyed view that politics is the art of the possible. Where the greatest happiness for the largest number of people is at stake and must be strived for, politics, as the hon. the Prime Minister said recently, becomes a reconciliation of conflicting interests in the community.

That is why the constitutional proposals of the Government contain the following elements. Firstly, it contains the recognition of the ethnicities of the people of South Africa. It also contains ethnic self-government and self-fulfilment, the rejection of discrimination by means of self-government, consultation, co-responsibility and persuasion as a basis of matters of common interest. The creation of the structures which reflect the interests and desires of the various groups, by means of which they are able to maintain their own interests, also forms part and parcel of this. That is why I believe that the Indian community and its leaders are faced with their greatest test today.

The framework for a constitution has been created. Through imaginative leadership and initiative the leaders’ corps of the Indians can contribute, by means of accepting and expanding these proposals, towards bringing about the greatest degree of happiness for the largest number of South Africa’s people. The ability of the Indian leaders corps to create opportunities for their own people, is now being placed in the balance. That is why we can only hope and believe that, in this important matter as well, they will not be found wanting.

Mr. Chairman, when I associate myself with the statement by the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House are proud of what has been achieved in the sphere of services to the Indian community, I also want to associate myself at the same time with the remarks which the hon. member for Kimberley South made here. He placed special emphasis on the increasing expenditure of large sums of money on services for the Indians. I also want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Natal, especially his remarks about tertiary education for the Indian community.

I believe that the achievements in the sphere of education—and I want to talk in particular about the sphere of primary and secondary education for the Indian community—may perhaps be a better indication of a new dispensation which has dawned for the Indian community than the indications in any other sphere are.

However, there is another reason too why Indian education in particular is an important criterion. This is that last year primary and secondary education for Indians had been in the hands of the Central Government for exactly ten years. We therefore have an easily comparable period in respect of which we can look at this aspect. Nor do we have to go back 30 years in history in order to draw a comparison. A moment ago, the hon. member for East London North referred to one of the speakers on this side of the House by way of an interjection and said: “You are going back 40 years again.” Up till ten years ago, the greatest say in the sphere of Indian education was in the hands of the old UP. The take-over of Indian education was not only a take-over by the central authority of powers which had previously been in provincial hands. It was in reality the take-over by a National Party Government of powers which were to a large extent applied by the old UP authorities. Let us have no doubt about this. Of the 195 000 primary and secondary Indian pupils who were at school last year, no fewer than 169 000 were at school in Natal. In other words, 86,5% of the pupil population of the Indian community lives in Natal. Therefore Indian education is primarily a Natal affair, and the take-over of Indian education in 1966 therefore meant the take-over by an NP regime of a matter which used to fall under the UP Government. That UP régime was in fact one which made itself out to be the champion of the Indian population, to such an extent that 20 years before, it had already granted the franchise to that population group, and on the other hand the NP regime was the so-called suppressor of the Indian population. The hon. member for Durban Central has just told an hon. member on this side of the House by means of an interjection that he is now professing to be a champion of the Indian community. Sir, let us take a look at the facts. The hon. member for Port Natal has already said that prior to 1967, most Indian pupils in this country were attending State-aided schools. The Indian community itself was to a very large extent responsible for the education of its children. Today 227 schools, both primary and secondary, are already Government schools, while only 140 schools are State-aided schools. In 1977 alone, nine primary and four secondary schools were built, while five of the State-aided schools were closed and two were transferred to the central Government. Prior to 1967 the financial expenditure was £5 per pupil. In 1977 that expenditure was R176 per pupil per primary school and R343 per pupil in the secondary schools. In 1977 alone the increase in expenditure was 12,8% compared with the previous year in the case of primary schools and 21,8% compared with the previous year in the case of secondary schools. In view of this type of development which has taken place in Indian education over the past ten years, one could also expect that the achievements would have shown astronomical growth. I am now referring to the achievements of the pupils of this community. According to the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission, the Indian community has grown by approximately 3,5% per year since 1960. They also expect this growth rate to be maintained for the following 20 years. In other words, in the ten years that Indian education has been in the hands of the central Government, there has been a 35% increase in the Indian population. If one contrasts this with the fact that the secondary school population of the Indian community has increased by 89% during these ten years, one finds that there has actually been a threefold increase in comparison to the population growth. The population growth during the ten-year period was 35%, but over the same period there was an increase of 133% in the Indian matriculation candidates.

However, the pass rate is a much better illustration. In 1967 the pass rate for Indian matriculants was 798. In 1977, however, it was 4 315. This represents an increase of 440% as against the population growth of 35% over this period. The pass percentage has increased from 38 ten years ago to 88 last year; a mere 4% less than the average White pass rate for matric pupils in our country. Let us also take a look at the number of matriculants in the Indian community in one year, for instance 1976-’77. In this one year it increased by 16,3% as against the normal growth of 3% to 5% for the White community and as against a population growth, as we have already said, of 3,5% for the Indian community. If we take this into consideration, we see that it is an excellent achievement. We must bear in mind that the examination is exactly the same. Seen in that light, a pass rate of more than 88% is a very great achievement.

Reference has already been made to the new milestone which was achieved in connection with compulsory education for Indians. I could have gone on to show how Indian staff in schools has increased. Perhaps I should just point out one single figure in order to indicate that senior inspectors’ posts in Natal have increased by 416% over the ten year period. In the case of Indian staff, salaries have increased more from year to year in the past six years than in the White population group. Today, 77% of the Indian teachers have professional qualifications. In addition, another 18% have university degrees.

From the above it is clear—my time has nearly expired—that there have been a tremendous number of achievements in this sphere. One could literally go on furnishing figures only for hours. However, the important point is that, as the hon. the Minister said, these figures indicate that we have every reason to be proud of the achievements which have been made in this sphere. Therefore it is very clear that this Government has succeeded not only in bringing about a new dispensation for the Indian community, but also in achieving a better utilization of the brainpower of all South Africans in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, since I spoke on Indian education yesterday, I should like to associate myself with the speech made by the hon. member who has just sat down. I shall not be reacting to his speech, however, and I hope he will forgive me for that.

Oh, wacko!

I rather want to refer to remarks made by the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Umhlanga who both accused the Government’s constitutional policy for the Indians of being vague. The hon. member for Umhlanga then tried to sketch his party’s policy. The picture that emerged—and has also emerged in previous debates, particularly when the hon. leader of the NRP has spoken—is one of a policy that has all the elements which other parties have tried, found wanting and discarded. It has a federal element, a confederal element and also the element of mixed residential areas at local level. In other words, it is the policy of the old UP, the Democratic Party and the PFP. This they now call pluralism and say it is new thinking. To me that is neither pluralism, nor thinking, nor new: to me it is at best an Irish stew. There were similar accusations of vagueness from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but we still do not know what the PFP’s policy is and, since they refuse to tell us, one can only assume they have no policy at all. Our policy on the other hand was sufficiently clear for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to quote chapter and verse from it. Admittedly, he did in the process make some very clever debating points, but all of them where frivolous and made no contribution to this debate. The fact of the matter is that the NP has got a policy of national self-determination which is not vague at all.

It is just a wish, not a policy.

It is because we have this policy that the Indians are now on the threshold of complete political emancipation for the first time in their history. Last night the hon. the Minister announced that he will bring a Bill before Parliament to make of the Indian Council a fully elected body. We also have constitutional proposals being negotiated with the Indians and Coloureds in terms of which the Indians will have a full franchise in their own Parliament, a franchise which will be equal in every way to the franchise the Whites will have in the White Parliament.

What power will their Parliament have?

This kind of franchise the Indians last had in the previous century in this country. I would remind the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he forgot to mention that the three Indian representatives in the House in 1946 were not themselves Indians but Whites. This was merely a sop to Indian agitation at the time against the “Vaspenwet” and other things.

Because there is this vagueness about them and because the Opposition repeatedly try to create the impression in this House that it is this party that has invested discrimination while we are in fact moving away from it, I should like to illustrate that all previous Governments in the previous 90 years were unable to do anything at all but move towards discrimination as far as the Indians were concerned. I must give the hon. member for Bezuidenhout credit where credit is due. He did say that there was a new dispensation coming, which is so, but he complained that it had taken us 17 years to bring this about. As I say, all the previous Governments, the UP Governments, the predecessors of the three present Opposition parties, could do nothing in 90 years but move towards discrimination.

In 1860 when the first Indian indentured labourers arrived in Natal, the intention was that they would return to India after their contracts expired in five years, but there was also a clause which said that after a further period of five years they could under certain conditions acquire franchise and also property rights. They acquired the franchise and everything went quite well until 31 years later in 1891 when the Natal Government suddenly discovered that, in addition to the 470 000 Zulus living there, there were already 46 000 Indians compared to a White population of 45 000. Immediately they got worried and passed discriminatory legislation trying to repeal …

They had the rinderpest in the same year.

We shall get to that. Those hon. members can do with some history in the House. They tried to introduce discriminatory legislation repealing the franchise of the Indians and restricting their land tenure. The British Government, the then English Government, and the Indian Government took objection to this and they were unable to pass that legislation until Natal achieved responsible government two years later in 1893. It is common knowledge that the Indian population of South Africa was disenfranchised throughout South Africa on the pattern of the Natal legislation when South Africa became a Union in 1910. This position remained until the UP was finally defeated. At the Imperial Conference in 1913 General Smuts unashamedly said that he had put a total stop to Indian immigration into this country because the White population could not withstand an uncontrolled influx of Indians and that he had to uphold White standards of civilization. He went on to say— and I quote—

Your 10 minutes will be up before you get to 1920! [Interjections.]

He continued by saying—

This was the position which obtained until 1948 when this party came into power. We got over the stone wall in 1961 by introducing a new policy of separate development for the Indians which has brought them to the threshold of full political emancipation now. Other parties which did not have a policy of national self-determination for each group, were afraid of being swamped by the Blacks. They could not evolve a system for peaceful coexistence and they therefore had to persist with discriminatory legislation. They continued in spite of the recommendations of the three Broome Commissions to impose discriminatory legislation as was passed in 1943. What happened? This led to the rupture of diplomatic relations between us and India and, for the first time, to the imposition of sanctions against this country because India retaliated with a total economic boycott against this country which led, as hon. members will recall, to a temporary shortage of rice and of “streepsakke”, bags. It is therefore not only the NP that is threatened with sanctions; the UP already had them imposed against us.

In 1946 further discriminatory legislation was passed against the Indians and this led to a wholesale campaign of passive resistance and civil disobedience to which Gen. Smuts reacted by locking up the leaders. This sparked off a series of sanctions and campaigns in the United Nations from which we are still suffering today. That is what sparked it off. Whilst we have not been able to completely remedy the international situation that was started off because of racial discrimination by previous UP Governments, we have stabilized the position internally and we have worked out a constitutional policy which will give the same qualitative franchise to the Indians as we have for our Parliament. That is moving away from discrimination and not moving towards it as all previous Governments did and as their successors accuse us of doing.

Mr. Chairman, I think I should start with the hon. member for Benoni, who has just sat down.

That will not take you long.

I think it was quite a remarkable contribution. [Interjections.] I think we should be grateful that we have him amongst our new members. He is not the only new acquisition that we have who can come here and make a speech giving us an historical survey with the erudition and the authority that we had from him. I think instead of sneering and laughing, it is an occasion where we can take a look at ourselves and put our hands in our own bosoms. We must ask ourselves whether we are entitled to be like our hon. friends opposite, so supercilious and so pretentious about their own unsurpassed virtue, when they share responsibility for the things that we have learnt from that hon. member today.

*I also wish to thank other hon. members on my side of the House for their contributions. The hon. members for Port Natal and for Umlazi have again spoken, on Indian education. They have again stressed what a wonderful tale we have to tell and how the position of our Indians has developed and has been improved and built on between 1966 and the present day, where we can have compulsory education and where we have an excellent university. Furthermore, we have an outstanding technical college for higher education and also two training colleges for teachers. These are mostly new things which have been established during the past 12 years. I think we have the right to point them out and to be proud of them. As I have said, since taking over the portfolio, I have come to realize that the greatest responsibility we have towards the developing nations of South Africa, is this: That every one of them must have the right to instruction and education to the highest level which they can attain. We have already accomplished that in South Africa and I think instead of the sneering remarks we get, there ought to be a little recognition on the part of the people who pretend in this House that they are liberals. My experience has been that there is no more intolerant person in the world than those who pose as liberals.

I want to express my thanks today to the hon. member for Geduld for a particularly constructive and valuable speech about the new constitutional dispensation in South Africa. He too analysed the matter on a political basis, on the basis of facts and historical and political knowledge. What is remarkable to me in this connection, is how rapidly we in South Africa are building up a mass of authoritative sources, especially as regards philosophical thought and political knowledge in connection with our constitutional dispensation. That in itself is an indication that the dispensation is on a sound foundation and that it has depth, meaning and hope for the future.

Before I go further, I must first devote some time to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. That hon. member was friendly enough to speak immediately after my previous entry into the debate, and immediately objected to the fact that we had supposedly said that the Indians had only been recognized as citizens of South Africa in the full sense of the word after South Africa had become a Republic. The hon. member also referred to the Smuts offer of 1946, in terms of which the Indians would have had three representatives in this House. I concede that that was perhaps a brief departure from the general pattern, but it was stillborn.

It was an Act of Parliament.

Yes, but it was stillborn; it was never implemented. The NP came to power in 1948—I was here—and at the time the UP held the view that they would support the Nationalist Government in their efforts to repatriate the Indians from South Africa. That is the point which was made here by the hon. members. It was only in 1961 that it was unequivocally and clearly accepted that the Indian community were South Africans with the right of permanent residence here as South Africans. This is an indisputable fact about which we cannot argue; it is the simple truth.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout put another series of questions to me concerning our policy, and at the same time tried to reduce the policy to absurdity. An argument reductio ad absurdum is a very effective argument, but then it must at least reduce a factual position to its absurd conclusions, and in that—as I shall indicate just now— my hon. friend has failed. He did not reduce the facts. He tried to reduce a lot of misapprehensions—a lot of conceptions which were not absolutely correct—to absurdities, and in the process he did not make our constitutional proposals ridiculous, but rather himself.

The hon. member also wanted to know from me how democracy would be practised according to our plan. That is surely perfectly clear. There will be three ethnic Parliaments in South Africa, each of which will be elected on the basis of “one man, one woman, one vote”. All the Parliaments will have equal status in the field in which they will act and function. That is how democracy will be practised. Each of the three communities which are permanently resident in South Africa, will decide on its own fortunes, the fortunes which do not form part of the area of mutual problems experienced by all three population groups together, and will be independent and capable of going its own way. They will therefore have equal status in every respect.

Can you identify these matters which are peculiar to each individual population group?

Each will be the master of its own destiny in so far as its own destiny is separate from the fates of the other two population groups.

Give us a few examples.

Identify it.

I am not here to do those hon. members’ homework for them. The information they require has already been published. They would do well to go and look at the constitutional provisions in connection with the Coloured Representative Council in order to see how almost R300 million is spent annually by that body on their own people. Hon. members will find a few examples there of what we have in mind with this new dispensation. The hon. member must please not manifest his total indifference to information about the new dispensation in this House. That information is at his disposal.

Listen to the type of arguments which the hon. member advanced. He said that in terms of the new dispensation, each population group could have its own Minister of Justice and its own police force. He then wanted to know what policeman was going to act if a Coloured, a White and an Indian got involved in a fight. We already have Coloured, Indian and White policemen in South Africa today. What happens today when three of these people get involved in a fight and a policeman is in the vicinity? Regardless of his race, the policeman will stop the fighting.

It is as simple as that!

Yes, it is as simple as that. There is no difference. The police of each population group will patrol their own residential areas and things that happen there, will be their responsibility. That is surely quite clear. The hon. member is now looking for arguments because he has no arguments and he is making himself ridiculous.

I quoted Minister Kruger.

The hon. member must wait a bit. I am busy with the hon. member’s questions, and this is the type of question he put. He asked whether … Oh, I cannot even remember anymore. In any case, his other questions were similar to the example I quoted. The weakness in his argument is that he has represented the NP’s plans for a new constitution as though they represented the totality of our thinking, namely the establishment of the separate Parliaments which would each act, and be, on an equal footing in its own territory with regard to the destiny of its own people. But the hon. member has said not a word about a second aspect, and I cannot forgive him that, because he is intelligent enough to have realized that he was keeping quiet about it. [Interjections.] He was therefore either totally ignorant—in which case he had no right to participate in the debate—or perverse, in which case he ought to be ashamed of himself.

In the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote I delivered a full speech on that.

The second important leg of the proposals by the NP, which the hon. member has kept quiet about, is that at Government level there is a vast area which is of joint interest. It is a level at which all three population groups are involved and where their interests cannot be separated. Special machinery has been created to handle matters at that level. But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to make out that under the new dispensation, it will inevitably be the case that even matters of joint interest will have to be handled by the separate Parliaments. That is surely very simple. The hon. member should have shown respect to Parliament by taking the trouble to become au fait with the facts before making a speech in this House. I really cannot waste more time on the hon. member’s little speech, except to state one more important point. I want to call all the parties in the House as witnesses to the fact that all the questions which the hon. the Prime Minister put, of which I have tried to single out a few this afternoon, have not yet been answered by the Official Opposition in Parliament. When the hon. member for Bezuidenhout rose, I thought he was going to answer these questions. But all he did was to make a general statement.

I answered the two questions put by you.

No, the hon. member merely made the general statement that their policy was one of no discrimination and equal rights for all people in South Africa. Is that a fair interpretation?

Equal treatment for all.

That is very interesting. I now want to repeat the hon. the Prime Minister’s questions. Will there be equal treatment for all in the national convention which they are going to convene to hammer out a national constitution? If there is really going to be equal treatment, the population groups must also be represented according to their respective numbers; otherwise it is surely not equal treatment. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not make faces at me now.

I accept that.

The hon. member says he accepts that. I want it placed on record that the PFP, as soon as they come to power and after a single telephone call to Chief Buthelezi, will convene a national convention where the Blacks will have a majority over the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.] That convention will determine the future of South Africa.

Just as at the Turnhalle!

At the Turnhalle convention, all the internal parties of South West were represented by their leaders. Even the internal wing of Swapo had the right to a seat. I now want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout when they are going to reply to the hon. the Prime Minister’s question whether the people at Robben Island can also serve on that national convention. He has said that each group can choose its own leaders. If a group elects somebody on the island as its leader, will he be welcome there?

Each nation chooses its leaders, whomsoever they want.

Now I am making progress at last. I must keep on criticizing the hon. member. [Interjections.]

Now I want to put another question. The hon. member for Houghton has said that if they come to power, the Communist Party will again be lawful in South Africa. [Interjections.] Wait a bit. Where is the equal treatment now? Either he agrees that the communists can again act lawfully in South Africa and can therefore serve in the national convention or he stands by what he now says, and repudiates, rejects and dissociates himself from the hon. member for Houghton—and if the national groups then want to elect communists as their leaders, they cannot do so. Where is the equal treatment then? [Interjections.] That hon. member must not reply in adjectives. He must supply the answers.

Order! The hon. the Minister, too, should really confine himself to the Vote.

But it was going so nicely!

Mr. Chairman, I want to obey your ruling at once. I just want to point out that we are concerned with the constitutional future of a very important part of our population in South Africa, and up to this moment it was perfectly in order for me to ask the PFP what their plans are as regards this important population group.

I shall give you all answers—in writing if you like.

That is always the reply we get at the end of a debate when the matter cannot be carried further.

Will I be given some of your time? If so, I am prepared to answer questions up to half past ten this evening.

No, wait a bit. Surely the hon. member has already had time. But he did not even use his full 10 minutes. Now he wants more time. Before his 10 minutes had expired, he started talking about other matters. He is now trying to escape from the quandary in which he and his party find themselves. There will be opportunities to discuss this again. The Votes Plural Relations, Coloured Relations and the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, and also other financial measures, still have to be discussed. We shall await the real answers with bated breath—and not the evasion we had today—because the nation has the right to know what the policy of those hon. friends is, as far as the Indians in South Africa are concerned as well.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 30.—“Community Development”:

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half hour.

I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to change gear now that we are proceeding to the discussion of one of his other Votes. In the first place, I want to say to the department that I welcome the publications which the department has made available to us. I think they are interesting and important publications, especially the one concerning the activities of the Department of Community Development. It provides us with quite a lot of new information. In this publication, it is made quite clear on pages 1 and 7 that the department regards it as its responsibility to take care of virtually all housing for all population groups. In this connection I want to quote a few statements. I quote from page 1—

I also quote from page 7—

This approach is also reflected in the nature of the statistical information which we get in the form of a schedule to this publication. I want to say at once that in my opinion, this is one of the most comprehensive sets of information which we have had about housing matters in South Africa up to date. I want to thank the department for this and to congratulate it. However, I must say that the same comprehensive approach which appears from this publication on the activities of the department is not to be found in the official annual report of the department. It contains fairly detailed information with regard to White, Coloured and Indian housing, but on the whole, information about the extent and progress of Black housing is meagre and unsatisfactory. In this connection I should like to make a positive suggestion to the hon. the Minister, viz. that the comparative statistics contained in the publication on the activities of the Department of Community Development should be incorporated into the annual report of the department every year. The information is readily available, and if this could be done, we would immediately have a survey of the progress and the problems in connection with housing for all population groups in South Africa. The hon. the Minister and the Department could quite easily obtain these statistics through the Bantu Housing Board, and they could make it available to us every year in the same way as in this publication.

Another feature of the annual report as well as the publication concerning the department’s activities which I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention, a feature which I find objectionable, is the fact that there is a limitation on the scope of the information with regard to Black housing. The data of the department is mainly confined to the Black housing in the so-called White urban areas. This is also stated in the publication by way of a footnote.

In so far as the department considers itself responsible, and rightly, for all housing in the Republic, and makes it clear on page 14 of the departmental publication that “the Government regards the provision of housing as an integrated process to be entrusted to a single department”, one could surely expect information to be provided about Black housing in the so-called non-White areas; in other words, in the non-independent homelands. Surely it would be shortsighted to think that there are no housing problems in those areas. My question to the hon. the Minister, therefore, is whether we cannot be given some information about this. When such information is brought into the picture, the present housing position in respect of the Blacks changes appreciably. In this way, we see that all references to Black housing in this publication are qualified by saying that they refer only to Blacks in the so-called urban White areas who are entitled to housing of some kind. According to this approach it is estimated, on page 13 of this publication, that in April 1977, 126 000 family units and 120 000 beds for single accommodation were required. On page 12 it is stated that the Government hopes to build 40 454 units for these Black people within the next three years, which will still leave a shortage of approximately 85 500 units by 1987. It is clear, therefore, that the greatest housing crisis, according to the limited information made available to us by the department, lies in the field of Black housing. However, when we try to get an idea of the total picture, it is soon clear that the extent of the problem is much greater even than appears from the departmental publications. I want to advance two arguments in support of this statement.

The Government may well argue that most Black squatters in so-called White areas are there illegally, but no right-thinking person could argue that they do not need any housing, no matter where they may find themselves in the future. When we try to get a comprehensive idea of the Black people’s housing needs, we find, according to Benbo’s calculation, that 883 500 dwelling units will be required between 1975 and 1980. At an estimated cost of approximately R3 000 per unit, this will amount to a total expenditure of more than R2 500 million. It may well be said that Benbo’s calculations are too high. Then we may look at the calculation of Mr. Justice Jan Steyn of the Urban Foundation, however. According to his calculations, 4 000 dwelling units are required immediately. This means a total expenditure of more than R1 000 million.

As against this, I point to the envisaged expenditure as it appears in a publication of the department. According to this, an amount of R89 million is required up to 1981. From this, two things are as clear as daylight. In the first place, there is not enough State money available to meet the need for housing within the allotted time, and therefore the problem will become even more serious. I could suggest two possible solutions to this. In the first place, the private sector will have to enter the sphere of the provision of housing on an unprecedented scale. A second possible solution is an investigation of alternative housing methods for those in the low-income groups.

†If this picture is sombre for the country as a whole—I want to assure the hon. the Minister that I am going to look at other population groups as well; although I am at the moment only looking at the data appearing in the department’s publication—then, because of the recent statements by Government spokesmen, it approaches the absurd and the weird for the Western Cape. The Government has decided not to allow leasehold privileges for Blacks in the Western Cape. Some Government members say that they should even remove Blacks who qualify under section 10 and that they should not allow the same local authority powers for their communities here. Why? Because it is argued that Blacks are strangers to the Cape, that they have only recently arrived here because of the economic boom of the ’sixties. Now this is obvious and demonstrable nonsense. By the turn of the century there were already 10 000 Blacks in the greater Cape Town area. In 1865 there were 400 Blacks living in what is now known as Woodstock. In 1900 there were 1 800 Blacks housed by the Harbour Board in barracks near the harbour. The Ndabeni location was created in 1901 with 7 000 inhabitants. Since then …

Where did they come from?

Where did the Whites come from? They came from overseas. In the early 19th century, many Whites came here from overseas. [Interjections.]

†Since then we have had the creation of Langa location, in 1927, to cope with the squatter problem. Langa location has been in existence for more than 50 years. Therefore, I am suggesting to the Department of Community Development—if it is trying to assist other departments in working out a responsible housing policy—that it cannot be done for the Western Cape as long as these attitudes prevail among hon. members on the Government side. If those attitudes become the dominant attitudes in this House I can assure the hon. the Minister of Community Development that, as far as urban communities are concerned, we are simply going to produce urban instability and to repress Black labour as a result of it. That is what we will have to avoid.

Turning now to housing for other population groups, I want to point out that the department makes it clear that for the Whites there is no housing shortage at the moment. The one possible area of concern could be a result of the gradual abolition of rent control. However, I will not address myself to this problem. Some other hon. member of my party will refer to that later.

As far as Coloured and Indian housing is concerned, the Government is confident that it can wipe out the backlog within the forseeable future. I must say, however, that although we do still have problems in this respect, remarkable progress has been made and the department deserves credit for the work it has done in this respect.

Does the Government not deserve credit for this?

The Government department does deserve credit for this.

I have one or two problems which I should like to mention later, but I am afraid I will not have the time for that. Therefore I want to move on immediately to another issue I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. As I have said, other members of my party will discuss the problems of rent control and certain consequences flowing from the execution of the Group Areas Act by this department. It is in this respect that I wish to address myself to the hon. the Minister concerning a decision given by him very recently in terms of his department’s responsibility within the ambit of the Group Areas Act and that of the whole permit system.

Before I do so, let me quote a policy statement in this regard by the department itself. I quote from this departmental publication—

This is a direct quotation from this publication by the department. In terms of this kind of policy statement the hon. the Minister, on 10 March this year, during the debate on a private member’s motion in this House, announced his new open theatre policy. In a sense that was a manifestation of this approach. It is in terms of the spirit of these policy statements that I want to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention a decision that he gave a month after he had declared his open theatre policy. The S.A. Red Cross and the Cape Town Round Table asked a member in these benches to approach the hon. the Minister for permission to hold a cultural evening on Sunday, 30 April. This was to be a musical talent contest in which classical music would be played. These two organizations first went to the city council. The city council wanted to know what kind of evening it would be. They assured the city council that it was going to be a cultural evening and that it would be mainly concerned with classical music, i.e. serious music. It was not going to be a “Woodstock” type of pop evening. They even had permission from the Town Clerk in terms of the Lord’s Day Observance Act of 1895 to hold the event on that particular evening, since this event would more or less have corresponded with similar cultural evenings held there. Essentially, then, what they needed was permission from the hon. the Minister so that Coloured and White youths could spend that evening together under the sponsorship and organization of two of the most reputable public service organizations in South Africa. The hon. the Minister refused that permission. This was not last year, but last month. I want to know why he did so. The Minister did not explain why he refused that permission. He simply said that he could not accede to that request. I want to ask why it is that the Minister, given the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself, given the statements we have had from that side of the House, that there is going to be a new deal in labour, a new deal as far as the Constitution is concerned, a new deal for the urban Blacks, and new deals everywhere, was forced, through the legal constraints of his office, to apply his mind to the problem of whether Coloured and White children could participate in a classical music talent contest together. Why is this necessary at this stage in our history? I simply cannot understand it. I believe the hon. the Minister to be an intelligent and basically sympathetic man. Why should he be forced to take a decision that is so abundantly petty? Why does he have to do this? What good does it do South Africa? The Government always tells us that we tell people all the bad things about South Africa.

But nobody forced me; let me make that clear.

This kind of decision does more harm to us than anything else. One can point out all the grand plans to overseas visitors and tell them what the situation in South Africa could be, but this reflects the reality. This is how we do find the position in South Africa. Decisions of this nature are made, and I, for the life of me, cannot understand why this was necessary. Against the background of the Minister’s own declared policy with regard to open theatres, and against the background of the policy statement which I have quoted, why was it necessary for him to take a decision of this nature? If we go on with this kind of decision, then I honestly believe that we do not need enemies. We do not need enemies because we have become our own worst enemy in doing this kind of thing. There is nothing that can improve relations more between children than when they participate responsibility in this sort of cultural evening. In this case they would have participated in the City Hall under the supervision of reputable organizations. Nothing could improve relations between them more than that.

*Then we come to a final point. I want to give particular attention to the problem of Coloured squatting. There is an important distinction. The department says in its report that it hopes to eliminate the problem of Coloured squatting completely within the near future. I am not talking of Black squatters now, but of Coloured squatters.

In this connection I want to refer to two things which trouble me. In the report it is said that one of the ways in which the Government hopes to do this is by way of establishing new townships. The idea is that when places such as Atlantis or Mitchell’s Plain have been completed or more or less completed, people who live in cheaper houses will be inclined to move there, in which case their present houses will then become available for the squatters so that they can move into the lower cost houses. I should say that there is no objection to this in principle, except for two problems which I can foresee.

Firstly, there must not be any delay in the completion of the planned townships, for in so far as these townships are in fact delayed, the real danger exists that they themselves may disintegrate into depressed urban communities. Therefore the availability of funds is of cardinal importance, and the availability of funds must be properly planned in advance so that one does not reach a stage where one is half-way through a project and it then virtually comes to a standstill.

The second problem with this kind of approach to the squatting problem is that one must not take it for granted that the man who lives in a cheaper house is necessarily going to move to a more expensive one, even though the area may be more attractive to him. He may prefer to stay where he is. Therefore one should be careful not to rely too much on the assumption that the people in the cheaper houses will automatically be attracted to the other areas. There are many factors which play a part. Transport plays a part, for example. In addition, there is the whole question of rental, etc., which plays a very important part.

These are the most important points I wanted to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and I hope he will take the opportunity of replying directly and frankly to the questions I have put to him.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. member for Rondebosch. He has spoken in very general terms. He has also congratulated the department on the report which has been published and also on the other publications. I just want to endorse that and also express my thanks and appreciation to the department for its absolutely clear statement of the position.

It will also be a good thing if we just look at the amounts which are at present being spent on housing. It needs to be mentioned that this year, R50 million more was spent than last year. If one looks how it has been divided among the different population groups, one notices that the Indian community obtained three times more money for housing this year than last year, and the Bantu got twice as much. That confirms the importance which this Government attaches to the provision of proper housing for its own people, because we believe that a person must have his own home in order to feel that he is part of this country, and to be satisfied.

The hon. member for Rondebosch has also put several questions to which the hon. the Minister will reply. Judging by the questions he has put, however, it appears as if he made absolutely no effort to read the hon. the Minister’s speech of 15 June last year. It would be futile for me to quote from Hansard, but the fact of the matter is that all the questions he has put have been fully answered. I can just refer him to column 10278 et sqq. of last year’s Hansard. He will find his answers there.

The hon. member also said we must obtain more money in order to provide more housing. Naturally, all will agree with that. It is a very fine statement. The only problem is that we do not always know where this money is to come from.

The hon. member specifically referred to the squatters in Cape Town and environs. Please permit me to refer briefly to page 4 of the annual report by the Secretary for Community Development. There I read the following—

That is fantastic. It is a vast step forward. In other words, we are not unsympathetically disposed towards the squatter problem. We must treat those people with compassion and sympathy, and indeed we do so. But a point is reached where one must say that it is necessary to act in the interests of the broad community to promote order, peace and health. We must do that, too. Therefore, when in certain circumstances we act against the squatters, it must be seen in the light of the fact that we actually had no option. The hon. member raised a few other matters which I do not regard as so very important, so I shall not discuss them any further.

I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that as I understand it, a certain amount is also being made available to the Pretoria City Council for community development and, more particularly, to renovate sub-economic housing which has been in existence for years and to make it inhabitable for the Whites as well. It is important that we should also take a closer look at this aspect and its implications. Before I continue, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for having made that money available to Pretoria at such a very low rate of interest. It is a fact that many of our city councils are today in a financial quandary, especially when it comes to the renovation and maintenance of subeconomic housing, because the rental is low and the small percentage of the funds which the city council accumulates for the specific purpose of renovation is easily exhausted, especially as we have extremely high labour costs today. As I understand the matter, this loan which has been negotiated will be redeemed over a period of 40 years from the date of the initial loan. Over that term a levy of 1% is paid. As I understand it, the position is that the rental paid by the tenants is in fact more than sufficient to redeem the debt, because some of the money is invested with the Public Debt Commissioners. The result is that this fund constantly grows in the hands of the Public Debt Commissioners. It is mentioned in the report that the fund from this source has grown to an amount of approximately R107 million. This money is applied by the National Housing Commission at their discretion. I understand that it is a revolving fund which may not lose money. But now we have a problem, especially in my constituency, in respect of the people who can rent sub-economic homes. Sub-economic housing is available if one earns R150 or less per month.

R200 per month.

I might be wrong, but I understood it was R150 per month. The fact of the matter is that it is extremely difficult for people in that income group to pay the extra rental which is now being levied because that money is being borrowed for the renovation of homes. I should like to request the hon. the Minister to consider whether it is not possible for the funds which have accumulated as a result of the payment of rentals by tenants of sub-economic homes, and which are available to the National Housing Commission, to be used for preventing the sub-economic group from having to pay higher rentals as a result of the renovation of the homes in which they live at present. It may create problems if the money is first paid over to the National Housing Commission and is then withdrawn, because then it is in a revolving fund and it is difficult to withdraw such money. If the hon. the Minister agrees with this idea—I realize that it is a matter of principle—that the possibility exists that the money which tenants have used can be used again to ensure that the tenants will not have to pay more rental, I believe that the technical aspects can be solved by, for example, establishing an additional fund if the hon. the Minister deems it fit to do so. Perhaps it is a complicated case, but it is also possible that there is an easier solution. Even if there is only a complicated solution, I am quite prepared to wait, because I believe that the people on behalf of whom I am pleading will also be prepared to wait.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for what he does for all the people. I want to thank the Government for the fact that we have an exceptionally high expenditure on housing. I also wish to thank the hon. the Minister for the circumspection, the care and the compassion with which the squatter problem in South Africa is being handled. Such conduct speaks volumes for mutual cooperation and for the future of all of us.

In conclusion, I have found the hon. member for Rondebosch made no attack. In fact, he spoke with modesty and he could not derogate from the Government’s policy as regards housing and that, in itself, is a compliment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria West expressed a few thoughts, inter alia, on ways and means for keeping rentals low in spite of renovations made to sub-economic houses. I think the hon. the Minister should give this matter his serious attention. However, the hon. member must pardon me please for not reacting to his arguments any further, because I want to discuss the important question of rent control.

†It is a well-known fact that the provisions of the Rent Control Act have been a source of discontent to both lessors and lessees for a long time. The inadequacies of the present Rent Control Act are therefore not in issue whatsoever. Although the 1975 amendment provided very little protection, if any, for tenants against high rentals, it still did not satisfy the landlords. Since that time we have, for example, on occasion experienced that increases of up to 100% in rent have been awarded because the replacement value less depreciation is now one of five factors determining the value of the flat in order to decide what a reasonable rental should be. Last year the report of the Fouché Commission was published and this year the hon. the Minister announced that rent control was to be phased out.

What is now at issue—and this is why I raise it—is whether sufficient provision is made to protect those who need protection. We know that the hon. the Minister announced a means test. There are several aspects which the public should know about in regard to the manner in which the hon. the Minister wishes to phase out rent control. This has bearing on the means test especially as it has been announced and as it stands at the moment. Firstly I think that should the means test provide any degree of protection, it would be for a limited period only. It should be remembered that nothing has been said about adjustments of the means test levels to meet inflation either on a regular or an ad hoc basis. In any event, it ought to be remembered that should a tenant be transferred or be forced to move out of his flat due to personal circumstances, the protection that is provided by the means test, will disappear even if he should settle in another rent controlled building.

That disappears now.

Give me a chance to explain. The public must understand this. The hon. the Minister now says that if one lives in a rent-controlled building and one moves to another, the rent control does not disappear.

It does, but he can try to find another controlled residence elsewhere …

The public should understand that the means test can only offer protection of a temporary nature, and because of that the matter of adequate alternative accommodation has become a very urgent one. It is generally conceded by all sides of the House that when one expresses concern about alternative accommodation for people who have enjoyed the protection of rent control, one does not think in terms of 0,5% of the tenants who, according to the Fouché Commission, enjoy the protection of rent control while their income exceeds R1 000 a month. My concern, and the concern of my party, is obviously not for them, but for the 20% who were found to have a monthly income of R200 and less. Many of these people, as we know, perhaps receive a social pension of R79 or R80 a month. Thirty per cent of the people have been found to have a monthly income of less R300, according to the report of the Fouché Commission. Out of a total of 238 000 units, if one tries to work this out, we find that in that particular income group approximately 48 000 to 50 000 units are affected. The hon. the Minister should realize that amongst these people there are many who require assistance of some kind.

Most of them are people who draw civil or social pensions and many of them are people who live on fixed and limited incomes. The hon. the Minister must also realize that, with or without the present Rents Act, these people will require State assistance. I want to state emphatically that the attitude of the NRP is that we do not expect landlords to subsidize the tenants. We cannot, however, allow the State to shirk its responsibility to its needy people. These people and their problems cannot be wished away. In the light of the Government’s decision to phase out rent control, it should be realized that the Government, and not private enterprise, will have the duty and responsibility to provide alternative accommodation or to make provision for subsidization in one form or another. I could not find any evidence in the report of the Fouché Commission—the hon. the Minister based his decision on the report of the Fouché Commission—that any survey has been conducted in order to determine the availability of accommodation for people who need assistance and who, as a result of the phasing out of rent control, fall into the 20% and 30% category which I mentioned earlier on. This, to my mind, is a weakness of the report. Paragraph 143 of the report states—

*The commission then furnishes the reasons for its decision. Some of my colleagues will go further into that. One of the reasons I should like to mention in passing, is that the commission found that 70% of the tenants living in rent-controlled flats, had lived there for periods in excess of five years. Another reason is that they may lay claim to subsidized accommodation in any event. The question is not whether they may lay claim to such accommodation, but whether such subsidized accommodation is in fact going to be available. That is the problem which demands our attention.

†In paragraph 139 of the report the commission refers to the subsidization by the State of rentals in the UK, the USA, Sweden, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands. In paragraph 144 one finds that, in spite of its finding that subsidization is present in all those countries, the commission dismisses the idea of subsidization. It quotes the example of a subsidy of R10 per person. That, however, is not the type of subsidization that one should have in mind.

What should one have in mind?

I shall give the hon. the Minister two examples straight away of how we shall tackle it. As we have stated in the past, one could rather think about it in terms of tax incentives or perhaps rebates to landlords.

However, let me come to what I wish to urge on behalf of the NRP as a result of the evidence which we have had here. Firstly, I believe that the Community Development Board ought to purchase a number of low rental buildings which are now under rent control. Such buildings should be purchased to ensure that alternative accommodation is made available. It is naïve to think that there will not be victims of this phasing out of rent control. The hon. members must not refer to all the empty rent controlled flats which are being advertised at the present moment. It should be borne in mind that those people in the 20% to 30% group, i.e. those who earn below R200 and below R300 per month, will not be able to afford even the rent controlled flats which are now being advertised.

We all know that since 1975 there has been a “reasonably” sharp increase in rental. The Fouché Commission also conceded that as a result of the amendment of the replacement value, there has been, as they put it in paragraph 140—“a reasonably sharp increase” in rental. We face another 20% increase as has been announced. The local authorities will, of course, be placed in a position to … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central must excuse me if I do not react to his speech, but I do want to ask him in passing: Is it exclusively the purpose of this Government to supply housing for all? Can people not look after themselves? Can employers not look after their employees? Is it the sole responsibility of the Government and this department continually to supply homes to people? Is it not time that we should stop the subsidies and that people should stand squarely on their own feet? Must it always be solely the Government’s task and function to supply homes to Coloureds, Indians and Blacks? [Interjections.] No one except the Government is prepared to do anything. [Interjections.] I believe that other speakers on this side of the House will go on to react fully to the hon. member’s arguments.

Firstly, I want to discuss a domestic matter. I refer to page 7 of the department’s annual report, where reference is made to the Coloured housing complex Ennerdale. The matter is of a domestic nature in that a great deal of the complex, this new city of Ennerdale, falls within my constituency. I quote what he said in this report about this complex—

I want to say in the Committee today that Ennerdale has indeed gained momentum. I wish to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister, the secretary and his top officials, and especially to the regional office of Community Development in Johannesburg. The accusation is often levelled at the Department of Community Development that people who have to make sacrifices, people whose land is expropriated, are not properly compensated. I wish to state categorically in this House today that I challenge anybody whose land has been expropriated in this area, to come and say in public that he has not been well treated by the Department of Community Development. The department has leaned over backward to compensate every man properly for his land or for any inconvenience he has suffered on account of having had to sacrifice his land for the Coloured and Indian communities of South Africa. There has been no question of arbitration problems or other problems. I wish to express my sincere thanks to the department for having treated my voters well. I want to state flatly in this Committee today that those people are better off now than they were, and I am grateful for that.

Next, I want to say something about a matter relating to private house-ownership in South Africa. I believe all hon. members will agree that private house-ownership still remains the ideal of the vast majority of South Africans. But it is, as I have said earlier, the exclusive task of the Government and the department to provide housing for all. Where possible, the department goes out of its way to provide such housing. I refer to the budget speech by the hon. the Minister of Finance. As regards housing, I want to quote the following from it (Hansard, 29 March 1978, col. 3365)—

In this respect, the department cannot be criticized.

I also want to refer to what I regard as an excellent report, namely the report by the Fouché Commission of Inquiry into Housing Matters. I want to congratulate Mr. Fouché and his colleagues on an excellent report. I have studied the report. Building society loans are discussed at page 55. I am of the opinion that the building societies of South Africa, in co-operation with the department, can do far more as far as housing matters in South Africa are concerned. It is my considered opinion that the sliding scale recommendations have merit. I want to ask the hon. the Minister today that the recommendations regarding building society loans be seriously considered. I firmly believe that if they are implemented accordingly, it will be of value to the people who are looking for houses. One thing we must realize in South Africa— if housing costs rise at the same rate in the future as they are doing now, the purchasing of a dwelling unit will no longer be within the means of an average salaried man. Most people realize that house-ownership in the true socio-economic sense is of cardinal importance for the continued existence of a stable, responsible, contented, hard-working, productive and healthy population. It is important that responsible employers render assistance to their employees to realize this ideal. Employers should be encouraged to provide housing to their employees. The Department of Community Development fulfils its most important and comprehensive housing task in connection with the lower and middle income groups. They will have a very heavy task to perform in the future. Building societies and employers must, however, be encouraged, in co-operation with the department, to meet the demand for the housing in future. It is possible—we must have no illusions about this—that in the foreseeable future, a backlog could arise in connection with housing—even for the White group. Now is the time to ensure that the backlog will not catch up with us in future. I believe that proper housing is at present being provided for Coloureds and Indians, but I nevertheless believe that we must take care— and now is the time to do so—that a backlog does not arise as far as housing for Whites is concerned, because after all, we must remember one thing, and that is that the White man in South Africa is the primary responsibility of us who sit in this House. We dare not flinch from that responsibility.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.